Misconceptions about libertarianism

[libertarian answers]

Reading through the board, I've seen many misconceptions about libertarianism. As a libertarian, I'd welcome any questions any of you might have on the subject. A good place to start would be stating your primary objection to libertarianism. From there, I'll do my best to address it.

I'm not here to troll. I have no interest in converting any of you, just clearing up any misconceptions. That being said, I can't honestly speak for all libertarians and there are some disagreements on many issues within the world of libertarianism. The answers I give will be mine and mine only.

[DavidOdden]

A good place to start would be stating your primary objection to libertarianism. From there, I'll do my best to address it.

You've unfortunately misidentified the function of the Debate Forum. What you can / should do is propose a specific debate question, and select an opponent from the set of individuals expressing an interest. I myself might be interested, depending on the question that you propose. You should read some of the early debates, for example the minarchism debate. The debate forum isn't a free-for-all where people get to espouse various ideas contrary to Objectivism ad libitum: it's got a specific structure. Depending on your inclination, you might argue that liberty is a self-evident good and that the study of rights need go no further than that. It's your choice, since you're the one proposing.

[libertarian answers]

Depending on your inclination, you might argue that liberty is a self-evident good and that the study of rights need go no further than that. It's your choice, since you're the one proposing.

Thanks for the heads up on how to proceed in the debate forum. I will begin a new thread with a debate topic.

[KendallJ]

For the Objectivist position, you might try Peter Swartz's "Libertarianism: the Perversion of Liberty". It is probably the defining essay on the topic, although Rand commented on it directly, but only in passing.

Good luck by the way, we've seen a lot of Libertarians show up and try to claim that the criticism is unfounded.

Edited October 26, 2007 by KendallJ

[libertarian answers]

For the Objectivist position, you might try Peter Swartz's "Libertarianism: the Perversion of Liberty". It is probably the defining essay on the topic, although Rand commented on it directly, but only in passing.

Good luck by the way, we've seen a lot of Libertarians show up and try to claim that the criticism is unfounded.

I read some reviews of the book and the point seems to be that libertarians don't have a core philosophy and arrive at their conclusions as though they randomly selected them from a buffet of ideas. While I agree that many libertarians do indeed arrive at their positions based on what they feel at the time, this isn't necessarily true for all libertarians. Self-described libertarians range from the Neal Boortz types who lap at the fringes of libertarianism from the neoconservative right to full blown anarcho-capitalists who would reject the state as inherently evil on the principle that the individual should be valued higher than the collective.

[intellectualammo]

For the Objectivist position, you might try Peter Swartz's "Libertarianism: the Perversion of Liberty". It is probably the defining essay on the topic, although Rand commented on it directly, but only in passing.

Good luck by the way, we've seen a lot of Libertarians show up and try to claim that the criticism is unfounded.

Or libertarian answers can read:

Ayn Rand's statements from the ARI about Libertarianism HERE

Or Peter Schwartz On Moral Sanctions

if they haven't already. (or anyone else)

[intellectualammo]

I read some reviews of the book and the point seems to be that libertarians don't have a core philosophy and arrive at their conclusions as though they randomly selected them from a buffet of ideas. While I agree that many libertarians do indeed arrive at their positions based on what they feel at the time, this isn't necessarily true for all libertarians. Self-described libertarians range from the Neal Boortz types who lap at the fringes of libertarianism from the neoconservative right to full blown anarcho-capitalists who would reject the state as inherently evil on the principle that the individual should be valued higher than the collective.

You've just identified the very problem with libertarianism: no real philosophic base for "liberty". It "umbrellas". As Schwartz says in the link I provided above: "[...] These views have all been accepted under the Libertarian umbrella [...]"

Edited October 26, 2007 by intellectualammo

[KendallJ]

I read some reviews of the book and the point seems to be that libertarians don't have a core philosophy and arrive at their conclusions as though they randomly selected them from a buffet of ideas. While I agree that many libertarians do indeed arrive at their positions based on what they feel at the time,

Well now see right there you're off to a bad start, by acknowledging the very point you're trying to deny.

