Ramblings of a Disgruntled Libertarian

Flame me all you want, you neo-libertarians but I am upset with how the libertarian ideology has been twisted to such a point that many think I am not a libertarian. They call me a socialist because I believe in my community and the average person above all else. Well I am disgruntled now.

I am a libertarian first and foremost. I believe in the individual. I believe the individual has rights that should not ever be infringed. If I had it my way there would only be one law and that law would be to do no harm to another person. No person, group of people or class of people should have the right to harm another person in any way shape or form.

I believe that if a group of people want to make a village and seal themselves off from the world, create their own rules, in which to live they should be allowed provided the one law is not broken--that they should harm another person.

I believe in the common person, that if given the opportunity, without restriction, license, education, or any other credential that people are more than capable of educating themselves and adding to the knowledge pool of society. Without the roadblocks to success, those without the financial means to bring themselves to success in our current society could do so on their own.

I believe in a god. That god has a personal relationship with everyone. God gave each person a gift for humanity, and due to our current system of promotions and corporations, very few are doing what their gift calls for. We have been tempted by wages, money, and objects--appealing to our social desires to fit in as measured from financial status.

I believe that taxes are necessary for any advanced society to some extent. However, I do not condone our current tax system. Income taxes are my main gripe. A person should only pay as much tax as they consume. Less consumption should equal less taxes. More consumption should equal more taxes. If my entire income goes to supporting myself to get to work and back, keep a roof over my head, and eat my income should not be taxed as I am no burden on anyone else. Volunteer time instead of taxing should be an option for any community.

I believe that doctors should only charge a person what they are able to pay for treatment, and that the community should fund the education of all doctors. That any service which life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness depends upon should be entirely free to the person pursuing that calling, and supported entirely by the community to ensure nobody thinks their occupation should be paid more, simply because they spent a lot of time and money getting the degree. The question to me, if the job paid nothing would the doctor still help people? If not, then that is a doctor I would not operating on me anyway. The same rules should apply to lawyers. They should get an entirely free training by the community and not charge any more than a person could afford.

All food production on the basic levels should also be ran by the community. Plants and vegetables should grow wild. Fruit trees should litter the landscape everywhere plausible. Along the highways there should be oranges and apple trees, and in the fields onions and potatoes. Business should only exist to improve these fruits and vegetables, but the people of the community should obtain the basics foods if they so desire at cost or free where necessary.

Business should be allowed to do whatever they want to do...however, the tenant of harm no person should be applicable to the business. All businesses should have no greater privileges or rights than any person and should be considered subservient to a person. That is where an individual and corporation clash, the individual is given the greater right of way.

So there you have it. They call me a socialist because I want food production on the basic levels to be community ran, that I want everyone to have medical care, and that I want the individual rights of a person to be given more weight than corporations. It is all in the rules and how society is structured anything can be accomplished if there is agreement. I want everyone to be as happy as they can, but when it comes to issues that effect life, liberty, and happiness I want those things to be ran not for any profit of any class or group of men, or any family.

reply to post by ExPostFacto


well said. star and flag.

who are these neo libertarians that you speak of though?

reply to post by ExPostFacto


While I disagree on a couple of points. Flagged and Starred.

There is much people can gain by reading your post in terms of understanding what a Libertarian is.

reply to post by ExPostFacto


I think the best quote I have come across in awhile is as followed:

“Once you label me, you negate me” - Soren Kierkegaard

You are self labelling yourself a libertarian...that is a disservice to any complexity you may hold.
You can want us to stop war, cut taxes, have healthcare universal with a public option, be pro-gun rights, be anti-abortion, pro university, etc. its the politicians, pundants, and twithead followers of a meme that demands you have only a pre-defined set of ideals...just be yourself and never apologise for having a view on something, and doubly so for changing your view with education and experience.

reply to post by SaturnFX


Good point, I only label myself for simplicities sake. I would much rather not label myself, but then it is hard to communicate my position effectively without going into detail on everything.

reply to post by ziggystrange


What points do you disagree with if you do not mind me asking. I in no way claim to have it all figured out. You might have some point I could consider. Please do tell me.

Finally somebody realises libertarian does not necessarily mean capitalist, and that individuals rights need protecting from corporations as well as out of control governments. Tying yourself to a single - ism is a necessary evil as to write out your views on everything would take forever and is not practical in a normal conversation.
The closest ideology to my own standing is anarchocommunism which combines socialist and libraterian aspects.

reply to post by ExPostFacto


Thanks for the OP and the response.

