Libertarianism versus Slavery

[SteveA]

I read a post earlier where someone commented that libertarian views allow slavery. I very much disagree but I'll post a few questions that might clear up the perception:

1) Assuming someone has the ability to leave a job anytime they want, which view is more representative of "slavery":

a) Allowing someone, if they desire, to work for $5/hour even if it's not enough to support a family.

b) Asserting such a low wage is similar to slave labor, create a minimum wage and forcibly denying such relationships to occur.

2) If someone were going to die without receiving a lung transplant and the only available donor asked for X number of years of servitude in exchange for giving one of his/her lungs, which view is closer to creating a condition of slavery (assuming everyone would enter into this agreement with full knowledge of the consequences)?

a) Allowing the recipient the choice to accept this transplant even though it may create a situation of effective slavery for some period of time.

b) Forcibly denying the recipient from making such a decision.

(One more in regards to the comment about syndicates)

3) If government performed only minimal functions with much of the "laws" and commerce effectively being left to individual discretion and local/private means to address, does this provide less or more protection against tyranny (a.k.a. slavery) to individuals?

a) Such a scenario leads to increased power at local levels and allows abuses to occur without oversight and because little of any central government exists, individual rights are less clear and prone to being violated.

b) Decentralization and individual liberty allow for the greater ability of individuals and allow competition in government. You can "vote with your feet" or use free markets and capitalism to "every vote count" and this pressure tends to be toward "keeping the customers happy".

(Of course you can always say "other" to these questions and explain the discrepancy)

I realize that there are concerns with the view "a man is kind of his own castle" and private property rights can be extended beyond reason if it's not based upon voluntary individual interactions documented bottom up instead of decreed in a top down fashion but anyway, I'll see what people think and maybe gain some new insight .

[Osborn F Enready]

In answer to the poll questions....

1. B is more representative than slavery.

2. B is closer to creating the condition of slavery.

3. B would be my educated, and historically proven answer.

I personally feel the majority of Americans who have heard of the libertarian party are greatly misinformed. There is also a huge number of Americans who have not heard of, or any platform ideas of the Libertarian party, yet are content to accept only two parties, because they don't understand their or their countrymens rights either.

Libertarians are against ALL FORMS OF SLAVERY, on every level.

*Economic slavery
*Physical servitude
*Mental slavery

There is not a party that trumpets the ideals of our countries constitution or its writers more than the Libertarian party.

Good post Steve.

[SteveA]

I agree. If people don't see the value in voluntary private interactions and freedom of association, then we're in danger of seeing slavery (and on a national level).

Consider how much of an impact current levels of taxation and regulation have - here in L.A. we have 8.25% sales tax (the police wanted it to go to 8.75% but luckily the increase wasn't passed), you've got taxes on your car ~$200/year, property taxes ~4,000/year, state income tax, federal income tax, taxes taken for medicare and 7.65% for social security (which has a hidden additional 7.65% in matching employer contributions for a total of 15.3%), and whenether you buy something you're paying for the taxes the people that made it were charged also, along with additional things like the gasoline tax, cigarette and alcohol taxes.

Now add in the paperwork overhead of all these, and then paste on indirect costs of meeting local, state and federal requirements at your business (In my job, aerospace engineer, literally more than half of what I do is various paperwork or testing to comply with FAA or other government regulations, which doesn't necessarily make the end product any better or more reliable ... it's only envisioned as doing that, oh and the remaining time is still half spent on government projects so over 75% of the time I'm working it's for something directly created by government ... and then we wonder why foreign countries are catching up technologically).

When you add these costs up, on a national level, more than half of the GDP is effectuvely controlled by government ... and to think the founders had a tea party over I believe it was something like a 3% tax on tea.

So even if all the government truly did was protect our liberties (which is not the case) the costs to do so rob of us of half our labor resources.

