You're viewing a single thread.
Says “I’m a libertarian but I’m not one of those crazy ones”.
My followup question is usually what’s your opinion on seatbelt laws and drivers licenses.
Libertarianism isn’t a monolithic ideology, and opinions vary widely among libertarians. Furthermore, one who identifies as libertarian doesn’t inherently reject all utilitarian or communitarian values. Some may argue against seatbelt laws and drivers’ licenses on the basis of personal freedom and responsibility, while others might see the value in certain regulations that protect public safety. What unites libertarians is a belief in limiting government intervention to essential functions, but defining those ‘essential functions’ can differ greatly among individuals within the libertarian community. Libertarians often share common ground with leftists on social values, differing significantly from mainstream Republican politicians.
This is correct, and the downvoters don't like that you're right because they all came here to circlejerk about how they think Libertarians are dumb.
so where does Libertarian ends and where does "leftist" start?
because personal freedom, with some restrictions and protections sounds very much like left-wing, progressive politics.
like how many regulations are OK before you are no longer a libertarian and just a leftist?
Now you're starting to understand why the Libertarian platform is awesome.
Don't just listen to what Internet edgelord commies tell you about it, look at the candidates' platforms and what the party actually stands for. https://www.lp.org/platform/
The only thing I don't like about their platform is the stance on Environmental Protection. I believe it is better for the government to impose environmental regulations to protect the environment that we share than to let big business run wild with pollution. That's obvious IMO.
The only thing I don’t like about their platform is the stance on Environmental Protection.
well good then, because there is nothing going with the environment and there is no need to worry about that.
Also I don't care what the USA Libertarian Party stands for, even if I was from the USA, it wouldn't matter, because of FPTP voting system it's a nothing party.
Also I don’t care what the USA Libertarian Party stands for, even if I was from the USA, it wouldn’t matter, because of FPTP voting system it’s a nothing party.
This is a rather naive perspective.
Well then, get off my American Internet and go curl some cheese or whatever your foreign weirdos do
pretty sure lemmy.world is hosted on hetzner which is a german company, but okay
One of the core ideas of libertarianism is to maximise the freedoms of the individual, so long as such freedoms don't infringe on those of others. As long as those tenets are met, libertarianism isn't necessarily mutually exclusive.
Libertarianism literally originated on the left. Right wing neo-libertarians were a creation of the mid 20th century. A product of the anti socialist panic/red scare of the 50s. where all socialist ideologies were demonized where possible. Or usurped and undermine in the case of Rothbard. He's also the guy that came up with anarco capitalism. Because nothing says you're against large over arching rules and systems. Than being a hypocrite and making an exception for your favorite system.
It's somewhat dubious to use terms like "left" and "right" how you are, especially when talking about historical context -- the defintions for those are extremely fluid.
My followup question is usually what’s your opinion on seatbelt laws and drivers licenses.
Seatbelt laws would really only make sense if their purpose was to protect others from harm, but, as far as I've been able to think, this would only make sense in 2 scenarios:
- You are in a car with other passengers. In a crash, one passenger not wearing a seatbelt could end up harming the other passengers in the vehicle simply by their limp body flying around, and impacting the other passengers. This does raise the point, however, that the other passengers could simply refuse to occupy the vehicle with that individual, or the driver could bar them from that vehicle. If all occupants are able to give consent to the situation, then there should be no issue under the law.
- You have a child and you are neglecting that child's safety by not restraining them with a proper seatbelt.
As for driver's licenses, that's actually a rather complicated issue.
EDIT 1: As pointed out in this post, there is a third case that I hadn't originally considered in that, in a crash, one's limp, and unrestrained corpse could fly through the windshield and end up causing damage to someone else's property, or bodily harm to another.
There are cases where in a head on collision the person not wearing a seatbelt is launched out of the car like a missile killing people in the opposite car.
Yeah, I came across that point in this post, a little while after I had written the above comment. I will update my comment accordingly.
Both are necessary, there's an argument to strengthen the latter, and neither violate the NAP. I'm not one of those crazy ones 😁
violate the NAP
not one of those crazy ones
These two statements contradict each other.
