Jump to content

Ask Me Anything: Libertarianism Explained!


Recommended Posts


11 minutes ago, samsonh said:

The one thing that strikes me the most about Armacing is that he is a self proclaimed libertarian but also a huge proponent of state's rights. Just very peculiar imo

Freedom protected at the federal level, everything else determined at the state level.  What don't you understand?

Edit:  Let me clarify:  Do I think states should have the right to restrict freedom beyond those restrictions imposed at the federal level?  Yes because people have the freedom to move, and therefore the ability to avoid that law.  A law that restricts freedom at the federal level is way worse.  And since I know state-level restrictions that disrupt the free market will result in obvious negative economic outcomes, I feel confident in the long run those restrictive states will have no choice but to change their laws.  That exact thing would have happened here in the US during the pandemic if it hadn't been for Federal hand-outs given to bankrupt states & cities.  There is no better guarantor of long-term freedom than letting a few states destroy their economies for everyone else to see.

Edited by Armacing
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, samsonh said:

The one thing that strikes me the most about Armacing is that he is a self proclaimed libertarian but also a huge proponent of state's rights. Just very peculiar imo

Another example of this approach:  As a libertarian I really hope California passes laws guaranteeing universal health care, universal basic income, universal child care, free college tuition, as well as a wealth tax and corporate taxes to cover the entire financial burden of those programs.  That would be awesome in my opinion because the resulting economic collapse in CA would guarantee I would never see those laws passed in Tennessee.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Armacing said:

Another example of this approach:  As a libertarian I really hope California passes laws guaranteeing universal health care, universal basic income, universal child care, free college tuition, as well as a wealth tax and corporate taxes to cover the entire financial burden of those programs.  That would be awesome in my opinion because the resulting economic collapse in CA would guarantee I would never see those laws passed in Tennessee.

I understand this rationale, but I think it ignores the reality that a large percentage of the population may not have the funds or ability to uproot their lives and move across the country. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, samsonh said:

I understand this rationale, but I think it ignores the reality that a large percentage of the population may not have the funds or ability to uproot their lives and move across the country. 

Then they are choosing to stay and live under that law.   Economic refugees often lack funds (hence the need for their move in the first place), but they move anyway knowing a little short-term hardship will pay off with long term prosperity in a land of freedom.  So my rationale does not ignore the plight of those oppressed by state laws, but rather it accepts the possibility of oppression at the state level in order to avoid oppression at the national level, which is inescapable for all practical purposes.  Now, before you say "It's not inescapable at the national level, they could leave the country", I will pre-emptively respond "If there is a lack of freedom in the US then it is bound to be worse outside of the US because no other country protects freedom to the degree that the US does".  This really is the last bastion of freedom in the world and you need look no further than the restrictions on free speech that exist everywhere outside our borders - that's just one example.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, samsonh said:

Many would disagree with your characterizations of other countries not being free.

However their disagreement would be merely an emotional reaction to their injured national pride, and not based on any real fact-based arguments.

3 hours ago, samsonh said:

 Also, just because you say something does not make it true!

Correct!  The things I say are true based on their own merits, regardless of who says them.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/18/2022 at 9:20 AM, Armacing said:

If somebody wants to throw away their property that is their prerogative as property owners. 

I stated that humans can currently produce far more than humans can consume, therefore most of the scarcity experienced today is not because of a lack of supply. Of course property owners have the right to throw away their property, but that in now way contradicts the fact that doing so contributes to scarcity.

On 5/18/2022 at 9:20 AM, Armacing said:

You seem to be arguing for the complete elimination of private property rights and free will, right?

I'm not really arguing for anything, just pointing out some holes in your position as I see them, but I do think property rights are an interesting case study.

For example, its been less than 200 years since the majority of Americans were even allowed to own property. Even more recently than that, a whole race of people were themselves considered to be property, and  women were only given legal access to credit 50 years ago, which I think you'll agree can significantly impact a person's ability to acquire property and accumulate wealth. That's a very short list of a very long history of property rights being restricted and unequally distributed among people.

Further, seems to me that just about every valuable resource and piece of habitable land on earth has had its rules about property rights upended by a conquering or two over the course of the last few millennia. Would that not mean that if we were to look back far enough in the title chain of just about any real estate transaction ledger that we'll find the 'original' owner on record acquired that property through violence and /or other means that the previous owner/occupant would have considered illegal?

This is why I have a hard time swallowing the moral high ground you put so much effort into staking out on the sanctity of property rights, because you have to sweep a lot of history under the rug to avoid the very obvious conclusion that property rights have never been absolute or anywhere even remotely close to it.

If you get a huge head start and win the race, it's cool to later advocate for the end of head starts, but it rings kind of hollow if you just keep the gold medal and all the prize money....especially if that prize money is generational wealth and ownership of finite resources on a finite planet home to a growing population. It's like a finder advocating for the applications of 'finders keepers' or  - even more directly - somebody who got there first advocating for 'first come first served' to be the applicable rule.

On 5/18/2022 at 9:20 AM, Armacing said:

No they are not.  If I want to receive food stamps they tell me my income is too high, which coincidentally is the same reason I was target for taxation. By design, those who contribute the most taxes are excluded from receiving most welfare services. 

Your income may be too to high to qualify for food stamps today, but it may not be too high tomorrow, or next year, or in 20 years. Statistically, every time we fill up Nissan stadium, 65 of the people filling those seats are going to be filing medical bankruptcy and be financially ruined within the year, and thinking it wasn't going to happen to you has been proven to be consistently ineffective at preventing that particular possibility.

I think your argument here would make sense if you were opposing something like government-funded pap smears or free tampons in public restroom, etc. - thing that you as a man could never legally avail yourself of - but I don't think the argument can be reasonably applied to safety nets. By design, safety nets are only needed by those who fall. It's way better to stay in the air and never miss the trapeze in the first place, but why begrudge the safety net for those who maybe don't have your natural talents, luck, training, confidence etc. that they're never going to fall? And you never know, knock on wood. Sometimes even the best trapeze artist slips.