1 - B

Threatening to fine or imprison people if they don't earn enough money per hour doesn't help anyone. It ends up being minorities and our youth that get hurt most by these laws. And the arguments that minimum wages help people support a family are wrong - denying someone an income doesn't help, nor should all families expect to live off a single income and how does minimum wage laws help when the children in that family later decide to work? Does it make it easier or more difficult for poor families to survive? I'm not encouraging young children to work and miss an education but there are people that actually want to increase the minimum wage, and we already have enough kids out of High School already that have a hard time finding work. I started washing dishes after school till midnight, for ~$3/hour but I'm an engineer now. We all have to start somewhere and minimum wage laws hurt those who need help the most - people starting out in a career. And after all, the compensation 2 people exchange in a private voluntary manner is really noone elses business. You can apply this to many other things as well. Prostitution - if two consenting adults decide to have sex after an expensive dinner, or one person just hands the other cash for half the dinner really isn't anyone elses business. Gambling - though it may be addictive, so is television, and you can lose a lot of money buying the latest flat screen plasma screen too. I think a good rule of thumb is that ever law should be based around protecting a victim (or victims) and as long as noone is asking for help, noone should preemptively intrude on this.

2 - B

Again, this is a private arrangement between individuals that doesn't harm anyone outside this matter and if anything, force should be used to stop people who wanted to artificially make it their business, whether it be a democracy or not.

3 - B

... and historically proven answer.

Thanks, Osborn.

Yes, I won't bother to go into a ton of details but basically most any time you see any large abuses occuring it's because of heavily centralized forms of social interaction. For example, in Iraq, what side of the social hierachy is doing most the cheerleading for the war - the top or the bottom? The same goes for almost any war or large scale social conflict. Libertarians promote individual freedom over the "freedom" of government to violate individuals and be careful what you wish for because you might get it.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

For the second one, I think A will obviously lead to slavery, because I'm sure the person wants to save his/her own life. And no one should deny the person the right to live, despite it's consequences.

[Prometheus]

Quote by: SoccerfreakAB2 For the second one, I think A will obviously lead to slavery, because I'm sure the person wants to save his/her own life. And no one should deny the person the right to live, despite it's consequences.

Not feeding you is not denying you your "right" to live. You have a right not be be killed, but no one owes you whatever it takes to keep your sorry ass alive. Staying fed is *your* responsibility.

[madprophet]

1) Anyone who says that A is less like slavery has very obviously never read one single bit of history. "Let's bring back the Company Store, ya'll; working for script is a fair contract between equal parties!" Fuck you.

2) Yeah, racking up hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills (if you've got good credit) doesn''t lead to indentured servitude anyway. Heh.

3) Again, all you have to do is look at history, particularly US LABOR HISTORY to know the answer here. The only thing they used to use the federal government for was to stomp strikers. Hey, the national guard simply had bigger guns then the company men.

Libertarians always make the same ridiculous assumptions: Contracts are only ever made between equal parties. Markets are fair and will handle all of societies needs without interference. Governments are the sole source of tyranny. Yadda, Yadda.

I'm a good ole Anarchist myself. Tyranny comes from ALL FORMS OF AUTHORITY, no matter how centralized that authority happens to be. Whether it's an authoritarian socialist state or a loose conglomerate of economic interests, it's still a bunch of people telling you what to do with threat of death or imprisonment. It's still people making your decisions for you. Making our decisions for us.

http://www.diy-punk.org/anarchy/
The Anarchist FAQ. Take particular note of Section F.

http://www.aflcio.org/trivia/links.htm
Labor History on the Web. You can also just google "Labor History" and see what happens.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: Prometheus Not feeding you is not denying you your "right" to live. You have a right not be be killed, but no one owes you whatever it takes to keep your sorry ass alive. Staying fed is *your* responsibility.

This has nothing to do with food...

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: madprophet I'm a good ole Anarchist myself. Tyranny comes from ALL FORMS OF AUTHORITY, no matter how centralized that authority happens to be. Whether it's an authoritarian socialist state or a loose conglomerate of economic interests, it's still a bunch of people telling you what to do with threat of death or imprisonment. It's still people making your decisions for you. Making our decisions for us.

So how do you think we should govern ourselves? Or if there should be no government, how do you think we should live our lives?

[Prometheus]

Quote by: madprophet 1) Anyone who says that A is less like slavery has very obviously never read one single bit of history. "Let's bring back the Company Store, ya'll; working for script is a fair contract between equal parties!" Fuck you.

Option A was about minimum wage. Not debt peonage. Lose your straw man fallacies.

2) Yeah, racking up hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills (if you've got good credit) doesn''t lead to indentured servitude anyway. Heh.

You are not owed medical service. You don't deserve to have someone else keep you alive. If you can't afford medical care, then screw you for not getting insurance. That and hope that you have friends and neighbors like me who would voluntarily help you out.

