Libertarianism = Liberty? No

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by thomez

I believe that is called a Red Herring, no?

Ummm no

I distinguished between Conseq. and Anarchist in my original post and talk about them separately with different consequences but since both lead to a form of tyranny IMO they are both concluded as inconsistent with the idea of liberty

Conseq. have a better view point than anarchists, they want as little government as possible but the very fact that government must legislate some activities means we do not have full liberty as those libertarians claim, we give up some power (liberty over ourselves) in order to gain a measure of security. Because some power is now in the hands of government, the question becomes who should legislate the regulations and to what manner? Doing it in the wrong manner would result in a form of libertarianism (is so much as their is little government influence on the marketplace) but it becomes tyrannical as those who can control the market and influence legislation, becomes the dominate players taking advantage of the little guys by tilting the market in their favor, which isn't far fetched as it happens even in our system.

Therefore in order to prevent this, there must be a check on the liberties of those that infringe upon others in the forum of government as well as checks on the people and the system to prevent its liberties from infringing on others. This is in an effort to protect the liberty of ALL which libertarianism does not seek to do - its main purpose is efficiency. Trying to protect the liberty of all isn't efficient or cost effective thus it would be a natural casualty in such a system. And that is whole purpose of this, it does not even try to protect the liberty of all therefore it is not about liberty

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by thomez

I'm not saying they are mutually exclusive at all, I'm saying that using the two terms separately to show the distinction between (most) of them is the easiest way to talk about them.

Oh okay. That's why I was asking; I couldn't tell if that's what you meant or not.

Yeah, I agree that the terms aren't synonymous or anything, and they should be used depending on which group is being addressed. If you're addressing anarchistic libertarians, then just say that. If you're addressing minarchistic libertarians, then just say that. etc.

I think we're seeing eye to eye on this.

[thomez]

how does libertarianism not try to protect the rights of all again? it has been repeated twice yet not substantiated at all

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by thomez

how does libertarianism not try to protect the rights of all again? it has been repeated twice yet not substantiated at all

well, even though this isn't exactly what he is talking about, you opened yourself up with that question

There are positive rights many people consider just as, if not more so, important than negative rights

In Brown does it not appear that there is a right to equal education being constitutionally asserted? Doesn't seem to apply in our country today if you compare LA's inner city public schools to Cali's best public schools

Many parents I know would rather give up politics, lose the right to freedom of assembly, than lose a positive right to education for their children...one is more important to them than the other, libertarians would obviously take away that positive right

More widely accepted, the federal governments role in stopping discrimination and Jim Crow-style laws and businesses, many minorities, especially blacks, would rather be protected from that than have the option of owning a gun...who are you to tell them that segregation is better than no gun ownership?

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

well, even though this isn't exactly what he is talking about, you opened yourself up with that question

There are positive rights many people consider just as, if not more so, important than negative rights

In Brown does it not appear that there is a right to equal education being constitutionally asserted? Doesn't seem to apply in our country today if you compare LA's inner city public schools to Cali's best public schools

There is no right to education, period. People don't have a right to education, nor do they have a right to anything else that pertains to their sustenance outside of their own abilities. You don't have a right to steal my money to pay for your education. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that people shouldn't be allowed to go to school, or that there should be laws against people getting an education. That's not what I'm saying at all. People have a right to do it on their own accord, but they don't have the right to coerce someone else into teaching them, or paying someone to teach them.

"Positive" rights don't work because they're negated by negative rights - HENCE THE TERM!

Many parents I know would rather give up politics, lose the right to freedom of assembly, than lose a positive right to education for their children...one is more important to them than the other, libertarians would obviously take away that positive right

It's not a right. It's a privilege.

More widely accepted, the federal governments role in stopping discrimination and Jim Crow-style laws and businesses, many minorities, especially blacks, would rather be protected from that than have the option of owning a gun...who are you to tell them that segregation is better than no gun ownership?

Again, because the negative right negates the positive right. I have a right to own a gun.You can't take that right, but you can certainly violate it by punishing me for exercising it. It is my unalienable right to own a gun.

As for equality, well, the negative rights are UNALIENABLE, which means that if you meet the requirements, these rights cannot, ever, under any circumstances, be taken away. So what are the requirements? Well, you need to be emancipated, and you need to be human. Yep, that's it. Libertarians most certainly favor equal rights for everyone.

The libertarian world view favors equal freedom more than any other political world view.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by thomez

how does libertarianism not try to protect the rights of all again? it has been repeated twice yet not substantiated at all

Thats because I've answered this already, but ok, let me try to design this in a different light,

Libertarians, for the most part, believe their should not be any coercion right? They believe firmly in a concept called negative liberty, I'm sure being a libertarian yourself you know this.