On 5/18/2022 at 9:20 AM, Armacing said:

Contrast that with taxes paid for national defense where everyone benefits equally.

Maybe it's just a little bit more equal for defense contractors and and companies/shareholders with operations/assets where we have military bases and/or provide other financial/military support.

On 5/18/2022 at 9:20 AM, Armacing said:

Example?

C'mon. You need me to supply an example of ways in which you've benefitted from government services indirectly? I have a hard time believing you can't think up a couple.

Just spitballing, but how about when the fire department puts out the blaze consuming your neighbor's house before your house catches fire.  Or how about free viral testing and vaccination centers that directly reduce your risk of catching a serious disease even if you never get tested/boosted there yourself. Here's a fun one: because emergency rooms are legally required to admit uninsured and/or unconscious people who may not even have ID, your car insurance premiums are lower than they otherwise would be even if you've personally neither been to the ER nor been in a car wreck. Your turn?

On 5/18/2022 at 9:20 AM, Armacing said:

Not as bleak as the current reality of socialism we live in with declining standards of living and a hopelessly ignorant public who can't figure out how their own actions caused the very thing they are complaining about.

This is an odd dodge reminiscent of a politician pivoting away from an uncomfortable topic. I understand you'd prefer to return to the comfort of your go-to talking points, but it was genuinely a little jarring to see you go out of your way to insert this vindictive mindset in a made-up scenario. 

On 5/18/2022 at 9:20 AM, Armacing said:

But how come the services you receive in return for paying more taxes do not also ramp up in years of high income to match the amount of money taken?  A person who pays a higher %  in taxes should receive more services, otherwise everyone should be taxed the same.  Equality is the name of the game when it comes to government.

This is an amusing idea. What kind of additional services do you think would be suitable for top tax-braketeers?  Free line cuts at the DMV and voting booth? Expedited passport processing? HOV lane access even when driving solo? Like a premium citizenship package.

On 5/18/2022 at 9:20 AM, Armacing said:

There is no state that has made laws restricting immediate treatment for rape victims. Let's assume that some crazy state says once conception has occurred, then *nothing* can be done to terminate the pregnancy for any reason.  If I were a woman in that state, I would move to another state.  Heck, even as a man I would consider moving to another state because it's just a matter of time before they pass some idiotic law targeting other freedoms.  That's the whole point behind states having different laws and competing economically and culturally against each other.   Eventually the pain of population loss and economic stagnation makes the consequences of stupid laws obvious and unavoidable such that the most offensive state laws are repealed as a matter of survival.  Voting with your feet is the highest form of democracy because instead of making everyone suffer through one particular law, a variety of laws are available to live under and we get to find out which ones actually work best in real life.

Your solution seems reasonable in theory but is completely impractical in too many cases for it to be considered a credible plan.

1 out of every 5,000 girls aged 10 to 14 gives birth every year. 30 years ago that number was 1 out of about 700, so we're moving in the right direction, but still not great I think you'd agree. Obviously, most of these girls were not able to give legal consent, and these are just the actual births (not just pregnancies) that we know about. On top of that approximately 1 out of every 2,500 girls under the age of 15 gets an abortion in the US each year.

Do you expect these children to be prepared to move themselves out-of-state, maybe hundreds or thousands of miles away from their homes? How about developmentally disabled people, 90% of which experience sexual assault in their lives- are they just supposed to pack it up and move? Are those without cars or money for bus fare just supposed to go old school refugee-style and hoof it or hitchhike? Are those without savings for a security deposit or even a couple weeks at a short-stay motel just supposed to go live under a bridge?  These are refugee scenes straight out of the opening episodes of the Handmaids Tale.

On 5/18/2022 at 9:20 AM, Armacing said:

Great answer, I like what you did with the "willing acceptance of duty" concept... It preserves the element of free association, and essentially turns it into a contract.  Of course, the law will have to decide when (at which state of pregnancy) this acceptance is implied... so we're right back where we started with the government establishing some red line during the pregnancy beyond which abortion is prohibited because that would breach the previously accepted duty....Unless you are thinking that all pregnancy duties must be explicitly accepted by registering pregnancies with the government?  Assuming you did intend implicit acceptance in your scenario, how is that different from the current status quo?

I think you're wrong about being right back where we started. Again, these are just personal opinions, but I don't think the "willing acceptance of duty" kicks in until the birth occurs - the birth of a new person is itself the explicit acceptance of that duty of care. If a newly pregnant woman plans to get an abortion but decides to wait 8 and a half months before doing so while putting her body through all that just to abort at the last possible moment, it ought to be her right to do so, and we all benefit from keeping more of those genes from getting out into the pool. Similarly, if a newly pregnant woman plans to give birth, but learns that there's some problem with the kid or birthing complication for her and decides to abort at the last moment, I think that's her decision to make as well.

Returning to the original example, if a newly pregnant woman plans to get an abortion and does a bunch of drugs or whatever, then later decides that she wants to keep the child, that duty of care kicks in when the kid is born and if the baby is drug dependent then, as I said, I certainly think it's fair to hold the mother accountable at that point, but I think a rational argument can be made for both sides of this particular issue.

On 5/18/2022 at 9:20 AM, Armacing said:

The Libertarian perspective is that the mother cannot be charged with any crimes for activities related to her own body, therefore she could not be charged with child abuse.  Mandating standards for acceptable behavior by the mother during pregnancy is a slippery slope that leads to rules about avoiding 2nd hand smoke and taking prenatal vitamins and undergoing mandatory doctor visits and the codification of legal birthing practices, etc. 

As I said, I've really got no problem with this aspect of your world view, but I don't find the slippery slope argument all that compelling if it's limited to intentionally consumed illegal substances. 

On 5/18/2022 at 9:20 AM, Armacing said:

In a Libertarian world view, the mother is completely in charge of the pregnancy regardless of the opinions of others, including the right to end the pregnancy by C-section or chemical inducement at any stage of pregnancy.  The only nuance, as I outlined before, is that her rights do not extend to the ability to end the child's life.  If premature separation results in death, so be it, but if not, then the child lives regardless of her feelings about the matter.