3) Again, all you have to do is look at history, particularly US LABOR HISTORY to know the answer here. The only thing they used to use the federal government for was to stomp strikers. Hey, the national guard simply had bigger guns then the company men.

This is not about bringing back the 1800's. You are regressing to the straw man again. The "history" you talk about was a single time per society imbalance brought on by the industrial revolution.

[Prometheus]

Quote by: SoccerfreakAB2 This has nothing to do with food...

you were talking about the right to live in the context with minumum wage. Food, lodging medical care, take your pick. It's all the same concept.

[madprophet]

Quote by: SoccerfreakAB2 So how do you think we should govern ourselves? Or if there should be no government, how do you think we should live our lives?

I left the link to the Anarchist FAQ to answer these types of questions, because I can hardly explain how society should be run in a post on a political forum. All the questions you could think of asking an Anarchist such as myself have probably already been answered there, and by smarter people than me.

[SteveA]

3) Again, all you have to do is look at history, particularly US LABOR HISTORY to know the answer here. The only thing they used to use the federal government for was to stomp strikers. Hey, the national guard simply had bigger guns then the company men. Libertarians always make the same ridiculous assumptions: Contracts are only ever made between equal parties. Markets are fair and will handle all of societies needs without interference. Governments are the sole source of tyranny. Yadda, Yadda.

I don't think any libertarians oppose the ability of people to strike, just respect others property and ability to work if they desire as well during the process.

And I agree that despite the claims, it was large businesses that had the ultimate say in things but government force.

I've heard some arguments that many large businesses effectively are on the government payroll as well and I can't argue with all of it. I have had some personal experience with seeing how the patent system can be abused (and the more recent addition of intellectual property rigths too). I'd agree it's immoral to intentional steal someone elses ideas and compete against them in a limited market but things have gone beyond that to the point where you can effectively have your own ideas claimed as someone elses property ... but that's a different subject.

I'm a good ole Anarchist myself. Tyranny comes from ALL FORMS OF AUTHORITY, no matter how centralized that authority happens to be. Whether it's an authoritarian socialist state or a loose conglomerate of economic interests, it's still a bunch of people telling you what to do with threat of death or imprisonment. It's still people making your decisions for you. Making our decisions for us.

I respect a lot of anarchist views. Ultimately, no matter the extent people realize it, everyone is still basically free to choose what institutions they recognize as having some authority over them (or even none at all, I guess). Though I think, in practice, anarchy only works peaceably amongst people with similar views or at least within some framework that people can agree upon boundaries when there's a dispute over something.

For a good look at anarchy in peaceful operation, take a look at businesses, churches, and community groups. Noone had to specifically create detailed laws and threaten the ude of force to get these to operate, these primary are created through social pressures (though ultimately I'm sure there's a limit at which things are handled in a more physical than social manner ... that's inevitable).

I think a minimal government is better though in that there's a more explicit agreement upon what boundaries people respect. Even the U.S. was based upon this idea as a republic of relatively independent states and did fine for a long time.

[madprophet]

Prometheus:

Question one was about paying workers as little as possible. Debt bondage is very much relevent to the discussion when we are talking about people being paid less than a living wage (the REAL minimum wage.) And it is very much an issue when discussing the advancement of Right-Libertarian policies.

Two, Insurance companies are not required to give anyone a policy, and are very good at worming out of paying claims. "You are not owed medical service"? Okay, how about: You are not owed protection for your private property. You are not owed the infrastructure required to do business in modern society. Medical Service, like infrastructure and protection, is not owed to ME, it is owed to US for the betterment of our society. Healthy people are more productive members of society. Prevention is better and cheaper than treatment. Institutional research is better than private research.

Three. Yes, a time in societies developement when government had far less power and the "Free Market" was controlled by capitalist barons who exploited their workers. And it wasn't just the 1800's, it continued to a great extent right up until Roosevelt came to power and even for years afterward. In many ways we are still fighting the same battles today--one of the central issues of the Labor Movement the last two centuries was the MINIMUM WAGE. Again, very much relevent.

[madprophet]

Quote by: SteveA I respect a lot of anarchist views. Ultimately, no matter the extent people realize it, everyone is still basically free to choose what institutions they recognize as having some authority over them (or even none at all, I guess). Though I think, in practice, anarchy only works peaceably amongst people with similar views or at least within some framework that people can agree upon boundaries when there's a dispute over something. For a good look at anarchy in peaceful operation, take a look at businesses, churches, and community groups. Noone had to specifically create detailed laws and threaten the ude of force to get these to operate, these primary are created through social pressures (though ultimately I'm sure there's a limit at which things are handled in a more physical than social manner ... that's inevitable). I think a minimal government is better though in that there's a more explicit agreement upon what boundaries people respect. Even the U.S. was based upon this idea as a republic of relatively independent states and did fine for a long time.