Well there is another form of liberty experts like to talk about called positive liberty, being able to activity further liberty in general through government, it is the essential idea of republicanism - and a form of liberty most libertarians despise as form of tyranny.

In our history it shows that both are needed, take the notion of segregation that was prelevant only 50 years ago, the people were able to convince government (via using negative liberties like the press, assembly etc to create positive liberty demanding and influencing change) that must take an active role in stopping this obviously illiberal system since a good number of people in south as well in the state government wanted it to continue.

In a strictly libertarian world wouldn't it be a violation of negative liberty to coerce these people to accept integration and would it not be "stealing" for the government to use the tax dollars of its citizens - some who don't support the governments role in this and others who don't even live in those states - without their consent? Positive liberty has no place in a libertarian world because it is a form of coercion even if that form leads to greater liberty for all.

Positive liberty must have a place in government to protect liberty, that form of liberty can be debated as the extent but its value is there. Libertarians don't want it for the reasons stated above as a result when there is something illiberal affecting a small portion of the population, there is no recourse for them to make it right through government because for government to do something would make it coercive and thus not consistent with libertarianism.

[thomez]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

In a strictly libertarian world wouldn't it be a violation of negative liberty to coerce these people to accept integration

already answered here:

Originally Posted by Dumpy

As for equality, well, the negative rights are UNALIENABLE, which means that if you meet the requirements, these rights cannot, ever, under any circumstances, be taken away. So what are the requirements? Well, you need to be emancipated, and you need to be human. Yep, that's it. Libertarians most certainly favor equal rights for everyone.

and would it not be "stealing" for the government to use the tax dollars of its citizens - some who don't support the governments role in this and others who don't even live in those states - without their consent?

a libertarian government would provide equal rights and this is one small roll in which it would be able to spend tax dollars to do

Positive liberty has no place in a libertarian world because it is a form of coercion even if that form leads to greater liberty for all.

you do not need positive liberty to have equal rights under the law

Positive liberty must have a place in government to protect liberty, that form of liberty can be debated as the extent but its value is there. Libertarians don't want it for the reasons stated above as a result when there is something illiberal affecting a small portion of the population, there is no recourse for them to make it right through government because for government to do something would make it coercive and thus not consistent with libertarianism.

it depends on what you believe their grievance is - in some circumstances a libertarian government would have a role and in some cases they would not

[Thorgrim]

that rights are inalienable is a fallacy

inalienable means they can't be taken away, yet that's exactly what has happened to them in many cases or is still happening to them

the possession of a personality is inalienable, sure...people can alter it, influence it, but no one can take it away, try to apply that to liberty...people can also alter it, influence it, but they can also take it away, same thing with all of your "rights", even if someone kills you, they can not "take away" your personality

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

that rights are inalienable is a fallacy

inalienable means they can't be taken away, yet that's exactly what has happened to them in many cases or is still happening to them

the possession of a personality is inalienable, sure...people can alter it, influence it, but no one can take it away, try to apply that to liberty...people can also alter it, influence it, but they can also take it away, same thing with all of your "rights", even if someone kills you, they can not "take away" your personality

Jefferson and Adams actually debated on whether they would use "inalienable" or "unalienable" in the declaration, and this can be proved by viewing older drafts of it, where Jefferson had actually written "inalienable." They ultimately decided to go with with the "un-" because it implies an impossibility to ever put a lien on our rights. The former, on the other hand, suggests that it's possible that the rights may not be inherent.

Yes, that's actually how much they cared to clearly express their position. And yes, that's actually how much us libertarians stand by our position. Rights CANNOT be taken away, PERIOD. It's not that we believe that it's difficult or mean or coercive to take away our rights; we simply do not believe that it's even possible to do it.

Any examples that you use of someone "taking away our rights" would be substituted, in libertarian philosophy, as someone "violating our rights." I cannot emphasize enough that we do not believe that it is possible to ever, under any circumstance, take away someone's negative rights.

[David Octavius]

That is the problem right there, who in a libertarian world would determine when rights are violated, who are the guardians, the market place? The leaders in whatever form of government there is? Of course to minimalists its the government but government can and has violated the rights of citizens when corrupt - power and men don't always mix righteously, so how do we keep them accountable to ensure it stays within its boundaries and protects the rights of people?

To me this is where positive liberty comes into play, it is up to us to keep them accountable to guard against corruption and ensure our liberty, it is not enough that they keep out because if we don't have total control of government - which we will never have - they will inevitably encroach on us. There is no pure liberty, we are always under the influence of something else, whether its the marketplace, government or society.

The means to keep government accountably can be up for debate but the necessity of it should not. If you think positive liberty is not needed then please substantiate your reasoning.

Without this positive liberty, which libertarians reject, we are placing our liberty in the hands of an unaccountable marketplace, society or government - we lost that control libertarians say we have - thus our liberty becomes threatened.