Still think this is a strange hoop to jump through, but I don't disagree with your conclusion for the most part, I just don't think the hoop jumping is necessary.

Let's say I wake up one morning to find a trespasser standing over my bed with a couple IV tubes running between us, and that trespasser tells me that their heart and kidneys stopped functioning and the makeshift dialysis set up is the only thing circulating their blood and keeping them alive. 

Not only do I have the right to right to rip that IV straight out of my arm despite knowing it would lead to that person's death, but I could (in fact) shoot them in the head with a shotgun or throw them out the 10 story window if I saw fit, and I would be well within my rights -  correct? What kind of castle doctrine allows for ending the life of an unwanted trespasser within your property borders but not within the borders of your very own body?

On 5/18/2022 at 9:20 AM, Armacing said:

It's situations dealing with life and death that demand the most rigorous application of ideological purity, in my view.  I could just as easily characterize your philosophy of "let's do whatever is easiest and most convenient" as absurd considering the morally weighty nature of the question at hand.  However, instead I would rather focus on your characterization of abortion as "humane", or in this case, more humane than my proposed system.  Let's do an experiment:  Let's let those babies who can survive (some can at even 23 weeks) grow up to age 18 and then take a poll among them to see if they think my method or your method is more humane.  It only makes sense to let those experiencing the "humane" treatment you are concerned with to give some customer feedback, don't you think?

Again, I think the castle doctrine more than covers this, but I'd be genuinely interested to see how that poll played out too. The suicide rate goes up by a factor of 3 for adopted kids with some stats I just researched showing that more than 40% in the foster system consider suicide and 1 out of 4 make genuine attempts. Probably would be a lot harder being a super-premi with no invested caretaker in an underfunded public health system, as well.

To be sure, I think there's a very good chance that your proposed poll would turn out as you suspect with a majority of those babies who survive to 18 and have the developmental abilities to understand your question indeed siding with you. What I think is less cut cut and dried is how your sample population after 18 years would compare to the initial population.

On 5/18/2022 at 9:20 AM, Armacing said:

They are black because they are regulated by government.  Every black market (with all of it's negative features) used to be a free market that was self-regulated to perfection until the government stepped in.

Oh right - no contraband, I forgot. Genuinely curious, does that apply to abortion pills too, or is that up to the culture and religion of the state?

On 5/18/2022 at 9:20 AM, Armacing said:

Nope, a libertarian society is a great idea... maybe the greatest idea ever!  The phrase "Live Free or Die" is the perfect example of ostensibly flippant libertarian concepts that seem to be unnecessarily simplistic and short-sighted.  However, the truth is that freedom is not easily established nor maintained, and it is characterized by a bunch of people who love their own freedoms but are unhappy about the way everyone else is exercising their freedoms.  So statements like that serve as a reminder that freedom is an ideal unto itself regardless of the real world consequences of the pursuit of freedom.

You're pivoting on the word "flippant" this time, but I think 'Live Free or Die" is a cool motto too. 

On 5/18/2022 at 9:20 AM, Armacing said:

Now, let's go back to California:  In a Libertarian society a person's insurance company would have something to say about reckless behavior and losing your insurance and being labeled "uninsurable" carries certain weighty consequences in a Libertarian society that will cause most people to think twice.  Then there's criminal arson.  Plus the threat of civil court proceedings and the loss of assets, including the loss of the very land that the offender loves to exercise freedom on so much.  It seems to me there would be ample disincentive in a Libertarian society to discourage people from behaving recklessly.  And if a person is hell-bent on starting a forest fire, then no amount of laws will stop them, as we see today in CA.

All the deterrents you're referencing here exist in our current society, and I'd assume you already agree that there should be some limitations on what one can do on their own property - for example, I figure you wouldn't be okay with your neighbor setting of miniature atomic bombs on his property even if the fallout didn't reach your property - so the issue is really just about where that line is drawn. Maybe you draw the line at sonic booms and mushroom clouds on the horizon, maybe somebody else draws the line at bonfires larger than 20 feet in height absent a permit, but we're all drawing the line. Obeying seatbelt laws isn't the same thing as being a slave, you know?

  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 5/23/2022 at 1:29 PM, ruraljuror said:

I stated that humans can currently produce far more than humans can consume, therefore most of the scarcity experienced today is not because of a lack of supply. Of course property owners have the right to throw away their property, but that in now way contradicts the fact that doing so contributes to scarcity.

If people have so much of an asset that it is useless to the point of being purposefully discarded, that is not scarcity, that is abundance.  Are you confusing "scarcity" in the economic sense with "poverty" in the political sense?  It's possible to have a society that, as a whole, does not suffer from extreme scarcity of certain assets, however within that society certain individuals will still be "poor" due to their lack of those assets.  However, that has more to do with those people not having any valuable goods or services to trade with other people in society.  It is not a reflection of a society that is suffering from scarcity in the broadest sense, but rather a reflection of the uneven distribution of skills and assets which characterizes (and has characterized) every society from Soviet Russia to the tribal highlands of Papua New Guinea to Singapore.  However, when comparing those three economies, it's pretty obvious which one has the least scarcity in the broadest economic sense, and it's no coincidence that one is also the most free market/capitalist.

On 5/23/2022 at 1:29 PM, ruraljuror said:

...I do think property rights are an interesting case study.  For example, its been less than 200 years since the majority of Americans were even allowed to own property. Even more recently than that, a whole race of people were themselves considered to be property, and  women were only given legal access to credit 50 years ago, which I think you'll agree can significantly impact a person's ability to acquire property and accumulate wealth. That's a very short list of a very long history of property rights being restricted and unequally distributed among people.