Some of this will be like splitting hairs. A lot will be rambling,
There were points like the one about people isolating themselves and living away from others.
I agree with the spirit of it, but causing harm to another has to be defined. There are some details missing.

I spent about 15 years with a group of friends that were if not all, at least most libertarians.
I know at least these people very well and love every one of them. Most became Libertarians after becoming comfortable. They are good, responsible, self sustaining citizens that work for a living and enjoy the fruits of their labors. They are not bigots, or racists.

I don't want to impose on others any more than I want to be imposed on. But I have seen helpless people needlessly suffer and die because nobody cared. I can't accept that. I'm an individual but I am a part of a large group of individuals, and I don't expect to have all my desires fulfilled because that would deny the opportunity of others to have some of their desires fulfilled, and vice versa.

We recently had a disaster in our community. We were hit by a couple of tornados that pretty much traumatized everyone.The reaction was like a movie script. Most people just started to clean up debris and move fallen trees and branches. 2 Police men with chainsaws were assigned to cut the big stuff and move it to the sides of the road, it took days.
People helped the police and each other, we got it done. I have 4 sons, the 5 of us did our property,
then the neigbors, etc.. We have a few wealthy people on our block. Not one of them did anything but take care of their own.
They hired day laborers at Home depot, cleared their driveways, and waited for the street to be cleared by me, the police, and the others. How do we fix this? I don't begrudge them having the resources to hire the illegals to do the heavy lifting, but they had no right to use the road without helping because they could have, and should have.
Someone could say "Ziggy you all did it voluntarily righ?" I did, but it was not an option to not do it. I felt it was my social responsibility.
I could have stopped at my property but I felt that having 5 able bodied men sit around having lemonade while the old lady next door stood in shock looking at the 80 feet of tree trunks and branches covering her front porch needed help.Her son is a Veteran with a bad knee. He directed traffic, I carried his branches.

The wealthy guys down the street took unfair advantage of the street we all cleared.
We have a house on one corner owned by organized crime. They also got a free pass.

I would agree with all your points if they were gone into in more detail. Tolerance of differences would have to be paramount.
How then do we decide who can go where and do what, under what circumstances.
Would communities have all their own laws?

Example:

Brunette California has an ordinance that stipulates any black haired person out after dusk unescorted by a Brunette is subject to search and seizure.
I have a problem with that. So now I'm pulling away from the Libertarian ideal. Your version says one law "No Harm" does that mean they can make all the ordinaces they like as long as none of "them" is harmed? or Nobody is harmed? If we have only one law it has to be framed to emcompass every individual circumstance.

If I can count on people to be rational, I can release more of my dependence on laws. Fewer laws, less enforcement, less enforcers, smaller GOV. More rational people, less laws required.

I like the "one law" do no harm. It's beautiful, but like the Constitution is only a framework.

I think we all agree government is prone to corruption. Many believe having many governments in the US would be a good thing. I don't believe that.
I believe States would degenerate into factions, and we would all go to hell in a basket.

So here is where we may disagree, maybe not.

Assistance should be provided to individuals in hardship situations. Everyone should have the opportunity to be educated, and everyone that can work must work.
If you legitimately can't work we have to take care of you. If your business is part of "the infrastructure" then your business can't refuse to do work, or provide services to anyone based on the personal prejudice of the owner.

If your business is not part of the infrastructure. Say you are a blacksmith in bumfreak with no road access to your community, no taxes, no draw on the rest, you have declared yourself "apart" in word and deed.
then you can refuse if it does not cause harm to the individual seeking your services. Why? Because at a minimum the other individual is a human being and is a part of your larger community that affords you the ability to set yourself "apart" from the rest.

Liberty and oppresion are at opposite ends of the scale but they overlap in practice. Tyrants, and Oppressors have absolute liberty to do as they please.
Do we want millions, thousands of them, or none of them? The only way we can have none is to put in place laws that apply to all. Thus my connundrum.

This pursuit of Liberty must not be burdened by Foreign interests, Gov corruption, Corporate crime, criminals, bigotry, or racism. In other words Equality.

Libertarian Socialist Capitalist Equality. We are already Socialists, and Capitalists. Let's add Liberty, and Equality.

There lie the real challengess.

Education should be available to all. Equal opportunity has to be available to all. Justice should be available to all.
Charity should be practiced by all.
In an ideal Libertarian world the only enticement to being non productive would be to want to become a sociopath.