I agree wholeheartedly! Anarchy does only work among people who share the same general views. FREEDOM AND EQUALITY! One cannot exist without the other.

But in all honesty, even among like-minded individuals, Anarchist societies are complicated affairs. That doesn't mean it's not worth it. Anything worth having is going to take struggle and hard work and compromise and all that. I look to Spain during the revolution for inspiration. And the Ukraine, were the anarchists fought the Reds and the Whites while organizing themselves along anarchist principles. (No one fights like an Anarchist!) Kronstadt and the Paris Commune. Alas, the authoritarians ended these noble experiments, but they were fine examples of Libertarian-Socialist organization.

Incidentally, I think that religion and business have a bit more to do with authority than social pressure. It's all about greed and power with those fucks.

Finally, about minimal government. If you take away the power of the government, something else will just fill that vaccum, whether it's the state governments or the industries. It doesn't do anything about the inherent problems of authoritarian systems. The powers you want to take away were put there for a reason, and they will be taken away for a reason as well.

[SteveA]

Question one was about paying workers as little as possible...

I agree, minimum wage for many people says you must be paid $0/hour. Ironic how stated as intended to increase wages (and indirectly tax rates) has the exact opposite effect and this isn't the only such program with similar unexpected consequences.

I agree wholeheartedly! Anarchy does only work among people who share the same general views. FREEDOM AND EQUALITY! One cannot exist without the other.

Freedom and equality aren't necessarily the same thing. If I were to force two people to be equal, they wouldn't be free would they? But I know what you likely meant - equal rights and protections and yes, there's no way to maintain a society that treats too many people unfairly or people will just withdraw their support and/or leave so the only stable way to do it is to respect everyones freedom equally.

But in all honesty, even among like-minded individuals, Anarchist societies are complicated affairs. That doesn't mean it's not worth it. Anything worth having is going to take struggle and hard work and compromise and all that.

Yes, I think people would likely have to relearn how to live. We've become so reliant on any form of authority to direct our lives that many people just openly accept anyone claiming to officially represent something. I guess it's fine if you desire it but the sucky part is when everyone wants you to do the same thing ... reminds me of lemmings, though I'm certain if a law were passed declaring everyone was expected to jump of a cliff that many people would quickly rethink things and start wonder what was the intent of government in the first place.

Finally, about minimal government. If you take away the power of the government, something else will just fill that vaccum, whether it's the state governments or the industries. It doesn't do anything about the inherent problems of authoritarian systems. The powers you want to take away were put there for a reason, and they will be taken away for a reason as well.

Well said and I agree entirely.

I believe that's why you see a lot of people call themselves anarcho-capitalists or anarcho-socialists. Anarchy doesn't fill in any blanks ahead of time for people and what specific form of social interactions envision seems to be the issue.

My big push politically has been for returning to a more decentralized and diverse society. Not everyone is going to agree on everything but if America were allowed to be more of a buffet of different ideologies and lifestyles, people would not only find less politics over conflicts, because they'd have more options available but people could also see the results of different ideologies in real life (as opposed to political debates) and learn (even if it's from the mistakes of others) from these instead of resenting something that noone could truthfully prove may or may not have had merit.

I do believe capitalism and free markets can support a wide variety of ideologies but I've come to accept the fact that it's better if people can just agree to live and let live and respect a few boundaries instead of trying to create everyone else in your own image (it only leads to problems).

The problem is these options don't currently exist ... and I believe it's because there really are some people who really don't want to let loose the leash. We do need to see a change toward greater individual liberty or I think the ship will eventually sink, with people having been denied the ability to build their own life rafts. (Maybe the sky will never fall but last I checked it really does seem a bit lower)

[Prometheus]

Quote by: madprophet Prometheus: Question one was about paying workers as little as possible. Debt bondage is very much relevent to the discussion when we are talking about people being paid less than a living wage (the REAL minimum wage.) And it is very much an issue when discussing the advancement of Right-Libertarian policies.