I agree with your list of outrageous violations of freedom being examples of perversion of the concept of property rights.  I'm sure you are familiar with the Libertarian stance on all those issues, and it invariably upholds the doctrines of individual liberty and un-restricted voluntary exchange between individuals.  I should point out that it is *your* system of unrestrained democracy that allowed those examples of oppression to arise and persist.  The idealized Libertarian concept of a constitutional democracy involves greater limitations on the majority's ability to oppress the minority.  The only other option would be a benevolent dictator or monarchy.  But the examples you bring up are really more of an indictment of the failings of democracy than the concept of private property.  Sticking to just the private property issue:  A person has a right to keep the fruits of their labor - don't you agree?

On 5/23/2022 at 1:29 PM, ruraljuror said:

Further, seems to me that just about every valuable resource and piece of habitable land on earth has had its rules about property rights upended by a conquering or two over the course of the last few millennia. Would that not mean that if we were to look back far enough in the title chain of just about any real estate transaction ledger that we'll find the 'original' owner on record acquired that property through violence and /or other means that the previous owner/occupant would have considered illegal?

Yes, I think that is a valid statement, except perhaps for some uninhabited islands that were discovered relatively recently and haven't experienced any violent changes of ownership.  However, that historical fact in and of itself is not a valid reason to discard an orderly system of private property ownership.  It is most definitely an argument against the violent taking of land from peaceful owners - a practice which your government engages in on a regular basis - and which Libertarians oppose.

On 5/23/2022 at 1:29 PM, ruraljuror said:

This is why I have a hard time swallowing the moral high ground you put so much effort into staking out on the sanctity of property rights, because you have to sweep a lot of history under the rug to avoid the very obvious conclusion that property rights have never been absolute or anywhere even remotely close to it.

The moral high ground is not from the property rights, it's from the non-violent peaceful exchange of property versus the violent confiscation of property.  Ownership arising from peaceful exchange is morally superior to ownership arising from violent confiscations, whether that violent confiscation is incremental/fractional through regulation or outright via nationalization.  That's the moral high ground of the Libertarian position:  Peaceful exchange is better than violent confiscation.  Now, you tell me why violent confiscation is better than peaceful exchange in your socialist system.

On 5/23/2022 at 1:29 PM, ruraljuror said:

If you get a huge head start and win the race, it's cool to later advocate for the end of head starts, but it rings kind of hollow if you just keep the gold medal and all the prize money....especially if that prize money is generational wealth and ownership of finite resources on a finite planet home to a growing population. It's like a finder advocating for the applications of 'finders keepers' or  - even more directly - somebody who got there first advocating for 'first come first served' to be the applicable rule.

You are once again complaining about an inescapable reality of life on earth:  Scarcity in the economic sense.  The answer to this scarcity is more free trade, not less.  If land is scarce, you should be allowing everyone to employ the land they have to maximum utility and engaging in the widest possible variety of business on their land.  Instead it seems you are interested in curtailing the free use of land, thereby limiting its utility and making it even more scarce in the economic sense.

But it is true that when it comes to "discovering" natural resources, it is a finders-keepers rule.  That just has to do with how resources are scattered over the face of the planet unevenly.  Whoever puts in the work to search around and find them, they get to keep the spoils from their labor and ingenuity.  If someone else chooses to have kids, they do so with full knowledge of what resources they will be able to gather and use to support their family.  Another person's decision to have children does not in any way invalidate the work done by someone else to find and/or obtain scarce resources...  Just as any bad decision by someone in society does not entitle them to be rescued by someone else who made smart decisions in the arena of asset accumulation.  People need to interact peacefully based on voluntary exchange and a meeting-of-the-minds when it comes to trading value-for-value.  Not declaring that their "needs" give them the right to take someone else's property violently.  That would just devolve into a barbaric system of socialism based on violence.

On 5/23/2022 at 1:29 PM, ruraljuror said:

Your income may be too to high to qualify for food stamps today, but it may not be too high tomorrow, or next year, or in 20 years. Statistically, every time we fill up Nissan stadium, 65 of the people filling those seats are going to be filing medical bankruptcy and be financially ruined within the year, and thinking it wasn't going to happen to you has been proven to be consistently ineffective at preventing that particular possibility.

That doesn't change the fact that the system is designed to ensure those paying the taxes will not receive the benefits.  That is moral outrage:  Property taken violently with no value given in exchange.

On 5/23/2022 at 1:29 PM, ruraljuror said:

I don't think the argument can be reasonably applied to safety nets. By design, safety nets are only needed by those who fall. It's way better to stay in the air and never miss the trapeze in the first place, but why begrudge the safety net for those who maybe don't have your natural talents, luck, training, confidence etc. that they're never going to fall? And you never know, knock on wood. Sometimes even the best trapeze artist slips.

Your trapeze analogy would only be valid if the "safety net" consisted of a large group of people forced to stand under the trapeze act at gunpoint with their hands held up above their heads to catch the falling idiots.  Let's flip your statement that you try to use to justify violence:  You shouldn't begrudge people who have natural talents/luck/training/confidence just because some people don't have those things... And you never know... sometimes even the biggest idiot can become successful in business.

On 5/23/2022 at 1:29 PM, ruraljuror said:

Maybe it's just a little bit more equal for defense contractors and and companies/shareholders with operations/assets where we have military bases and/or provide other financial/military support.

Uhh... I think you know the Libertarian perspective on defense contractors and government suppliers and involvement in foreign wars.  Don't forget: You are not talking to a Republican here.  That example of national defense being a government service that everyone benefits from equally was just an example.  There are others such as police, courts, international treaties, etc...

On 5/23/2022 at 1:29 PM, ruraljuror said:

Just spitballing, but how about when the fire department puts out the blaze consuming your neighbor's house before your house catches fire. 

Let's take this example.  For this to be a valid comparison to your welfare/safety-net, the fire fighters would need to make an assessment about how "excessive" my house is before deciding whether to save part of it or any of it at all.  They may decide to put out my neighbor's house because his house is small and he is poor, but they may decide to let mine catch fire and burn because my house is huge and nobody really needs that big of a house.  The fire fighters will be around if I get a small house and it catches on fire, but they will do nothing if I have an excessively large house that is burning.  That is a valid analogy to your welfare/safety-net system:  Unequal treatment, unequal service provided, but equal outcomes at the most basic poverty level.