Libertarian principles can only be realized if there is a level plane to start with and we don't have that.
The path to what you rightfully seek in my mind lies in a form of American Socialism that is based on our particular circumstances as a nation,

Capitalism has to become non destructive, any monopoly of a resource or service enslaves everyone to the whims of that entity.
If we want to be a Nation, as opposed to a group of associated States then we have to agree on some common rules or we are destined to become feudal states.
terms of bigotry and racism. You can feel any way you want, believe what you want, as long as it does no harm to those you are racist, and or prejudiced against.

Some will be richer than others but it will be a much more equitable exchange of values for everyone if we have Liberty.

This is how I feel. Like you say, let them flame away, I don't care. I'm tired of all the partisan BS, hate, fear propaganda.

Peace out - Ziggy

reply to post by ExPostFacto


Wery well put. Those people calling you socialist are not libertarians, but anarchists (anarcho-capitalists), which is an extreme form of libertarianism, just as communism is extreme form of collectivist left-wing ideologies, but that doesnst mean that every social democrat must be a communist or socialist.

Moderate libertarianism stems from classical liberalism, which is not against the state, if its not overgrown.

Government, as explained by Adam Smith, had only three functions: protection against foreign invaders, protection of citizens from wrongs committed against them by other citizens, and building and maintaining public institutions and public works that the private sector could not profitably provide. Classical liberals extended protection of the country to protection of overseas markets through armed intervention. Protection of individuals against wrongs normally meant protection of private property and enforcement of contracts and the suppression of trade unions and the Chartist movement. Public works included a stable currency, standard weights and measures, and support of roads, canals, harbors, railways, and postal and other communications services.[15]

And, as you have said, active protection of persons right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, basic tenet of liberalism, could be logically extended to situations when the source of danger is the environment (but exposition to this danger is still unvoluntary), not just other persons. That way liberalism actually implies some form of social safety net, altrough its no longer pure classical liberalism (libertarianism).

reply to post by ExPostFacto

I believe that taxes are necessary for any advanced society to some extent. However, I do not condone our current tax system.

You got that backwards.

An advanced society would have no legally enshrined coercive system of theft.

Have you ever seen an IRS agent on Star Trek?

Advanced societies rely on peaceful cooperation to develop and grow.

Taxes are a throw back to the stone age, where groups of strong armed thugs would profit by taking the wealth produced by the weak.

Any real libertarian must necessarily be an anarchist. For one can not love liberty and the State at the same time. The two are incompatible.

reply to post by mnemeth1

Have you ever seen an IRS agent on Star Trek?

No, also I have never seen money, capitalism, and everyone had his needs provided for by the society regardless of if he worked or not (welfare). So society of Star Trek is certainly not anarchocapitalism, its some kind of communism or RBE. And it is also fictional, and wont work with real humans IMHO, at least till we develop unlimited energy, matter replicators, humanlike AIs and things like that.

memory-alpha.org...

reply to post by mnemeth1


mnemeth.

we as a civilization are not there yet...its good to consider the star trek socialism ideal...however, keep in mind, they have food replicators, they have matter replication systems, all resources they could ever need is simply there for anyone to grab in any quantity they could ever dream of without spending a single penny.

money in star trek is not even considered necessary..almost like some amusing hobby to collect credits and buy absurd luxery items..like some sort of ancient tradition that is held over and passed down.

The key is overall, the resources of the planet has to be absolutely plentiful for all individuals, be it cheeseburgers or houses for free. I can fully understand your viewpoint if we still have a tax system and all the libery killing rules we deal with in a star trek style future economy...then yes, it is worthless and redundant...but in todays society...in our primitive society..we need it still to pave roads, keep phone lines going, keep nations from invading us for our resources by having a strong standing military, etc...I have hopes we get there one day, but until that day..we gotta deal with the hand given and work for the utopian resource abundant fair socialist future economy.

also, for all the reasons why I mentioned, its why a pure socialism won't work either incidently...neither side of the coin is plausable

I’m with you on this one OP. Call me whatever you want: anarchocapitalist, anarcholibertarian, whatever. But I believe that government, specifically state and federal, should be rarely seen or heard.

Ideally, I would prefer a society much like the American frontier of the 1900s. The federal government might occasionally send a marshal to town to catch a train robber and you might have some contact with the local U.S. Cavalry fort – but that’s about it. You might live the whole of your life and have little or no contact whatsoever with the federal government. The feds would not be raiding your chicken coop looking for safety violations or registering your Colt .45 or inspecting your wagon wheels, etc., etc.

But that’s not the way some of the neo-libertarians think. I understand whom you are complaining about because I’ve encountered the same kind of quasi-libertarian. Those that, ostensibly, are for libertarianism but pull back on extreme issues such as repealing drug laws or eliminating the DHS or EPA.