A "living wage" is the responsibility of the employee. Your employer dosen't owe you anything past what he freely agrees to. If someone will do it for cheaper then you, you will be out of a job. Take responsibility for your own "living" - don't depend on someone to garentee it for you.

Two, Insurance companies are not required to give anyone a policy,

Thank heavens. You don't deserve insurance either if you can't get it.

and are very good at worming out of paying claims.

if they are breaching thier contranct, then it is a whole different issue. You can't group libertarian politics with chriminal actions.

Okay, how about: You are not owed protection for your private property.

Wrong. Your two rights are that your life an property won't be taken from you.

You are not owed the infrastructure required to do business in modern society.

Agreed. No libertarian here implied otherwise.

Medical Service, like infrastructure and protection, is not owed to ME, it is owed to US for the betterment of our society. Healthy people are more productive members of society. Prevention is better and cheaper than treatment.

Well if you're a sociolist, then we just have to agree to disagree.

Institutional research is better than private research.

Bullshit. Most of the lifesaving drugs we have were developed by big pharma.

Three. Yes, a time in societies developement when government had far less power and the "Free Market" was controlled by capitalist barons who exploited their workers. And it wasn't just the 1800's, it continued to a great extent right up until Roosevelt came to power and even for years afterward. In many ways we are still fighting the same battles today--one of the central issues of the Labor Movement the last two centuries was the MINIMUM WAGE. Again, very much relevent.

Never said it wasn't relevant. You just have causality messed up. Yet again, you confuse chriminal acts with politics. Stealing and beating people up are not libertarian politics. If someone breaks a law, then punish them, but don't confude it with capitalism.

[Pale RIder]

In my younger days, I flirted with libertarianism...most conservatives do, at some point, and as is the case with the overwhelming majority of people who flirt with libertarianism, I grew up...this would explain why there are so few libertarians over the age of 30...

Libertarianism is a young persons ideology. Face it, when you are young, everything is new. You get to do and think everything for the first time...first time to drive, first dates, hell, there are some young folks that think that they are the first ones to understand what the "Lord of the Flies" was really all about. The excitement that comes with doing and thinking things for the first time deludes a lot of young people. They can be fooled into believing that because they are thinking of something for "their" first time, they are having the thought for "the" first time....

This idea that they are the first to have some thought leads to a type of arrogance that convinces them that no one can really grasp, or understand things like they can...You know the type....they often end their statements with "don't you understand?", "I don't believe you don't get it" or "can't you see?" Yes, I do see....I saw what you are seeing about 35 years ago...and I saw through it about 34 years ago....These are not necessarily dumb people (although statistically, young people are much dumber than older folks)...often they are quite bright...just misguided, and always....Always....ALWAYS ready, willing and able to step up and give you the full benefit of their inexperience....

In many ways, these wild eyed, totally comitted libertarians are every bit as close minded, and ideologically blinded as the religious zealots that they so dislike...That being said...Let me tell you some things that I learned about libertarianism during my brief enfatuation with it, and why I dropped it as a workable philosophy. My apoligies in advance...but this will take more than a few words....

Probably the worst thing is that libertarianism demands that you be an ideologue if you wish to play...there is very little room for anyone who doesn't accept the party platform in its entirety...Ideology is useful when used as a checklist of your principles; a plan you'd like to stick to but are prepared to diverge from when events warrant. Left wing ideologues are troublesom because they don't recognize that they have an ideology. They simply think they're doing the obvious and right thing. Libertarians have a different problem. They know they have an ideology. They know it and they love it. And they love it so much they are unwilling to loosen their clench on it when reality and more importantly, social concience demand it. Just as they consider "state violence" to be always and everywhere evil, they fetishize change, assuming it to be always and everywhere good.

Ideology is the most fundamental difference between libertarians and conservaives...Libertarianism, like its kissing cousin liberalism are ideologies based upon abstract ideals and doctrines like radical individualism, and absolute liberty. Libertarians foolishly believe that if their abstract ingredients are properly mixed and combined in the social oven, a bright and shining utopia will bubble forth...

Libertarians and conservatives differ greatly concerning what holds civil society together...Libertarians genearally believe that society is an artificial thing...a flimsy agreement made to furnish individual self-interest. In the libertarian view, society is a partnership in things subservient only to an animal existence of a temporary and perishable nature...To libertarians, society is just a machine with interchangeable and separable parts....