On 5/23/2022 at 1:29 PM, ruraljuror said:

Or how about free viral testing and vaccination centers that directly reduce your risk of catching a serious disease even if you never get tested/boosted there yourself.

For this to be a valid comparison to your welfare/safety-net system, the medical testing should be provided free to people who can't afford it, using funds taken from people who can afford it.  Let's say that is the scenario (because it is for most public health clinics), and in response to that scenario, I offer the Libertarian perspective:  People should be free to chose whether or not they fund a charity clinic through voluntary donations, because they know that funding a charity clinic will provide protection to them as well as those served by the clinic.  However, if they chose not to fund the charity clinic and take their chances with community spreading of diseases, that is also their right as free individuals.

On 5/23/2022 at 1:29 PM, ruraljuror said:

Here's a fun one: because emergency rooms are legally required to admit uninsured and/or unconscious people who may not even have ID, your car insurance premiums are lower than they otherwise would be even if you've personally neither been to the ER nor been in a car wreck. Your turn?

Yep, my turn:  In a Libertarian society, ER's would not be required to admit uninsured or unconscious people who do not have ID.  You can't force someone to work for you just because you need their services - that's slavery and it's illegal under a Libertarian government.

On 5/23/2022 at 1:29 PM, ruraljuror said:

This is an odd dodge reminiscent of a politician pivoting away from an uncomfortable topic. I understand you'd prefer to return to the comfort of your go-to talking points, but it was genuinely a little jarring to see you go out of your way to insert this vindictive mindset in a made-up scenario. 

It's not a dodge, it's using your same materialistic/selfish mindset against your scenario.  The very premise of your example where someone's assets are taken by force is vindictive, so I flipped that back on to you and showed you just how vindictive people with assets can behave when their assets are under threat of confiscation from vindictive poor people who try to take those assets by force.  Those poor people are willing to inflict bodily harm on the rich people just to get the material wealth - - it doesn't get more vindictive than that.  You'll find no discomfort about that topic with me:  I could spend all day discussing the depravity or your socialist system based on violence, and have fun doing it!

On 5/23/2022 at 1:29 PM, ruraljuror said:

This is an amusing idea. What kind of additional services do you think would be suitable for top tax-braketeers?  Free line cuts at the DMV and voting booth? Expedited passport processing? HOV lane access even when driving solo? Like a premium citizenship package.

As a Libertarian, I would rather everyone just receive equal benefits and pay equal taxes and not even go down the road of unequal treatment in the first place.  I would just showing you what un-equal benefits for un-equal taxes would look like, so take your pick of any of the ideas you came up with above if you want to see what the unequal-unequal scenario would look like.  But that is not the Libertarian way.

On 5/23/2022 at 1:29 PM, ruraljuror said:

Your solution seems reasonable in theory but is completely impractical in too many cases for it to be considered a credible plan.

1 out of every 5,000 girls aged 10 to 14 gives birth every year. 30 years ago that number was 1 out of about 700, so we're moving in the right direction, but still not great I think you'd agree. Obviously, most of these girls were not able to give legal consent, and these are just the actual births (not just pregnancies) that we know about. On top of that approximately 1 out of every 2,500 girls under the age of 15 gets an abortion in the US each year.

Do you expect these children to be prepared to move themselves out-of-state, maybe hundreds or thousands of miles away from their homes? How about developmentally disabled people, 90% of which experience sexual assault in their lives- are they just supposed to pack it up and move? Are those without cars or money for bus fare just supposed to go old school refugee-style and hoof it or hitchhike? Are those without savings for a security deposit or even a couple weeks at a short-stay motel just supposed to go live under a bridge?  These are refugee scenes straight out of the opening episodes of the Handmaids Tale.

Those stats are all good reasons why women should be allowed to terminate their pregnancy at any time.  Keep in mind I don't support any limitations on a woman's freedom to choose, so I think a States-Rights approach will result in major problems for states that do restrict freedom, which will become obvious, and result in the removal of those restrictions in time, or the development of some other solutions.  But allowing states to do dumb things at the state level is the only way to avoid having the whole country experience dumb laws with no way to get away from them - as far as I can tell.  Maybe you have a better idea about a system for allowing stupid laws to be implemented at a smaller local level so everyone else can see the terrible outcome and prevent it from happening in more places - I am open to suggestions.

On 5/23/2022 at 1:29 PM, ruraljuror said:

I think you're wrong about being right back where we started. Again, these are just personal opinions, but I don't think the "willing acceptance of duty" kicks in until the birth occurs - the birth of a new person is itself the explicit acceptance of that duty of care. If a newly pregnant woman plans to get an abortion but decides to wait 8 and a half months before doing so while putting her body through all that just to abort at the last possible moment, it ought to be her right to do so.

OK, I like the idea of your willing acceptance of duty kicking in at birth, but I still think the woman is immune to all charges of prenatal child abuse because it's her body and she can do with it whatever she wants.    100% agree with your statement about ending the pregnancy as early or as late as she wants.

On 5/23/2022 at 1:29 PM, ruraljuror said:

 and we all benefit from keeping more of those genes from getting out into the pool.

Here's where you flip from discussing the mother's freedom to do anything with her own body over to the separate issue of killing the fetus.  From a Libertarian perspective, that is not merely a voluntary separation of two people who were engaged in free association (which is the mother's right) - that little detail about killing the fetus crosses over into the realm of violent behavior, which is a big no-no in a Libertarian society.  The free market will determine whether or not those genes live/thrive/procreate, not an individual doctor or committee or government or even the mother.  If the child grows up to survive on earth as a productive member of society who does not inflict violence upon others and engages in free and voluntary trade - that is the test of quality genes and they will have passed the test.  Those who can't do those things - those are the genes that need to be removed from the gene pool, and the 2nd law of thermodynamics will take care of that unsavory duty.