The difference is that they are more concerned with gently pruning the government instead of taking an axe to it. To be fair, this is more practical and far easier to achieve given the current reality, eg. you are not going to be able to eliminate Social Security without a major social upheaval that could be disastrous. But that also illustrates the problem: once you allow a branch to establish itself, it eventually becomes almost impossible to eliminate. Some neo-libertarians either don’t get that or just aren’t really willing to commit fully.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Have you ever seen an IRS agent on Star Trek?

No, also I have never seen money, capitalism, and everyone had his needs provided for by the society regardless of if he worked or not (welfare). So society of Star Trek is certainly not anarchocapitalism, its some kind of communism or RBE. And it is also fictional, and wont work with real humans IMHO, at least till we develop unlimited energy, matter replicators, humanlike AIs and things like that.

memory-alpha.org...

In Star Trek, they also have the ability to create nearly anything in limitless quantities.

Food replicators, robots creating robots, automated production of everything, etc.. etc.. etc..

Because there is no scarcity, no prices need to be charged.

In a perfect world, the price and profit system is unnecessary because there is no scarcity of resources. Thus, no one has to be violently looted in order for the strong armed thugs to make a living at the expense of others.

I suppose you could call it communism, but it is important to note that it is communism in a world without scarcity. If goods were scarce, violence would be necessary to take resources from the productive population in order to redistribute them to the unproductive.

In a world without scarcity, the slovenly and slothful do not need to burden themselves with the task of looting others.

reply to post by ExPostFacto


You are not a libertarian. You are a National socialist w/o the communist, globalist twist.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Do you think that scarcity is perpetuated by the government, in our current society? Think of all the farming that would be occurring if food was not necessarily for profit. Think about if there was no zoning, no regulation, no government mandates. What if the government was there to simply ensure an abundant food supply. Would you pay your fair share to get that food for free? Would you assist your fellow townsman to go pick the food at harvest? If you had abundant food supply would you work as hard, commuting to and from work daily? Wouldn't employers need to offer you less money to work for them?

Think about it this way: If all the basic necessities of life were provided for or cost so little as to afford them, then the pay we need to survive would be irrelevant. The pay an employer could pay would be whatever the job was worth, no minimum wages, if they want to pay 50 cents an hour they would be free to do that.

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Do you think that scarcity is perpetuated by the government, in our current society?

No, scarcity exists because our world has physical properties that make it so.

However, the government certainly exacerbates the problem of scarcity by creating hordes of non-productive people. Since people on the government payroll aren't actually producing anything, they drain society of resources while contributing nothing of value in return.

Think of all the farming that would be occurring if food was not necessarily for profit.

There wouldn't be any food. Tens of millions died from starvation in the Ukraine and China during the collectivization of agriculture. Removal of the profit motive caused the farms to drastically reduce output, leading to millions dead.

And on and on and so forth.

In fact more people have been killed by government take over of food supplies than by war.

Africa is also a great example of this.

The blacks kicked out the white farmers and instituted a quasi-communist system of agriculture. The farm land was given out based on politics rather than profit and property rights. The result lead to a large decrease in food output, which in turn lead to increased starvation.

Africa has some of the most fertile farm land on the planet and should be more than capable of providing for itself. But because the citizens of the continent for the most part lack property rights, the result is starvation and poverty.

reply to post by ExPostFacto

If all the basic necessities of life were provided for or cost so little as to afford them, then the pay we need to survive would be irrelevant. The pay an employer could pay would be whatever the job was worth, no minimum wages, if they want to pay 50 cents an hour they would be free to do that.

That is the thinking behind various basic income systems. Minimum wage regulation would not be needed, and people would be able to to sell their labor for prices and quantities they MUTUALLY agree on, since they would have an alternative to working like slaves for very low wages set only by employer or dying (which is not a choice at all) - if the employer offers them very low wage, its better for them to not work and just stay only on BI - this effectivelly works like "minimal wage", except people themselves decide the minimal cost of their work, not some clerk.

reply to post by mnemeth1


ExPostFacto, I am curious to know where you went to school and how you were educated.

The tens of millions killed by Stalin and Mao by their collectivization of agriculture should be covered extensively by any sane history teacher.

If you were unaware that more people have been killed by government takeovers of food supplies than by war, it makes me question the state of our educational system these days.

If I were you, I would feel robbed of my education.

It would be nice if groups of people and families could go off and build their own villages and live as they choose, but human nature being as it is, it would only be a matter of time before feuds or all out war sprang up between them.