What do libertarians believe?

Author: TheUnderdog

Posts

Total: 30
Topic's author
#1
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
I think it would be steel manning to claim that this is what the libertarian party believes:

We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.

To summarize, people can do whatever they want with their lives as long as they aren't harming anybody else.

Now, when they say this, do they mean:

  1. People can do whatever they want with their lives as long as they aren't harming anybody else to any extent.
  2. People can do whatever they want with their lives as long as they aren't harming anybody else to significant extent.

Because there are 2 issues that I thought of.  They are:

  1. Should the rich (the globalists) be taxed enough to pay for things like free college of poor people (we the people)?
  2. Are vacciene mandates bad?

If Libertarians believed People can do whatever they want with their lives as long as they aren't harming anybody else to any extent, then they would answer no to both questions.  The unvaccinated harm vaccinated people if the vaccinated get COVID because of them (even if it's a nominal sacrifice, it is a sacrifice that still exists).

If Libertarians believed People can do whatever they want with their lives as long as they aren't harming anybody else to a significant extent, then they would answer yes to both questions.  Taxing Billionaires/globalists (whether it's when they die in the form of a hefty estate tax or while they are alive) harms them, but only nominally so.

People should either answer yes to both questions or no to both questions.  I would answer yes to both questions.

Nominal harm doesn't count; it has to be significant for me.  Otherwise, it seems kindof petty.
#2
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,183
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
Not every libertarian is the same and many have less than perfect moral frameworks.

Harm would have to be very precisely defined in order to be useful in a moral formulation. Some people call it harm when you don't put out on the first date. Some people call it murder if you fire someone who can't feed themselves.

Coherent libertarians, that is the coherent principle of liberty is "do what ever you want so long as you don't reduce the choices others would have if it was impossible to interact with you"

So that means you can leave your girlfriend/boyfriend even if that act would cause them emotional pain because having you is not something they can have by right.

Some other useful terms:
Right - That which you may morally do contingent on no one else
Privilege - That which you may morally do contingent on the consent of another

These are contextual concepts. By selecting all relevant parties a privilege becomes a right.

You don't have a right to marry Jane Doe. However you and Jane Doe have a right to marry each other. (maybe marriage is a bad example, say have a child rather than get hung up on that)

You don't have a right to a job, but you and your employer have a right to establish your employment.

You don't have a right to bread, but you and a baker have a right to trade.

You don't have a right to a house, but you have a right to buy a house if someone is willing to sell it to you.

This principle is morally perfect. It implies no contradictions and can be justified by universal value analysis.

It is in almost all cases also practical. The best and biggest example of its impracticability is the claiming of land (and other finite natural resources)

This problem is imposed by physics and not any error in the value analysis.

The solution is to obey the moral principle wherever it applies and where it does not to solve the problem culturally by creating and maintaining a system of claims that is fair (which means a lot of things but I won't get into it unless asked), resistant to corruption, and as constant as possible.
#3
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
They believe they are above it all yet they have no ideas on how to fix anything. They think all problems will eventually be resolved without any action on the part of government.
#4
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,035
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
who is worse... a hardcore libertarian, or a MAGA politician? 
#5
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,035
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
are you a conservative? i dont know enough of your posts, but you look like a super smart/intellectual conservative, which to my prejudices isn't very common. 
#6
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,183
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@n8nrgim
are you a conservative?
I won't self-identify as that because these charged terms are so controversial and poorly defined that to use them harms communication rather than helping it.

I believe liberty is the sole root objective moral principle.

If language was being used reasonably that would make me a liberal. In reality 'libertarian' has no etymological distinction from 'liberal' but self-identified libertarians are much more likely to agree with me and vice versa than self-identified 'conservatives' or self-identified 'progressives'.

I have voted for and donated to libertarian candidates in the past.

As for "progress" vs "conservation" it's a false dichotomy. Change isn't inherently good or bad and thus it is always better to talk about what is good and bad vs what is new vs old.

In this moment American conservatives claim to be conserving many things. Some claim to be conserving the value of liberty, which I agree with; but that liberty was a radical departure from the norm at the time of the war for independence.

There is a more subtle difference than nomenclature alone. I suspect that more than a few "conservatives" value liberty because it is an inherited value rather than because it is valuable. Then are often blind to the possibility that the founders plan was not perfect and that it might be improved.

All that despite the fact that the declaration of independence explicitly laid out the justification and the goal of writing a constitution. It was to achieve liberty.

"these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"

To the 'true' conservative, any change is bad; and it is just a coincidence of fate that the majority of those who want change want bad change, thus leaving me in the same tribe as the conservatives.

I have a value to aim for and so do libertarians. To us, it's not progress unless people are getting freer.


you look like a super smart/intellectual conservative, which to my prejudices isn't very common. 
I'm sure I'll say something to make you doubt that at some point, probably already have and you forgot about it.