As a conservative, I believe that society...social arrangements that are mutually beneficial are hardwired into us...what we are, and I have the entire history of humanity to prove my point....We...humans...humanity, have always naturally developed more and more sophisticated, mutually beneficial, social arrangements...we naturally develop institutions. Institutions form a social order, ultimately articulated and defended in essential respects by the state, through the monopoly of legitimate coercive power exercised by its government. Any law of the state may well be tested within the framework of a legitimate legal system.

Libertarians object not just to specific laws, but to legislation, to the authority of the state, and to its use of power. Libertarians dissent from the entire history of human-kind and from the political institutions it has created in all known civilization. Political institutions may vary from group to group, no society has been able to do without them, as the libertarians propose. If you press them hard enough, they will admit the need for the enforcement of some rules; they contend that these rules could be enforced privately. Any compulsion would be imposed by private organization that would form spontaneously. They would gain their power from the voluntary, rational, collective actions of members, who would be free to leave or join.

Logically, this means that your life would be secured by a protective organization you may join, or more properly, may be allowed to join. It would protect you and "punish" those who would interfere with you. Those who would interfere with you, in turn, would join protective associations which would defend them against your organization. Competing protective organizations would agree on arbitration of conflicts, or fight it out. The monopoly of legitimate force the government now has would come to an end, and with it, the authority of the law. The enforcement powers, but not the legal authority, now exercised by governments would be held by competitive private organizations. Would such an arrangement work? I am sure that they would be at least as effective as the mafia or the yakuza ...which any private enforcement organization would have to bear an uncomfortable resemblence to. This arrangement is known as a polyarchy and could only lead to a constant state of civil war...

Continued...

[Pale RIder]

Continuation...

Then there is liberty, a word so abused by libertarians that it comes to have no meaning at all...like repeating your name over and over for an hour...Libertarians believe that liberty is the first priority of any society. But the liberty they value so highly is an unconnected, solitary, individual, and selfish liberty. Theirs is an abstract liberty divorced from order and honor...or anything that resembles character. The libertarian views liberty as a good thing in and of itself and constantly strives to maximize it, no matter the cost.

Libertarians completely miss the fact that order is the first priority of society, it is only within the framework of an enduring social order that a true and lasting liberty can be attained. When I consider the effects of liberty, I can't help but see Burke’s words: "The effect of liberty to individuals is, that they may do what they please: we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we risk congratulations, which may be soon turned into complaints."

Liberty is not simply doing whatever you want, when you want. Liberty is having the ability to pursue your dreams within the confines of societal norms, but without undue government interference or outright oppression. Webster's Dictionary says that liberty is the "power to act according to one's natural rights as an individual.", and also, "the freedom from bondage." The confusion arising in Libertarian thought comes from a linkage between the concept of "restraint" with that of "bondage". That's the first of several logical mistakes enshrined within the libertarian ideology....

Libertarians seem unable to see the obligatatory self restraint that the individual owes to society. Without self-restraint, people will have less and less regard for society as a whole, and act accordingly out of that disrespect. The concept misnamed as "liberty" becomes obnoxious, since it will promote violent instability it will disintegrate society into self-centered, pleasure-seeking units no larger than an individual and responsible to no others. Consequently, liberty withers and legal chains will be required to restrain the wanton urges of a mob.

Most of the libertarians that I have talked to recently cannot seem to grasp these basic differences between liberty and license, and are in fact not champions of liberty at all, but of anarchy. Often their personal desires fall outside of societal norms, and are indeed harmful to society in general. In response, they urge the destruction of social norms altogether, primarily through the destruction of the government that regulates and oversees said norms. With the government out of the way, they think, liberty will prevail, and they may then engage in any form of anti-societal behavior with LICENSE

As much as libertarians want to wish it away, or deny its fundamental importance to us , society exists, and if left to reach its natural conclusions, libertarianism would create a licentious, lawless society. History has demonstrated, over and over, that lascivious societies, in which restraint and social norms are disregarded are doomed to be swept away into the dust heaps of history,

Individualism is another thing...Libertarians are a cult of individualism and much like liberals, deny that life has any meaning other than the gratification of the ego. They envision a utopia of individualism where man exists for his own sake and human beings are reduced to social atoms. In such a society, selfishness would be considered a virtue. Utopia is where libertarianism in practice would work....utopia, for those who are not aware of its geographcal location, is nowhere...