I guess if we redefine "libertarians" to be "those few members of the Libertarian party, who actually espouse objective philosophical principles" then you could claim that Swartz and Rand were wrong.

And those who do hold such principles, fail to grasp the key one in the debate, which is that you can't join up with a mixed bag of crackpots and expect to keep your principles intact.

[libertarian answers]

Or libertarian answers can read:

Ayn Rand's statements from the ARI about Libertarianism HERE

Or Peter Schwartz On Moral Sanctions

if they haven't already. (or anyone else)

So Rand said "But of course, anarchists are collectivists." The anarchists we see today protesting at the Starbucks in Seattle and hugging trees are indeed collectivists and I won't argue with that. If you listen to them, they would replace the state with rulers that they like. That being the case, they would indeed be collectivists. But how can one be an anarchist and also advocate rulers who enforce their randomly chosen brand of collectivism? That sounds like a state to me.

In my mind, an anarchist would reject any form of the state. The state being defined as the group of individuals who enforce a monopoly on the initiation of force in a given geographic location. If the initiation of force is immoral, then would one be forced to reject any group of individuals calling themselves the state and staking such claims to the legitimate initiation of force.

[libertarian answers]

Well now see right there you're off to a bad start, by acknowledging the very point you're trying to deny.

I did indeed acknowledge that some libertarians are unprincipled and take positions based on the last argument they heard. But not all libertarians. To say that all members of a group share common beliefs is collectivist. It would be like saying that all Objectivists run railroads.

I guess if we redefine "libertarians" to be "those few members of the Libertarian party, who actually espouse objective philosophical principles" then you could claim that Swartz and Rand were wrong.

OK. The lightbulb just went off for me and now I get it...and agree. There is no central doctrine based on reason that libertarians can rally around that defines them. The reality is that libertarians hold a grab bag full of ideas that are often contradictory. Arriving at a core set of principles (or even a principle) would be impossible. Ongoing debates in libertarian circles over many issues certainly prove your point.

And those who do hold such principles, fail to grasp the key one in the debate, which is that you can't join up with a mixed bag of crackpots and expect to keep your principles intact.

That is where I would probably disagree with you. Reasoning with the crackpots and showing the error in their beliefs can be effective. It would certainly be easier to reason with a libertarian versus a liberal who is immune from actually thinking and prefers to use feeling as their guide. In the free-market of ideas, reason and logic will win only if they are on the field and actively engaged in battle.

[intellectualammo]

So Rand said "But of course, anarchists are collectivists." The anarchists we see today protesting at the Starbucks in Seattle and hugging trees are indeed collectivists and I won't argue with that. If you listen to them, they would replace the state with rulers that they like. That being the case, they would indeed be collectivists. But how can one be an anarchist and also advocate rulers who enforce their randomly chosen brand of collectivism? That sounds like a state to me.

No not state. It's more tribal.

In my mind, an anarchist would reject any form of the state. The state being defined as the group of individuals who enforce a monopoly on the initiation of force in a given geographic location.

I don't think that is the defintion of a state. More like government.

If the initiation of force is immoral, then would one be forced to reject any group of individuals calling themselves the state and staking such claims to the legitimate initiation of force.

The initiation of force is immoral. The government makes it illegal, the very purpose of it's existence is to protect you from those that initiate the use of force, because of your individual rights, the very reason why the initiation of force is immoral in the first place.

Edited October 26, 2007 by intellectualammo

[DarkWaters]

In my mind, an anarchist would reject any form of the state.

Yes, but none of the regular members on this forum will defend anarchism. This article by Harry Binswanger is an excellent introduction to Objectivist views on Anarchism. If you want to discuss any specific points in this article, I am sure someone would be happy to discuss it with you.