On 5/23/2022 at 1:29 PM, ruraljuror said:

Similarly, if a newly pregnant woman plans to give birth, but learns that there's some problem with the kid or birthing complication for her and decides to abort at the last moment, I think that's her decision to make as well.

Libertarian perspective:  It's definitely her decision to end the pregnancy, but not her choice about killing the kid.  Two separate issues entirely.

On 5/23/2022 at 1:29 PM, ruraljuror said:

Returning to the original example, if a newly pregnant woman plans to get an abortion and does a bunch of drugs or whatever, then later decides that she wants to keep the child, that duty of care kicks in when the kid is born and if the baby is drug dependent then, as I said, I certainly think it's fair to hold the mother accountable at that point, but I think a rational argument can be made for both sides of this particular issue.

I like the distinction, but I still think the Libertarian perspective would be that she has a duty of care related to the drug dependent child, and that she shouldn't be charged with a crime for giving birth to a drug dependent child.

On 5/23/2022 at 1:29 PM, ruraljuror said:

As I said, I've really got no problem with this aspect of your world view, but I don't find the slippery slope argument all that compelling if it's limited to intentionally consumed illegal substances. 

Well in a Libertarian society there are no "illegal substances" and I doubt you will be able to come up with a logically coherent philosophical framework for why some substances should be illegal that does not also run afoul of all the statements you previously made about women being free to make choices with their bodies even if those choices are medically harmful.

On 5/23/2022 at 1:29 PM, ruraljuror said:

Still think this is a strange hoop to jump through, but I don't disagree with your conclusion for the most part, I just don't think the hoop jumping is necessary.

It's only hoop jumping if you know for a fact that 100% of the fetuses will die outside the mother.  And you don't know that with 100% certainty, do you?

On 5/23/2022 at 1:29 PM, ruraljuror said:

Not only do I have the right to right to rip that IV straight out of my arm despite knowing it would lead to that person's death, but I could (in fact) shoot them in the head with a shotgun or throw them out the 10 story window if I saw fit, and I would be well within my rights -  correct? What kind of castle doctrine allows for ending the life of an unwanted trespasser within your property borders but not within the borders of your very own body?

Now this... is groundbreaking!  I have to give you credit for perhaps being the first person to ever clearly outline why the fetus needs to be killed during an abortion:  Self Defense.  Bravo!  I literally laughed out loud at the sheer genius of this argument! 

I am, of course, obliged to one-up you and respond thusly:  The castle doctrine does not apply if the house guest is invited in voluntarily.  So I could only see your castle doctrine being useful in cases of rape.  In the case of consensual sex, the visitor was invited in the "home", and you can't invite someone inside and then kill them and claim "Castle Doctrine".  It's not an unlimited license to kill whoever is inside your home - they have to be an un-invited intruder.

As discussed previously, cases of rape are known immediately and quick countermeasures can be taken to prevent pregnancy, so the castle doctrine is of limited practical utility.  Still though, it is tempting to say that it holds up as a valid reason to kill the fetus that was involved in the violent "breaking and entering" crime that occurred.  On the other hand, let's say there is a thief who entered a house, stole a bunch of things and maybe shot a few people, and then escaped out the back window.  If you discovered (or had reason to suspect) that the thief also brought their kid into the house during the break-in and left them hidden in the hall closet:  Are you then free to throw open the door to the closet and gun down the kid?... or even let them live in the closet for 6 months with food and water and then throw open the door and gun down the kid?  At some point the kid goes from being party to a violent intrusion to a welcomed house guest.  I would argue that allowing the rape-fetus to develop to the point of viability as a baby that can live outside the mother is tantamount to letting that kid hide in the closet for six months with the homeowner's knowledge.  You can't really claim they are uninvited at that point if you have been giving them food and water and letting them stay there - so Castle Doctrine does not apply.

On 5/23/2022 at 1:29 PM, ruraljuror said:

Again, I think the castle doctrine more than covers this, but I'd be genuinely interested to see how that poll played out too. The suicide rate goes up by a factor of 3 for adopted kids with some stats I just researched showing that more than 40% in the foster system consider suicide and 1 out of 4 make genuine attempts. Probably would be a lot harder being a super-premi with no invested caretaker in an underfunded public health system, as well.

Maybe they would commit suicide, but that is their voluntary choice.  Are you advocating for a system that pre-emptively kills people because they are likely to commit suicide in the future based on someone else's assessment of their future mental wellbeing?

On 5/23/2022 at 1:29 PM, ruraljuror said:

Oh right - no contraband, I forgot. Genuinely curious, does that apply to abortion pills too, or is that up to the culture and religion of the state?

At the national level, no contraband.  At the state level it comes back to the whole States-Rights-as-a-petri-dish-of-liberty concept.  If a state starts making drugs (of any kind) illegal then it will become a comparative hotbed of crime and every other state will get to watch it descend into chaos.  Lesson learned without the entire country having to suffer through that hell as we are now.

On 5/23/2022 at 1:29 PM, ruraljuror said:

for example, I figure you wouldn't be okay with your neighbor setting of miniature atomic bombs on his property even if the fallout didn't reach your property - so the issue is really just about where that line is drawn. Maybe you draw the line at sonic booms and mushroom clouds on the horizon, maybe somebody else draws the line at bonfires larger than 20 feet in height absent a permit, but we're all drawing the line. Obeying seatbelt laws isn't the same thing as being a slave, you know?

If my neighbor is going to set off a miniature atomic bomb on their property that has absolutely zero effect on my property... well... then I hope they invite me over to watch that because how often do you get to see an atomic bomb go off?  As long as the sonic boom doesn't cross over to my land, I don't care if they sonic boom on their land.  In fact, I'm sure there are hundreds of sonic booms going off in my neighborhood after the annual chili cookoff at the county fair, but they don't affect me, so who cares?   Really, they can do anything ranging from starting a cult to watching cable news on their land and as long as it doesn't affect me on my land then I don't really care.