The NAP is a substitute for laws for "libertarians" who can't tolerate the thought of other people actually being free.
The entire point is to have something that proactively justifies the forcible imposition of your will upon others. So the instant that somebody does something of which you disapprove, you can decree, by whatever rationale might serve, that it's a violation of the NAP, so you're now entirely justified in shooting them.
Not really. It only seems that way because most of us have only had experiences with the psychotic capitalist neo-libertarians of the Murray Rothbard school.
Actual libertarians, left libertarians. Can definitely get pretty squirrely when you get out on the fringes of ideologic anarchists etc. But many are fairly rational and even generally pro social democracy.
Right-wing libertarians are just an oxymoron. Under capitalism none of us can truly be free and we are all subject to the whims of wealth hoarding psychotic oligarch monkeys. They'll tell you that you're free not to work for them. The only problem is choosing not to work for them means choosing starvation, homelessness, and death. Which isn't the sort of thing that should be considered a choice in any civil society. But absolute necessities for unsustainable systems such as capitalism.
Libertarianism is, generally, mostly interested in freedom under the state. Libertarianism is at the core of capitalism; however, it must be made clear that a properly funcioning free-market requires some state regulation in order to ensure fair competition.
Not really. Libertarianism is mostly interested in freedom FROM the state. And freedom from oligarchs of all stripes. Especially the ones inherent to all forms of capitalism. Of which "free market" is the worst about. Capitalism is inherently incompatible with libertarianism. In the fact that you realistically can't choose not to be part of it. Under capitalism those of us that are not born into oligarchy or happened to luck into oligarchy end up basically slaves to the oligarchs for our wages and basic survival. There's no liberty in that.
Libertarianism is mostly interested in freedom FROM the state.
Freedom from the state, to me, implies anarchy. I interperet your wording to say that a libertarian would want the freedom to opt out of governence -- this makes little to no sense. It is true in that a citizen should certainly have the freedom to emigrate, but I'm not convinced that this is what you were implying.
And freedom from oligarchs of all stripes. Especially the ones inherent to all forms of capitalism. Of which “free market” is the worst about.
Why do you argue that the free market will always result in an oligarchy? I will say that a wholly unregulated free market will result in rampant anti-competitive behaviour which will end up being at the expense of the consumer. So, by that logic, some regulation is certainly necessary to ensure fair competition. This sort of well functioning free market should be the antidote to an oligarchy, unless the public wills it to be so.
Capitalism is inherently incompatible with libertarianism
I would argue that capitalism is founded upon the ideals of libertarianism.
In the fact that you realistically can’t choose not to be part of it.
You can choose to not participate in the free market -- create your own local commune where you all freely share your own private goods.
Under capitalism those of us that are not born into oligarchy or happened to luck into oligarchy end up basically slaves to the oligarchs for our wages and basic survival.
Again, no one is forcing you to play a part in the capitalist system. You could grab a farm out in the middle of nowhere, completely off the grid and live off of your own goods (assuming you have some means to cover a theoretical minimum of property tax). That is, of course, unless you are advocating for socialism in that the government should be providing for you.
The NAP is a substitute for laws for “libertarians” who can’t tolerate the thought of other people actually being free.
The NAP is not a substitute for laws. I would argue that it is a framework, or set of principles by which laws are created. Also I do not understand what you are implying in the second part of that statement.
The entire point is to have something that proactively justifies the forcible imposition of your will upon others.
This is blatantly false. Libertarianism is fundamentally opposed to the idea of "the forcible imposition of your will upon others".
So the instant that somebody does something of which you disapprove, you can decree, by whatever rationale might serve, that it’s a violation of the NAP, so you’re now entirely justified in shooting them.
Can you define "something of which you disapprove"?
No, the NAP is a principle not a substitute set of laws. It applies equally to an individual or to groups affected by a policy; the point is to lessen, not eliminate, 'agression' on balance and holistically. What you're describing is used not just by 'libertarians' but by anyone that doesn't want a law to apply to them.
the point is to lessen, not eliminate, ‘agression’
Did you overlook the "non" in "non-aggression principle"?