The state being defined as the group of individuals who enforce a monopoly on the initiation of force in a given geographic location.

This is a bad definition and it will lead you to all sorts of horrendous conclusions. This definition would probably include the Janjaweed in certain parts of Sudan, mafia-type organizations in corrupt cities and any other group of armed bandits who happens to have enough power to do whatever they want in a localized region.

If you are interested in pursuing this discussion further on an Objectivist messageboard, I recommend becoming familiar with the Objectivist view on the nature of government and what rights are. To this end, Ayn Rand's respective essays The Nature of Government and Man's Rights are the places to start.

If the initiation of force is immoral, then would one be forced to reject any group of individuals calling themselves the state and staking such claims to the legitimate initiation of force.

This is the typical anarcho-capitalism argument against any state as a final arbiter on the use of retailatory force. I do not think it carries any weight for a variety of reasons; most often since the advancer of the argument typically assumes that "the initiation of force is immoral" is axiomatic. Why is the initiation of force immoral to you?

If you like youtube videos and you would like to learn a response using Objectivist principles, both qtronman and PaulMcKeever have posted some excellent responses to this very argument.

I do not mind discussing the issue further but please understand that some initial responses are already available from many other sources. I hope that this helps.

Edited October 26, 2007 by DarkWaters

[libertarian answers]

I don't think that is the defintion of a state. More like government.

In my mind, it is important to distinguish between the term "government" and "state". Today, they're often used interchangeably to mean the people who run the Post Office, State Parks, and the local police department. But in a logical debate, I think it is important to distinguish them as separate.

A home owners association would be a government. By government, I mean a voluntary body composed of people who have been delegated responsibilities by the members of the group.

A state would be the body that claims a monopoly on initiation of force. Now I'm not talking about how the state SHOULD act, but addressing the reality behind how they DO act. An example of this is the initiation of force against those who would refuse to pay taxes. If you refuse to pay the taxes the Federal Government dictates that you owe, they will eventually come and try to put you in jail. If you attempt to defend yourself from them, they will most likely kill you.

The initiation of force is immoral.

I agree.

The government makes it illegal, the very purpose of it's existence is to protect you from those that initiate the use of force, because of your individual rights, the very reason why the initiation of force is immoral in the first place.

In an ideal world, this would be true. The state would only protect your rights. But to protect your property from being stolen from you by other individuals, the state steals from you via taxation. In essence, the state todays says that to protect your rights, it must first violate them.

As a practical matter, this may be necessary. But it seems logically inconsistent to me.

[KendallJ]

I did indeed acknowledge that some libertarians are unprincipled and take positions based on the last argument they heard. But not all libertarians. To say that all members of a group share common beliefs is collectivist. It would be like saying that all Objectivists run railroads.

OK. The lightbulb just went off for me and now I get it...and agree. There is no central doctrine based on reason that libertarians can rally around that defines them. The reality is that libertarians hold a grab bag full of ideas that are often contradictory. Arriving at a core set of principles (or even a principle) would be impossible. Ongoing debates in libertarian circles over many issues certainly prove your point.

I was going to say that your first para was accusing Rand/Swartz of fallacy of composition, but your second para fixed the problem. What is true of the whole is that it has no core philosophy, AND that the claim that liberty is it, is fallacious. Liberty is a useless idea without the right philosophy behind it. All you can say about the constituent members is that they are a mixed bag. No one is trying to spread characteristics of one to all the others. But that fact makes what they conclude of the whole, true.

That is where I would probably disagree with you. Reasoning with the crackpots and showing the error in their beliefs can be effective. It would certainly be easier to reason with a libertarian versus a liberal who is immune from actually thinking and prefers to use feeling as their guide. In the free-market of ideas, reason and logic will win only if they are on the field and actively engaged in battle.