We can't simply expect to be free from coercion, we must make it so by using government, where positive and negative liberty combine.

[Dumpy Dooby]

I did not say that positive rights are entirely against libertarian philosophy. I said that negative rights supersede positive rights.

Obviously a minarchistic libertarian believes that violating negative rights is okay, as long as it's done minimally. These positive rights would be something like: a fair trial, protection of liberty, ethical treatment of children and animals, etc. It's quite common, in fact, for the libertarian to assert: "The government's only function should be to protect the citizens against force and fraud." So pray tell, Mr. Octavius, from where do think libertarians presume this protection would come? Obviously that's a fair case for taxation. Libertarians draw a line somewhere around "protection of freedom." Positive rights don't really extend past that, because anything beyond that is unnecessary theft.

All of the Founders in this country believed in positive rights, and they even outlined them in the Constitution. In a pragmatic sense, I agree with them. In an ideological sense, I view positive rights as a violation of freedom.

[mididoctors]

The self ownership premise and the notion of property is deeply flawed.

no one exists in isolation to a degree they are not dependant at least in some small way on the labours of others... theft is like waste... unavoidable

the sanctity of personel property is given too high a store in libertarian thinking I have come across... impractical if not actually dishonest..

yes a form of simplified neo social darwinism intended to support a status quo


do people deserve to inherit?

if they do then there is no inbuilt equality in this "system" as the thread starter assserts

Boris
London

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by mididoctors

The self ownership premise and the notion of property is deeply flawed.

No, it isn't. Marxism is deeply flawed.

no one exists in isolation to a degree they are not dependant at least in some small way on the labours of others... theft is like waste... unavoidable

So because I'm dependent on you, that means I should be able to steal from you? I can't help but notice that's your implication. Again, Marxism is deeply flawed.

the sanctity of personel property is given too high a store in libertarian thinking I have come across... impractical if not actually dishonest..

In what way is it dishonest? Sounds like you're using sensationalism to defend your point - something that I would consider to be "dishonest" (oh the ironings!).


And again, libertarians tend to recognize that a limited form of theft is necessary to protect the freedom of others. Hence for practical purposes, libertarians are almost always minarchists.

[mididoctors]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Marxism is deeply flawed.

I think that part of the sentance is correct.. I think a flaw in the concept of personnel property does not mean marxism is correct. in fact marxism and libertarianism share some common characteristics.

Boris
london

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

I did not say that positive rights are entirely against libertarian philosophy. I said that negative rights supersede positive rights.

The post wasn't directed to you, it was directed to thomez, who said we don't need positive liberty to have rights protected which I think is a total fallacy.

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Obviously a minarchistic libertarian believes that violating negative rights is okay, as long as it's done minimally. These positive rights would be something like: a fair trial, protection of liberty, ethical treatment of children and animals, etc. It's quite common, in fact, for the libertarian to assert: "The government's only function should be to protect the citizens against force and fraud."

And how would government protect us? By using force! The libertarian notion that it wholly protects liberty and prevents government use of force (which is much of the so called "literature" online about it) is a farce.

There is no true liberty, society and government was made for a reason - it is up to us to find the balance that will maximize our liberty but at the same time secure us from the unscrupulous who wish to violate it. This also naturally means both positive and negative liberty plays a crucial role.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

The post wasn't directed to you, it was directed to thomez, who said we don't need positive liberty to have rights protected which I think is a total fallacy.

I didn't read his post, but if that's what he said, then I agree, he's wrong. Protection of liberty, itself, is a positive right.

And how would government protect us? By using force! The libertarian notion that it wholly protects liberty and prevents government use of force (which is much of the so called "literature" online about it) is a farce.

What kind of force are you talking about? The only force that would be necessary is tax money, and that becomes unnecessary if people are willing to foot the bill on their own accord. Since such a setup does not go against libertarian philosophy, you're 100% wrong to claim that protection of liberty requires the use of force.

There is no true liberty, society and government was made for a reason - it is up to us to find the balance that will maximize our liberty but at the same time secure us from the unscrupulous who wish to violate it. This also naturally means both positive and negative liberty plays a crucial role.

I agree with that, but that has absolutely nothing to do with libertarianism.

[thomez]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

The post wasn't directed to you, it was directed to thomez, who said we don't need positive liberty to have rights protected which I think is a total fallacy.

I said that you did not need positive liberty to have equal rights under the law, I did not say they were unnecessary altogether.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Yes, that's actually how much they cared to clearly express their position. And yes, that's actually how much us libertarians stand by our position. Rights CANNOT be taken away, PERIOD. It's not that we believe that it's difficult or mean or coercive to take away our rights; we simply do not believe that it's even possible to do it.

Which is all well and good, but rights are a construct, so they cannot be taken away if you believe they cannot, but the difference is just in your head.