The reality of history proves that the basic social unit is not the individual but the group. From the first hunter gatherers, autonomous groups such as family, church, local community, neighborhood, college, the trade union or guild, etc have naturally formed. As society becomes more complicated, these groups intermediate between the individual and State and help preserve social order. As Robert Nisbet pointed out, “Release man from the context of community and you get not freedom and rights but intolerable aloneness and subjection to demoniac fears and passions.” As a conservative, I value the spirit of community and agree with Marcus Aurelius when he said that, “We are made for cooperation, like the hands, like the feet.”

Libertarian ideology opposes public courts, laws, police, armies, roads, parks, education, and health. (does that cover it) Ideally, they would choose no government whatsoever. I oppose many public services altogether and would have others performed by private industry. But unlike libertarians, I do not believe that all laws, all taxes, all services, or the state itself are immoral per se, or unnecessary. Liberty for everyone requires a social order articulated by laws. Government is needed to secure the rights of the citizens.

Speaking of liberty for everyone, that brings up another disturbing aberration in liberalism....There exists within liberalism, the quite real possibility for the reinstitution of slavery. Am I joking? No I am not. The basis of the libertarian justification of slavery is a major difference between rights under the proposed system of the Libertarian Party and as rights as they are defined in the constitution. Today, rights are invested in the person as a human being and these rights are inalienable....a person has rights because they have human life and they cannot give up these rights for any reason.

Under the Libertarian party platform ALL rights come from property rights. Here are the first two paragraphs of the Lib Party Platform Plank:

THE RIGHT TO PROPERTY.
There is no conflict between property rights and human rights. Indeed, property rights are the rights of humans with respect to property, and as such, are entitled to the same respect and protection as all other human rights.

All rights are inextricably linked with property rights. Such rights as the freedom from involuntary servitude as well as the freedom of speech and the freedom of press are based on self-ownership. Our bodies are our property every bit as much as is justly acquired land or material objects.

All of the "human rights" libertarians claim to champion stem not from rights invested in being a human, the soul if you will, but in the flesh, or the property. The human as a person, or soul, has no rights under the Libertarian Party.

The human as property is the basis that the libertarians use to justify the "right" to sell one's self into slavery. Of course libertarians say this can only happen by consent,...like much of what they say, however, this also is not true.. Libertarians have devised a system where people can be forced into slavery by what passes as government in their vision for us all. The system used to do this is the civil law suit. In a situation where a person has incurred a debt they cannot repay libertarianism allows the person owed the moneys to file suit to seize the property of the debtor...and if a person doesn't have enough money, or physical property to pay the debt...the plaintiff may go after, and be awarded that last piece of personal property...the self.

So... if a person causes an automobile accident and their insurance (if they have insurance as libertarians demand the end to laws requiring insurance) does not cover the damages all of their property may be awarded to the injured party...your body is among such property under the libertarian party plans. Can you envision an industry arising that trade in slave labor...similar to the ones we have today that offer to pay lump sums (for a fee) when annuity type awards are given through the courts?

This isn't even the worst of the problems associated with the courts...libertarian style... Libertarians, depending on which one you talk to, believe variously that punishment for crime 1) is unneeded altogether, or 2) could be administered by private associations, or 3) could be replaced by restitution. But all libertarians believe that crime is a matter between victim and victimizer, a matter of retaliation or compensation, not an act that organized society must punish according to law, regardless of individual victims.

The ones who favor restitution alone neglect the obvious fact that, if he had to pay no more than restitution to the bereaved, a rich man would have a license to murder, and that anyone could murder or abuse those who had no chance to join protective association...remember the protective associations??... Further, a burglar could go about his business, and pay full restitution— when caught. Since burglars are rarely caught, burglary would become even more profitable, and frequent, than it is now. If restitution involves more than payment of the actual market value of what has been lost, it becomes punishment (which at least some libertarians want to abolish). Since most criminals could not pay, we would be back to a system of forced slavery,

Again, I am not making this up... let me quote Murray Rothbard. About murder, Rothbard writes: "The victim, or his heirs or assigns, could allow the criminal to buy his way out [Rothbard's italics] of part or all of his punishment." A rich criminal thus would be licensed to commit whatever murders he is willing to pay for, if the victim's heirs are willing to take the criminal's money, rather than (say) his life. Since libertarian principles require payment according to damage (not according to the criminal's means) wealth would license any crime so long as either only restitution is required, or the victim's heirs are willing to accept money in lieu of punishment.....

continued....

[Pale RIder]

Continuation.