Now, someone is trying to generalize the psychological characteristics of individuals in political parties, but it's not Rand. It would certainly be easier to reason with reasonable people, and if political parties were debating societies, I guess that would be reason enough. But one has to ask about all this reasoning, "to what end?" As a political party, i.e. a political force of any kind, the Libertarian party is a joke. It gives principled capitalists a bad name. Rand's case was that the solution was not political, that such a party seem premature, and such laughing stocks are exactly what you get when you try to form a political entity around as of yet poorly established philosophical ideas. It would be one thing if the principled capitalists among you could claim that the L party was effective. That would be something.

Because of the primary, eletoral system, third parties don't work in this country. That's not a bad thing, it just means that organically changing one or both of the existing parties becomes more effective tactic. But then according to your implication ALL liberals are "immune from thinking".

[libertarian answers]

I do not mind discussing the issue further but please understand that some initial responses are already available from many other sources. I hope that this helps.

Before my reputation sours here, let me be clear in stating that I would fully support a state that ONLY served to protect the individual rights and never violated them. My problem is that I don't see how that would work in reality. I assume that the service this state renders (protecting individual rights) must be paid for. If that service is paid for voluntarily, then there is absolutely no problem morally.

But what happens if a few moochers refuse to pay?

[intellectualammo]

A state would be the body that claims a monopoly on initiation of force.

The state is subsumed under government.

In an ideal world, this would be true. The state would only protect your rights. But to protect your property from being stolen from you by other individuals, the state steals from you via taxation. In essence, the state todays says that to protect your rights, it must first violate them.

In an ideal politico-economic system, laissez-faire capitalism, the government does not steal from you via taxation. Taxation as such would be abolished, and only privately funded contributed to. The only thing certain in man's life is death, not taxes...

[DarkWaters]

The state would only protect your rights. But to protect your property from being stolen from you by other individuals, the state steals from you via taxation. In essence, the state todays says that to protect your rights, it must first violate them.

As a practical matter, this may be necessary. But it seems logically inconsistent to me.

Ideally, legitimate functions of government would be funded through voluntary contributions as opposed to mandatory taxation. However, it is important to recognize the context of the situation here. Forced taxation as such is not nearly as bad as many of the reasons why taxes are imposed on citizens today. Being taxed to fund a legitimate purpose of government, such as a court system that upholds individual rights, is not nearly as bad as being taxed to fund an illegitimate purpose of government, such as a single-payer government run health care program.

Edited October 26, 2007 by DarkWaters

[intellectualammo]

Before my reputation sours here, let me be clear in stating that I would fully support a state that ONLY served to protect the individual rights and never violated them.

I only fully support a government that does.

My problem is that I don't see how that would work in reality.

Well, there is no dichotomy between the moral and the practical and the practical and the moral. You may want to consider reading more into laissez-faire capitalism, as some here have suggested reading up on, I think DarkWaters did. I recommend it to. HERE is a site that may be helpful, unil/if you read that suggested material.

Edited October 26, 2007 by intellectualammo

[libertarian answers]

I was going to say that your first para was accusing Rand/Swartz of fallacy of composition, but your second para fixed the problem. What is true of the whole is that it has no core philosophy, AND that the claim that liberty is it, is fallacious. Liberty is a useless idea without the right philosophy behind it. All you can say about the constituent members is that they are a mixed bag. No one is trying to spread characteristics of one to all the others. But that fact makes what they conclude of the whole, true.

Good stuff. I can't find anything wrong with that reasoning. I will add that assigning labels to groups of people and characterizing them accordingly might be fun, but it is also unproductive. Probably means the end of this thread and a conscious effort on my part to stick to ideas from now on.

Now, someone is trying to generalize the psychological characteristics of individuals in political parties, but it's not Rand. It would certainly be easier to reason with reasonable people, and if political parties were debating societies, I guess that would be reason enough. But one has to ask about all this reasoning, "to what end?" As a political party, i.e. a political force of any kind, the Libertarian party is a joke. It gives principled capitalists a bad name. Rand's case was that the solution was not political, that such a party seem premature, and such laughing stocks are exactly what you get when you try to form a political entity around as of yet poorly established philosophical ideas. It would be one thing if the principled capitalists among you could claim that the L party was effective. That would be something.