And choosing to wear seatbelts should be voluntary.  That goes back to your earlier comment about keeping the gene pool pure, don't you think?:D

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Armacing said:

If people have so much of an asset that it is useless to the point of being purposefully discarded, that is not scarcity, that is abundance.  Are you confusing "scarcity" in the economic sense with "poverty" in the political sense?  It's possible to have a society that, as a whole, does not suffer from extreme scarcity of certain assets, however within that society certain individuals will still be "poor" due to their lack of those assets.  However, that has more to do with those people not having any valuable goods or services to trade with other people in society.  It is not a reflection of a society that is suffering from scarcity in the broadest sense, but rather a reflection of the uneven distribution of skills and assets which characterizes (and has characterized) every society from Soviet Russia to the tribal highlands of Papua New Guinea to Singapore.  However, when comparing those three economies, it's pretty obvious which one has the least scarcity in the broadest economic sense, and it's no coincidence that one is also the most free market/capitalist.

You've lost the plot here. You were initially talking about scarcity in a physics context, saying "the scarcity of resources is a burden placed upon humans by the universe itself, chiefly the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics"

In that context, I pointed out that these totally accurate physical limitations you're referring to are not currently the limitations our society is butting into as evidenced by the fact that we have enough resources to produce more than all the people on earth consume, hence any scarcity experienced today is artificial. 

In the broader economic sense, what possible difference would it make if a society has less scarcity if that scarcity is unequally distributed? I assume you've got no problem with 1% of people in a society owning 50% of all resources, of course. Does that hold true if 1% of all people own 99% of all resources? What if .00001% (or about 75 people) of people own 99.99999% of all economic resources? 

21 hours ago, Armacing said:

I agree with your list of outrageous violations of freedom being examples of perversion of the concept of property rights.  I'm sure you are familiar with the Libertarian stance on all those issues, and it invariably upholds the doctrines of individual liberty and un-restricted voluntary exchange between individuals.  I should point out that it is *your* system of unrestrained democracy that allowed those examples of oppression to arise and persist.  The idealized Libertarian concept of a constitutional democracy involves greater limitations on the majority's ability to oppress the minority.  The only other option would be a benevolent dictator or monarchy.  But the examples you bring up are really more of an indictment of the failings of democracy than the concept of private property. 

You've neglected to mention how your libertarian society addresses these crimes and violence of the past that has lead to inequality in the distribution of property and resources.  How do you account for the head start and the laws that forced certain groups to fight with one hand tied behind their back for centuries? 

Reparations? The end of inheritance? A fresh start where all property is up for grabs at the count of 3? Genuinely curious what solutions you've got in mind.

21 hours ago, Armacing said:

Sticking to just the private property issue:  A person has a right to keep the fruits of their labor - don't you agree?

This is cartoonish. No man is an island. The fruit of everyone's labor depends on functioning electrical grids, and highways, and sewers, and court systems, etc. Life is too short to waste your time with this nonsense. 

21 hours ago, Armacing said:

Yes, I think that is a valid statement, except perhaps for some uninhabited islands that were discovered relatively recently and haven't experienced any violent changes of ownership.  However, that historical fact in and of itself is not a valid reason to discard an orderly system of private property ownership.  It is most definitely an argument against the violent taking of land from peaceful owners - a practice which your government engages in on a regular basis - and which Libertarians oppose.

What's the Libertarian solution though? I have to assume y'all have thought about this and have to have some kind of response to deal with the inequities of the systems you want to dismantle, otherwise that's a lot of blood money to sweep under the rug.

21 hours ago, Armacing said:

The moral high ground is not from the property rights, it's from the non-violent peaceful exchange of property versus the violent confiscation of property.  Ownership arising from peaceful exchange is morally superior to ownership arising from violent confiscations, whether that violent confiscation is incremental/fractional through regulation or outright via nationalization.  That's the moral high ground of the Libertarian position:  Peaceful exchange is better than violent confiscation.  Now, you tell me why violent confiscation is better than peaceful exchange in your socialist system.

I agree (and think most other people would as well) that peaceful exchange is better than violent confiscation, so I'm not sure you can really claim that as a Libertarian position. 

What happens in a libertarian society when someone doesn't pay their debts or refuses to comply with a court order? 

21 hours ago, Armacing said:

You are once again complaining about an inescapable reality of life on earth:  Scarcity in the economic sense.  The answer to this scarcity is more free trade, not less.  If land is scarce, you should be allowing everyone to employ the land they have to maximum utility and engaging in the widest possible variety of business on their land.  Instead it seems you are interested in curtailing the free use of land, thereby limiting its utility and making it even more scarce in the economic sense.

I wasn't complaining about scarcity I was talking about head starts. Pivoting to more comfortable ground doesn't answer my question about how you deal with the inequities of the past. 

 

21 hours ago, Armacing said:

That doesn't change the fact that the system is designed to ensure those paying the taxes will not receive the benefits.  That is moral outrage:  Property taken violently with no value given in exchange.

100% False. That's like saying there's no value in a fire insurance policy just because your house never catches on fire. It's there if you need it and you can't possibly know for sure whether you'll need it or not.

21 hours ago, Armacing said:

Your trapeze analogy would only be valid if the "safety net" consisted of a large group of people forced to stand under the trapeze act at gunpoint...

The fact that this is where your brain goes....

21 hours ago, Armacing said:

Let's flip your statement that you try to use to justify violence:  You shouldn't begrudge people who have natural talents/luck/training/confidence just because some people don't have those things... And you never know... sometimes even the biggest idiot can become successful in business.

I don't begrudge people who have natural talents/luck/training/confidence, and tons of huge idiots become very successful in business. 

What's the point?

21 hours ago, Armacing said:

Uhh... I think you know the Libertarian perspective on defense contractors and government suppliers and involvement in foreign wars.  Don't forget: You are not talking to a Republican here.  That example of national defense being a government service that everyone benefits from equally was just an example.  There are others such as police, courts, international treaties, etc...

You lost the plot again. I was refuting your statement that all taxpayers benefit equally from DOD expenditures. Same goes for police, courts, international treaties, etc. So are you agreeing with me now?