Anecdotally I find more than a kernel of truth in the mid-wit meme (here is an example: https://i.imgur.com/VCtbjhp.jpeg)

The reason I think this is generally the case is pretty straight forward: There are two ways you can grow up in the western world without becoming a sheep-person for the mainstream media:
1.) Be too stupid to understand propaganda, look only at outcomes and not care about reasons.
2.) Be smart enough to see the contradictions in the propaganda, have enough confidence in your own intelligence to look at claimed reasoning.

I think there are some very smart people in the left-tribe, but I have never seen them apply their intelligence to left-tribe dogma. We know intelligence can be asymmetrically applied, the sheer number of religious geniuses is proof enough. Did you know Issac Newton invested considerable time studying the bible looking for scientific information?

I have found that talking about intelligence is generally useless. No one gets any more incorrect because you call them stupid. Nobody gets more correct because you call them intelligent.

The truth is found through reason, and even if some people are better equipped to wield reason that doesn't absolve them of the necessity of committing to objectivity nor is claimed stupidity of others a license to provide no reasoning when a claim is made.
#7
n8nrgim
n8nrgim's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,035
3
2
5
n8nrgim's avatar
n8nrgim
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
it definitely takes a concerted effort to overcome one's own biases and to sift through propaganda in our news. some people are very skilled at defending a tribe, but its often only through a partisan lens. 
#8
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,057
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@n8nrgim
Neither of the 2 parties currently care about civil liberties. Patriot Act and then Covid proved that.

There is only one solution for that imbalance.
#9
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@n8nrgim
The only media paying huge settlements for lying is conservative media.

FOX NEWS
ALEX JONES PODCAST
STEVE BANNIN cheating donors
#10
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,057
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
lol, let's just pretend leftoid racebaiters didn't lose their lawsuit with Sandman...
#11
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,650
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Greyparrot

Jul 27, 2022-A federal judge has granted summary judgment to ABC, CBS, The New York Times, Gannett and Rolling Stone, rejecting libel claims by Nick Sandmann over an incident at the Lincoln Memorial that went viral in 2019.
#12
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,057
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@FLRW
Exactly, let's pretend they all didn't lose.
#13
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,088
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@TheUnderdog
Q. When is a Libertarian not an anarchist.

A. When a Libertarian says so.


Otherwise a person conforms to a social structure governed by a collective Law.



Of course, not all sub-societies function in the same way.
#14
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@FLRW
He’s an idiot. Everything he says is factually untrue 

Exactly, let's pretend they all didn't lose.
We don’t have to pretend because they didn’t lose their lawsuits 
#15
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,057
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
Reported.
#16
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
Loser
Topic's author
#17
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Coherent libertarians, that is the coherent principle of liberty is "do what ever you want so long as you don't reduce the choices others would have if it was impossible to interact with you"
You can't make the assumption, "if it was impossible to interact with you", because people interact with each other a lot.
#18
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,183
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@TheUnderdog
Coherent libertarians, that is the coherent principle of liberty is "do what ever you want so long as you don't reduce the choices others would have if it was impossible to interact with you"
You can't make the assumption, "if it was impossible to interact with you", because people interact with each other a lot.
They also murder each other a lot. It's not an assumption, it's a heuristic factor.

#19
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,713
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
The idea of liberty is usually divided on:

1. Freedom from (you cant be killed, you cant be robbed...)
Or 
2. Freedom to (right to free speech, right to vote...)

Thats how most countries make laws.

I think the idea of liberty doesnt have "golden rule".

There were some theories, such as greatest equal freedom. It says that everyone should have same amount of freedom, and that such freedom should be in greatest amount possible while not violating other's freedom.

But the idea that people can be free from influence of others or from impact of interaction with others is not realistic. Thats why I say there is no golden rule for liberty.
Topic's author
#20
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
They also murder each other a lot
Well virtually nobody is advocating for legalized murder, so what's your point?


Topic's author
#21
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Best.Korea
The idea of liberty is usually divided on:

1. Freedom from (you cant be killed, you cant be robbed...)
Or 
2. Freedom to (right to free speech, right to vote...)

Thats how most countries make laws.

I think the idea of liberty doesnt have "golden rule".

There were some theories, such as greatest equal freedom. It says that everyone should have same amount of freedom, and that such freedom should be in greatest amount possible while not violating other's freedom.

But the idea that people can be free from influence of others or from impact of interaction with others is not realistic. Thats why I say there is no golden rule for liberty.
Libetarians tend to have the greatest amount of, "Freedom to's" (freedom to get an abortion, to own AR 15s).  Statists tend to have the greatest amount of, "Freedom from's" (freedom from dying from abortion, to not be afraid of dying from AR 15s).