Agree. As a libertarian, I will admit the Libertarian Party is an embarrassment.

Because of the primary, eletoral system, third parties don't work in this country. That's not a bad thing, it just means that organically changing one or both of the existing parties becomes more effective tactic. But then according to your implication ALL liberals are "immune from thinking".

My apologies for generalizing ALL liberals as unthinking. That was collectivist and I will try to do better in the future.

The state is subsumed under government.In an ideal politico-economic system, laissez-faire capitalism, the government does not steal from you via taxation. Taxation as such would be abolished, and only privately funded contributed to. The only thing certain in man's life is death, not taxes...

Wow. You've changed a misconception I had about Objectivism. I can only say that I agree with you in that taxation should be voluntary and is the only consistent position one can take based on a rational morality.This is turning out to be a great day!

[libertarian answers]

Ideally, legitimate functions of government would be funded through voluntary contributions as opposed to mandatory taxation. However, it is important to recognize the context of the situation here. Forced taxation as such is not nearly as bad as many of the reasons why taxes are imposed on citizens today. Being taxed to fund a legitimate purpose of government, such as a court system that upholds individual rights, is not nearly as bad as being taxed to fund an illegitimate purpose of government, such as a single-payer government run health care program.

Is there a line of reasoning that logically explains why taxation for one thing is not as bad as taxation for another thing? Or do you view both as illegitimate based on a central principle?

I know that sounds like trolling, but it honestly is not. I am completely open to hearing your thoughts. Learned a lot today.

[intellectualammo]

You've changed a misconception I had about Objectivism. I can only say that I agree with you in that taxation should be voluntary and is the only consistent position one can take based on a rational morality.This is turning out to be a great day!

And that comment has just made all my efforts not only worth it, but you've just made my night!

Reading Ayn Rand's novels and her non-fiction will show you how to achieve/maintain that consistency in reagrds to the use of reason throughout the entire Objectivist philosophy, meaning throughout all the branches of a philosophic system (and other Objectivists particularly Ayn Rand's intellctual and legal heir Leonard Peikoff in his work Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand does this exceptionally well). Other works by Objectivists, can be found here

Oh and HERE is the Ayn Rand Lexicon that is now available for free searching! Just found out about it in another thread! Take advantage of it. You can ook up "taxation" "government" "moral practical dichotomy" and so forth.

Edited October 26, 2007 by intellectualammo

[DarkWaters]

Before my reputation sours here, let me be clear in stating that I would fully support a state that ONLY served to protect the individual rights and never violated them. My problem is that I don't see how that would work in reality. I assume that the service this state renders (protecting individual rights) must be paid for. If that service is paid for voluntarily, then there is absolutely no problem morally.

But what happens if a few moochers refuse to pay?

I think this is a very intellectually honest question and I appreciate you asking it in a respectful manner. It is possible (I am not sure if I understand your position entirely yet) that we both agree on the same principle, that a government should only exist to protect individual rights by serving as a final arbiter on the usage of retaliatory force, but that we just are not certain how one would implement such a system in practice.

Ayn Rand specifically addressed how to morally fund such a government in her essay Government Financing in a Free Society which is available in the book The Virtue of Selfishness. You might enjoy reading this essay.

Some points for discussion. Obviously, if everyone agreed that such a government should exist, but nobody wanted to actually give it the financial support that it would need to exist, then we would have a serious problem. It is important to recognize here that to establish a free society, we must first have a widely accepted theory of ethics. Specifically, one that would make individuals cognizant of that if they want to freeload on something that they not only value, but depend on, even when they can afford to support it, then it will lead to the dissolution of that very value.