What you’re describing is used not just by ‘libertarians’ but by anyone that doesn’t want a law to apply to them.
You think that libertarians don't think laws apply to them...?
The NAP is only colorably considered a "principle" when one applies it toward one's own life and one's own choices. That's notably NOT the way that the "libertarians" who pay it the most lip service use it.
Instead, they apply it to other people's lives and other people's choices. And the explicit point is to measure the nominal accepability of those other people's lives and choices, and as necessary to provide colorable justification for imposing their wills on those other people in order to prevent or punish the "wrong" choices.
That's the exact function of law, simply transferred to a different concept.
By "libertarians", are you referring to the non-libertarians that OP was outlining in their post?
Isn't this entire thread about "libertarians" vs libertarians? I'm not sure who you're trying to argue with but it certainly isn't me 😁
Do you think roads, police and fire departments should have a pay-per-use system?
No - roads are for the public good and should be supported by taxpayers that benefit with the possibility of 'penalizing' heavy vehicles that do more wear on roads.
I personally feel that roads are a complicated issue. A public police force is necessary to ensure the best equal application of the law. Fire departments are sort of a contextual issue -- I am inclined to treat fire departments as more of a utility.
Sorry, didn't mention the others but generally things that are for the public benefit/use should be maintained through tax dollars without profit-pressure to extract 'value'. How does a fire department generate revenue? Or police? They don't and they shouldn't be designed to - they're a public utility for the supposed benefit of all in the community.
Firefighters should be a private enterprise and figure their revenue streams out themselves. They don't need the government telling them how to run a business.
Roads can easily made all private for-profit toll roads and people could decide for themselves if they want to use the McHighways or the WalMiles.
Roads are a complicated issue. I feel that roads fall under the idea of an "intrinsic monopoly" -- by their very existence, they create a monopoly, and are thus anti-competitive, and thus anti-free-market.
I would argue that it depends on context. Take the following two examples:
- A densly packed urban environment
- A rural countryside with sparsely placed dwellings
In the first example, a fire on one person's property can quickly threaten the property of many others around it. This danger could be argued to be so great that, if in a system where each individual must pay for fire services, and one individual does not, this can be seen as a threat to the livelihood of others -- a form of "aggression", if you will. It would be in everyone's best interest to have a municipal, or community fire department that the public pays for.
In the second example, no dwelling, or proprety is realistically a threat to any other. The only danger is to one's own property. As a result, it could be argued that, in such a situation, the individual could not be expected to pay for the fire service. If they wish to have its benefits, they could choose to pay, say, a subscription fee.
generally things that are for the public benefit/use should be maintained through tax dollars without profit-pressure to extract ‘value’.
Generally, I would be inclined to agree, but one must tread cautiously.
How does a fire department generate revenue?
Presumably, one could pay a subscription fee for the pleasure in having the added level of safety, similar to paying for insurance; however, it could be argued that, in certain scenarios, the lack of a publicly funded, mandatory fire department is an intrinsic threat from one to another. For example, if you look at a densely packed city, a fire can spread very rapidly, and indiscriminately. This would be funded through tax dollars. In other scenarios, for example, a rural, sparsely populated region of farmland, there could be no perceived intrinsic thread, so a mandatory fire department would not be necessary.
Or police?
I would argue that it would be a conflict of interest for police to be payed. One could pay for their own private security, sure, but the state should provide the means to ensure that the rights, and freedoms of the individual are upheld. This is outlined in something called a Night-Watchman State.
they’re a public utility for the supposed benefit of all in the community.
This does raise the question if everyone must pay taxes for utilities even if they do not use them. I would personally argue that no an individual should not be expected to pay for a utility that they are not using.
I generally just go straight to libraries as it’s not designed to trap/bait and it more often than not leads to productive discussions where we are both attempting to gain mutual understanding.
It’s not a trap or bait, it’s pointing out that it takes money to use and maintain these things.
My apologies, I realize it seems I implied you were baiting/trapping, but that wasn’t my intention. That being said I’m sure libertarians get examples like firefighters a LOT and they probably just glaze over and dismiss it as a result. But again, didn’t mean to imply that you were engaging in bad faith and such.