But if you don't believe in "Freedom to" or "Freedom from" unconditionally, then you need to state why you would make an exception.  An example of when libertarians don't agree with, "Freedom to" is, "Freedom to murder"; an example of when statists don't agree with, "Freedom from" is, "Freedom from the actions of a teacher promoting their worldview onto your kids.".

But everyone has X amount of, "Freedom to's" and Y amount of, "Freedom from's" (X and Y are natural numbers more than 0).

But when is it a good time to increase the value of X by 1 vs the value of Y by 1?

If there is no formula, then it's completely arbitrary, and arbitrary values are for independents only; not members of any political party (libertarians included).
#22
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,713
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
"Freedom from" and "freedom to" are rules. They are supposed to apply always.

But some moral systems reject such rules. For example, consequentialism says that its okay to violate freedom if it carries some greater benefit.

Utilitarianism would prefer increasing happiness over not violating freedom.

Pretty much any system that weighs harm and benefit would have to violate freedom at some point.

The only system which doesnt would be rules morality, which says that rules are to be followed even then when following them results in more harm.

For example, if lying is always wrong, you are not supposed to lie even when it might save your life.
#23
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,183
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@TheUnderdog

They also murder each other a lot
Well virtually nobody is advocating for legalized murder, so what's your point?
My point was that you weren't making a point. Criteria for determining which choices are rights are not assumptions.
Topic's author
#24
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Best.Korea
 For example, consequentialism says that its okay to violate freedom if it carries some greater benefit.
Consequentialism is statist; "freedom from", whether it be, "freedom from climate change", "freedom from religion", etc.


Utilitarianism would prefer increasing happiness over not violating freedom.
How can one be happy if you take away their freedom?  If someone has infinite freedom, they do whatever makes them the happiest.

But if morality is arbitrary to everyone, then what's the point of political parties?  How elections should be done is anyone with over .5% national support runs in one general election (if there are 20 people, fine).  On the top 5 issues to Americans, every candidate has to state their opinion as honestly and as detailed as they can.  The candidates then can also have 5 issues that they in particular care about that are not on the top 5 for the American public, and every candidate runs on 10 issues; the candidates rank their issues from most important to least important out of the 10, and then that's their personal platform.

Rank choice voting would be used and voters must give a reason that's accurate as to why they support someone; voting should be online.  An example of an inaccurate reason would ranking someone like RFK in a position because RFK supports vacciene mandates; he doesn't, so it's inaccurate.

Inaccurate votes would get shown by the website as inaccurate and the user would have as many opportunities as needed to made their vote accurate.

Only People that are able to pass a citizenship test that are living in the US for at least (2 years and a day) out of the last 4 years would be allowed to vote (unless working overseas for the US government, then they can vote too).
Topic's author
#25
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Criteria for determining which choices are rights are not assumptions.
The assumption you were making was that I would never interact with a person who would be unvaccinated or super rich.  It's definitely possible I interact with someone like that.
#26
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,713
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
How can one be happy if you take away their freedom?  If someone has infinite freedom, they do whatever makes them the happiest.
There are cases where individual's freedom is violated to achieve happiness for more people.
For example, plenty of civilians die in wars and its often thought of as justified despite being the most obvious violation of freedom.
#27
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,713
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
But if morality is arbitrary to everyone, then what's the point of political parties?  How elections should be done is anyone with over .5% national support runs in one general election (if there are 20 people, fine).  On the top 5 issues to Americans, every candidate has to state their opinion as honestly and as detailed as they can.  The candidates then can also have 5 issues that they in particular care about that are not on the top 5 for the American public, and every candidate runs on 10 issues; the candidates rank their issues from most important to least important out of the 10, and then that's their personal platform.
Political parties tend to ignore will of majority. Well, the system in USA doesnt elect according to majority in USA. If it did, Trump would never become president.
#28
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,183
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@TheUnderdog
Criteria for determining which choices are rights are not assumptions.
The assumption you were making
No assumption was made. Read again. A conditional is not an assumption.

#29
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,713
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
Consequentialism is statist; "freedom from", whether it be, "freedom from climate change", "freedom from religion", etc
Consequentialism would violate both types of freedom under circumstances where it brings some greater good.

Topic's author
#30
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Best.Korea
There are cases where individual's freedom is violated to achieve happiness for more people.
Other people?  Yes.  Their own personal happiness?  No.

Well, the system in USA doesnt elect according to majority in USA. If it did, Trump would never become president.
I support getting rid of the electoral college under the condition that the voting age gets raised to 21 so the republicans have some incentive to back the idea.\

Consequentialism would violate both types of freedom under circumstances where it brings some greater good.
That's the argument for statism; statism focuses on the greater good.