Of course, in a free society where the government does function on voluntary contributions, there can still be examples of moochers who take advantage of the generosity of others. I am confident that just and moral mechanisms can be designed to discourage such mooching without violating anybody's rights. For example, perhaps the government could annual distribute a certificate honoring individuals for making a contribution of a certain level? Individuals who do make routine contributions can proudly display their certificates, while individuals who mooch will have nothing to display. So now, in addition to mooching, they are in a position where others will learn that they are mooching.

[libertarian answers]

I think this is a very intellectually honest question and I appreciate you asking it in a respectful manner. It is possible (I am not sure if I understand your position entirely yet) that we both agree on the same principle, that a government should only exist to protect individual rights by serving as a final arbiter on the usage of retaliatory force, but that we just are not certain how one would implement such a system in practice.

My solution would be a to let the free market decide which solution to this issue wins out. The natural result might be a geographically based government that provides such services. It may turn out that geography may not be what the market favors. Maybe your government provider would be based in another region and hires locals to enforce your rights similar to car insurance companies. I think it is hard to predict where the market will go.

Specifically, one that would make individuals cognizant of that if they want to freeload on something that they not only value, but depend on, even when they can afford to support it, then it will lead to the dissolution of that very value.

So would it then be logical to force everyone to support that institution that defends individual rights?

My head hurts.

[intellectualammo]

So would it then be logical to force everyone to support that institution that defends individual rights?

My head hurts.

No, no. HERE type in "government" or "taxation" - it may be the remedy for your headache...

Edited October 26, 2007 by intellectualammo

[DarkWaters]

Is there a line of reasoning that logically explains why taxation for one thing is not as bad as taxation for another thing? Or do you view both as illegitimate based on a central principle?

First off, I just want to indicate that I am still a student of Objectivism. Several of the members of this forum are much more knowledgable than me on these issues. I invite anyone with more knowledge in this area to clarify anything I say on these issues or even identify a misrepresentation. Nevertheless, I think I know enough to help you answer this question.

The line of reasoning is that is depends on what the thing is. We both agree that mandatory taxation is immoral. However, obtaining funding for a legitimate government program that will protect individual rights through forced taxation is objectively different from obtaining funding for a government program that will violate additional individual rights. In the former case, the only rights violation is mandatory taxation. In the latter case, the rights violation takes the form of mandatory taxation and whatever other violations take place through the illegitimate government program. So both situations are non-ideal, but in the first scenario, at least the violations are limited to forced taxation.

It is important to recognize that some rights are more fundamental than others. For example, your right to purchase alcohol on Sunday from a willing seller is not nearly as fundamental as your ownership right to your house (assuming you do indeed have such a right). This leads to the question of how can one objectively determine which rights are more fundamental than others?

Well, this is a very important question in philosophy and it cannot be answered succinctly. A good place to start formulating an answer is to identify a standard of value. Objectivism holds that life, as such, is the standard of value. When you want to answer the question "how fundamental is this right?" you really want to ask yourself "how important is this right to rationally advancing my life?" Thus, if you are living in a country where the government taxes you to fund a just court system, although the mandatory taxation is bad, the money is at least going towards a legitimate purpose. However, if you are living in a country where the government confiscates your money to fund a concentration camp for political dissidents and to bankroll a state-controlled media outlet for twenty-four hour propaganda, this would be horrendous!

I want to explicitly state that I am not trying to argue that the end justifies the means (it never does) nor am I encouraging a utilitarian analysis where one always tries to estimate which scenario violates the fewest amount of rights. Instead, I just want to offer some clarification on how one can use Objectivist principles to morally differentiate between each of the vast range of mixed economies that exist or could exist today.

I know that sounds like trolling, but it honestly is not. I am completely open to hearing your thoughts. Learned a lot today.

Actually, based on your responses on this thread, I think you have been one of the most intellectually honest posters who has identified himself as a Libertarian that I have seen in a long time. I am glad to engage in this discussion.