It’s because it is a fairly obvious example.
It’d be better to have a response that makes sense instead of ‘glazing over and dismissing it’.
Libraries are a great resource for keeping information free and protecting free speech. I think it's very reasonable for taxes to be used in ways that benefit the community as a whole, as that serves the people who pay the taxes.
Permanently Deleted
noticeable demographic issues
You mean that the one group of people in the US who have no fear are the ones advocating for a government that protects no one?
Permanently Deleted
Long, long ago, I was in the LP. I think what really woke me up was actually reading Ayn Rand, and....LOL - [1]. I was also doing lots of other reading of nonfiction at the time, thank goodness and her clunky sci-fi novel was just gawdawful in every single way. Also: growing up helped a lot, too.
I think around the same time, I was looking around at others I could see in the party and realized they seemed to be comprised, yeah, of mostly white males, but also: doomsday preppers, gold bugs, conspiracy theorists (and not the fun Robert Anton Wilson kind), thinly-veiled racists, Republicans that were miffed about some minor infraction they perceived in the Republican Party, and so on...and so I was done.
[1] Yeah, yeah I know all too much about the hair-splitting between Objectivists and LIbertarians. Also, when it comes to what many consider a formative text for their weird philosophy, that old quote is so very true:
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."
Objectivists don't bother me much. No one is raised Objectivist, since Objectivists don't have children, which means that they become one by thinking about it, you can reason with someone who used reason to convince themselves of a position.
Unlike the short bus philosophy of Lolitarianism which is basically: I am a white het cis teenage male who has never faced real problems in my life, think I am invincible, and dont want to be told what to do. There is something about listening to someone who for 18 years has done nothing but consume resources, been protected from all the problems the rest of the world deals with, then whine about how they had to pay 10% of their salary to taxes.
If you think about it all children clothing is made for kids by kids. Maybe appreciate labor laws and welfare a bit after thinking about the horror of that sentence.
i think air should be bottled and sold on the free market.
Way ahead of you:
The free market will set a fair price.
Lack of regulation will make sure it’s a low price and why would a company want to kill off its customers?
Sure if the market has healthy competition and the time horizon of the shareholders is long and if everyone is perfectly rational.
You know the 3 things each of which almost never happens.
Markets rarely have healthy competition. Usually for all practical purposes consumers have few if any choices where they can spend their money. Your supermarket might have a million items but you only have two supermarket and those million items are made by 10 companies.
Time horizons of shareholders are infamous for being short. With the larger they are the shorter they are. We live in a world where for decades stocks are bought and sold with high frequency trading. Long term means a business quarter.
Homo Economis never existed. If that abomination against all that is decent ever did form it would die off having no offspring. Humans smoke, they eat junk food, they buy boats, they lose their temper, they spend 45 billion dollars on Twatter and run it into the ground. This is why you don't leave things that matter to one asshole and just have faith that your invisible sky friend Market will correct it all eventually.
And of course, if a company successfully corners the market and extracts value beyond the tolerance of some customers who eventually attempt to harm the company and force it out of business, the company is entirely justified in using assassination drones against the insurgent NAP-violators.
I would say that boycotting is contained within one's freedom of association. Unless you are talking about physical damages at which point an individual should have the right to protect their property, and this is also where tort law comes into play.
It’s what the free market wants.
All hail the free market.
We call those taxes
Thanks, captain obvious.
No problem, SatansMaggotyCumFart
Drivers licenses protect folks from each other, not only do we need them we need to be more selective about who gets them
Seat belts protect you, so it should be your choice. If we had socialized healthcare, not wearing a seatbelt is a greater social cost, and then I would be ok with enforcing it. However, since we don’t have real healthcare in America and it’s all out of pocket, I don’t think we should enforce seat belt laws here. It’s hypocritical.
If your dumb corpse flies out of your windshield it could hurt me or my property. Restrain yourself FFS, people. It doesn't impinge on the driver at all.
I mean body leaving the car is like least of your problems, if someone sits behind you and you crash and they are not buckled in, they will fucking crush you to death.