21 hours ago, Armacing said:

Let's take this example.  For this to be a valid comparison to your welfare/safety-net, the fire fighters would need to make an assessment about how "excessive" my house is before deciding whether to save part of it or any of it at all.  They may decide to put out my neighbor's house because his house is small and he is poor, but they may decide to let mine catch fire and burn because my house is huge and nobody really needs that big of a house.  The fire fighters will be around if I get a small house and it catches on fire, but they will do nothing if I have an excessively large house that is burning.  That is a valid analogy to your welfare/safety-net system:  Unequal treatment, unequal service provided, but equal outcomes at the most basic poverty level.

This doesn't make any sense. Firefighters put out houses that are on fire today. They won't, however, come spray down your house if it's not on fire today, but they will come spray it down if it's on fire tomorrow. Food stamps go to those who need them today. They're not supposed to go to you if you don't need them today, but they will be available to you if you need them tomorrow.

21 hours ago, Armacing said:

For this to be a valid comparison to your welfare/safety-net system, the medical testing should be provided free to people who can't afford it, using funds taken from people who can afford it.  Let's say that is the scenario (because it is for most public health clinics), and in response to that scenario, I offer the Libertarian perspective:  People should be free to chose whether or not they fund a charity clinic through voluntary donations, because they know that funding a charity clinic will provide protection to them as well as those served by the clinic.  However, if they chose not to fund the charity clinic and take their chances with community spreading of diseases, that is also their right as free individuals.

So you don't believe in public health? 

21 hours ago, Armacing said:

Yep, my turn:  In a Libertarian society, ER's would not be required to admit uninsured or unconscious people who do not have ID. 

Gross.

21 hours ago, Armacing said:

You can't force someone to work for you just because you need their services - that's slavery and it's illegal under a Libertarian government.

You do realize they still get paid, right?

I'm bored now.

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Armacingi am curious as to your thoughts on the direction of the national Libertarian Party. Obviously you may or may not support it. I think a healthy third(or fourth) party would be great for this country. But the Libertarian party seems to have been taken over by a fringe element, not too dissimilar from the alt right, my guess is the national party will continue to lose members and influence unless this is curbed,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 6/9/2022 at 11:46 PM, samsonh said:

@Armacingi am curious as to your thoughts on the direction of the national Libertarian Party. Obviously you may or may not support it. I think a healthy third(or fourth) party would be great for this country. But the Libertarian party seems to have been taken over by a fringe element, not too dissimilar from the alt right, my guess is the national party will continue to lose members and influence unless this is curbed,

Agreed, the national Libertarian party is a joke because they decided after 1996 to abandon their principles and play down their most controversial policy positions in a futile effort to get elected to local offices.  That was their plan:  Build political influence from the ground up by starting small and growing the number of elected libertarians.  The only problem is, you can't piecemeal Libertarianism because it is a comprehensive economic/political/moral philosophy that builds on itself.  Everything is interconnected, every issue is interconnected.  Now they can't propose real solutions to so many of our present day problems because doing so would call attention to the true nature of their classical liberalism, which is radical by Democratic/Republican standards.

So, my opinion is the Libertarian party needs to disband so it's philosophical successor can rise from the ashes with a more orthodox adherence to the principles of liberty, which necessary entails proposing radical solutions to problems rooted in oppression.  If done properly, that new party could capture the extreme left from the democratic side and the extreme right from the republican side and leave the mainstream parties to fight over the shrinking population of centrist voters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why America is the greatest country in the world?.... Freedom and Freedom, so let's keep it that way

I post this only because I believe many nations around the world "have freedom".  America just uses "freedom" as a guise to actually take away freedoms from some.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 2 months later...
On 9/17/2022 at 12:39 PM, samsonh said:

@Armacingi came here to avoid polluting the other thread. What are your thoughts on why golf has performed sporty this year, and more broadly over the past decade? Past year has seen unexpectedly high inflation and the past decade was a decade where inflation struggled to hit 2%

I realize my previous post autocorrected gold to golf and the entire post seems confused in hindsight. 
 

Now I am curious as to your feelings on the Libertarian Party’s pretty clear antisemitic turn. Any thoughts? Appreciate it 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/3/2022 at 1:46 PM, samsonh said:

I realize my previous post autocorrected gold to golf and the entire post seems confused in hindsight. 
 

Now I am curious as to your feelings on the Libertarian Party’s pretty clear antisemitic turn. Any thoughts? Appreciate it 

Concerning Gold -  I think there is a clear distinction between the price of gold that central banks set between themselves (they all have a vested interest in making sure their currencies do not decline relative to gold) and the price of gold for individual investors.  There are a lot of people out there buying gold in anticipation of the "big crash" when fiat currency will dramatically decline in perceived value and perceived stability.  Basically, gold is like an insurance policy that you half-way hope you never have to use.  If the international monetary system collapses, sure you have gold, but your standard of living is bound to decline as well.  So it is an emergency store of wealth, just like all the other emergency supplies that people stock up on.

Concerning antisemitism:  I had not heard that the Libertarian party officially declared itself to be antisemitic, but if they did that's just one more thing in a long list of stupid things they have done.  I have no love for the official "Libertarian Party".  However, I am a big fan of Libertarian Philosophy and the focus on freedom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/18/2022 at 12:01 PM, Bos2Nash said:

Why America is the greatest country in the world?.... Freedom and Freedom, so let's keep it that way

I post this only because I believe many nations around the world "have freedom".  America just uses "freedom" as a guise to actually take away freedoms from some.

Can you give an example of using freedom to take freedom away in America?  I definitely see lots of examples of that coming from socialists who want to give people "freedom from hunger" or "freedom from sickness" or "freedom from homelessness" by taking money from working people and using it to buy food/medicine/housing for non-working people.  They take away the freedom of choice from productive members of society who no longer get to choose whether or not they mercifully confer charity upon the less-fortunate.  Instead they are compelled to support the moochers by at the point of a gun.

So yeah, it is happening in America, but it's perpetrated by the Socialists, not the Libertarians.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.