I mean, just do the math. a 60 kg weight hits you from behind with all the speed the car has gathered.
here is a video with Crashtest dummies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AeTs-6xksIk
If your dumb corpse flies out of your windshield it could hurt me or my property.
This is a fair point. I hadn't considered that.
Someone without a seat belt becomes a 185 lb projectile in an accident.
Not wearing a seatbelt can harm your passengers in an accident. Based on that alone it's reasonable imo
It could then be argued that it would only be required under the circumstances in which the lack of a seatbelt would create a situation where the safety of others is threatened, and those affected do not consent to the risk.
So, whenever you are driving and could possibly get in a wreck.
I would say that such a law, when being written, should maintain the original mindset as described in this comment of mine. What I mean by this is to say "whenever you are driving" does not cover the situations in which there would never be (or, at least, extremely unlikely to be) any harm to another except yourself, or those consenting. An example of this woud be offroading -- perhaps you were implying for such laws to only apply when driving on public roads, but this wasn't specified explicitly, so I'm making assumptions.
Yes, you are correct in both statements. I was not thinking of the more fringe scenarios, I meant specifically public roads.
I was not thinking of the more fringe scenarios
Unfortunately, the contention around many laws lies within the gray rather than the black, and white.
You are correct, though I am not a lawyer nor a lawmaker. I'm a guy on the Internet with opinions, and I don't always immediately think of gray areas.
It's not just healthcare costs, but also the costs of first responders finding meat crayons who died unneccesarily, and the social cost of the trauma for those who witness conpletely avoidable deaths. And the emotional cost of the family of the dead idiots.
It’s not just healthcare costs
This depends on whether the healthcare system in question is privately, or publicly run.
yeah if it's public healthcare then that gives an even stronger argument to the government mandating safety equipment. but regardless of that monetary cost I think the other three aspects I pointed out are strong enough on their own.
yeah if it’s public healthcare then that gives an even stronger argument to the government mandating safety equipment
Agreed.
but regardless of that monetary cost I think the other three aspects I pointed out are strong enough on their own.
I'm not overly convinced that a law should exist solely because of such reasoning. At the very least, if such a law must exist in some capacity, I believe that it should be enacted as some form of local law, or bylaw.
Differing local laws just make things more complicated.
Would you mind explaining why you believe that unnecessary death and the trauma surrounding it is not good enough reason to enforce simple safety laws?
Differing local laws just make things more complicated.
Would you mind explaining what you mean by this?
Would you mind explaining why you believe that unnecessary death and the trauma surrounding it is not good enough reason to enforce simple safety laws?
I don't believe that the purpose of a law is to ensure the comfort of the public, but instead laws should be enacted to ensure one's ability to freely pursue their life, and happiness.
I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.
- Thomas Jefferson
I say this in the most cordial and respectful manner possible: Wear your fucking seatbelt, you blithering ape.
I'm with you on seatbelts, but drivers licenses shouldn't exist. You should be inherently able to drive and vote once you reach the appropriate age, and driving should be taught in school. The privilege to drive should be revoked only when you prove you can't drive properly or safely.
Isn’t a drivers license’s exact purpose to confirm that you’ve been trained, and also not had your privilege revoked?
Other than paying $30 every 8 years to renew it, what is the burden? I didn’t even have to go to the DMV to renew this year; they used my picture from last time and mailed it.
I realize it’s not that easy everywhere, or for everyone, but I’ve also been in an accident where a 17 year old girl was crippled for life because her driver was fucking around and found out. The last thing we need is less accountability for drivers, especially as cars go electric and their weights are almost doubling.
I’m with you on seatbelts, but drivers licenses shouldn’t exist.
Driver's licenses are actually an interesting issue. I am inclined to agree that they have no need to exist. All that matters is that people follow the laws surrounding the operation of motor-vehicles on public roads -- I'm rather convinced that licensing has no effect on this whatsoever -- after all, Ignorantia juris non excusat.
And how, pray tell, would you enforce a revoked driving privilege?
By ID, I didn't say get rid of social security or IDs.