Originally Posted by Skerlnik

Americans have never even come close to experiencing an "oppressive government".

I have no idea where this fear comes from.

Originally Posted by Technocratic_Utilitarian

The hyperfocus on a very narrow range of abstract ideals, regardless of their social consequences, is one of the worst pitfalls of Libertarian ethics. They have one set of values and it trumps all other ethical values. It has no concept of weighing consequences outside of "freedom" and "rights." It's largely deontological.

For example, the core concepts in Libertarian ethics are Freedom and Rights. Rights are protections of people's welfare interests in negative freedom (not having something done to you). They do not support the idea of positive rights, nor do they recognize the validity of moral duty or collective utility.

Therefore, In Libertarian ethics, it would be perfectly justifiable to let a small baby drown in a shallow pool of water by walking past, continuing on your way, if you simply didn't feel like helping it. You would have done nothing wrong according to that ethical paradigm. This is due to the lack of concern for the welfare of others outside the aforementioned narrow context of rights. You have the "freedom" ethically to be a dildo, even if it leads to the deaths of others. Libertarian ethics itself doesn't recognize duties outside of the duty to observe negative freedoms in rights.

The Baby has no "right" to your time, your money, your energy, or your care. No moral imperative exists because you are not violating a right. Libertarianism can be summed up as "It's not my problem, not my fault, I got mine, so so long as I didn't cause the problem, oh well."

And that is one reason why Libertarianism is seriously flawed, no matter how good and warm and fuzzy their screeching about freedom and rights is.

Originally Posted by Technocratic_Utilitarian

It's a bit complex. Libertarianism has an ethical component that's essentially Deontology. It's duty based in regards to some system of rights. Libertarian philosophy is also political, but their ethical paradigm influences their political positions.

Utilitarianism is both an ethical theory (primarily) and secondly political theory. But Utilitarian ethics has different core values than the Deontological ethics that make up Libertarianism, although some people defend Libertarianism on Utilitarian grounds. Utilitarianism was instrumental in both the development of Liberal (as in libertarian) politics as well as Socialism.

People who are just economic libertarians are just being inconsistent due to political convenience. Libertarian ethics wouldn't support modern Conservative social policy.

I don't have a problem with components of rights-base philosophy. I just have a problem with their one-track minds and attempt to build a society exclusively on their narrow set of principles. A balanced ethics that tries to reach reflective equilibrium is what's necessary, not a society based on the values of a single ethical system.

That behaviour above would be that of a sociopath, but sadly, it's not actually violating anyone's right to anything. It's a flaw of hard-core Libertarianism. Libertarian deontological ethics I don't think is entirely wrong. I think it's an incomplete picture. I also think these flaws, especially the more extreme the adherence is to the philosophy, the easier it is for people who are already powerful, wealthy to manipulate the system to their advantage. This is really one reason why the mass movements toward deregulation and non-interference is so well received by big businesses. They stand to benefit from a "free market" system where they don't need to worry about worker protections, consumer protections, anti-monopoly laws, or environmental laws. They can do whatever they want within a very broad range of actions that are incredibly harmful and cruel, yet aren't actually violating anyone's rights.

It is not the case that ALL Libertarians are rich and powerful, but it is the case that it's highly popular and promoted by those who are and stand to benefit from the free for all it creates. Do you think, for example, John D. Rockefeller wanted regulations? You know what he said? Competition is sin. If he were allowed, he, and others like him, wouldn't hesitate to gobble up competition and jack up prices, establish barriers to entry, and generally screw you over in the absence of regulation.

Let's look at China. Ironically, a lot of China's problems today are the result of such VAST and quick liberalization of the economy. It's counterintuitive, but China, in some areas, always had fewer or poorly enforced regulations than the United States (even when China was Communist). This creates problems for workers, consumer safety, and the ecosystem, because businesses don't give a crap as long as they meet the bottom line. If there's no adult to reign in the kids on the playground, they will do bad things. The lack of regulations gives them the ability to make more money at the expense of others, while using the idea of "rights" and "freedom" to disguise what they are doing.

A Libertarian system would not worker compensation laws, it wouldn't have environmental regulations, it wouldn't have consumer safety laws, unions could be de facto outlawed as businesses would be fully allowed to exercize "free association" and fire union employees, just as they did in the 19th century, the last time libertarianism was applied, it wouldn't have anti-monopoly laws, it wouldn't have min wage laws, it wouldn't have welfare, social programmes, or public spending on scientific research. There would bee no FDA, there would be no peace corps. ALl you would have is Military, Law, and Administration. It would be the law of the jungle. Consumer beware.

Government would be so small, they could drown it in a bathtub, and hence, it would be so small as to be useless to do anything on any large scale if needed. Kinda like the original government was, which is why indeed it was abandoned. It didn't work for what people actually wanted. The Libertarian platform would regress society back to the 18th-19th century.

Originally Posted by Technocratic_Utilitarian

1. I don't think most of you are big businessmen. I believe that it's very palatable to the wealthy and big businessmen. Average Joe isn't rich. I am sure you're not a millionaire.

2. Some probably do support the aforementioned laws, but I don't see how it's consistent with the Libertarian ethical rhetoric I hear about taxation and social programmes equating to legalized slavery. Making something Constitutional wouldn't be relevant to what is permissible in a Libertarian ethic. I think there is a problem in how incomplete it is and the fact that you need to abandon when you shift arbitrarily from public to interpersonal interaction. You can't scale it down. At least with Utilitarianism, you don't need to abandon the principles on a personal level. If you need to hold an entirely different standard of conduct on the interpersonal level, why not just use that one in the first place?

How does, say, a law mandating workplace safety conditions fit in a Libertarian scheme? Many libertarians have told me that such laws are violations of worker/employer freedom of association and "totalitarian" because they force standards on the employer. The employee could always "go elsewhere." They would say "let the market decide." If the worker wants to work badly enough, he will accept a job without the conditions or he will gain large enough numbers to act as a bloc.

The employer's not violating a right, because he's not making him work there. He "chooses" to work there, according to Libertarian ethics. The government would actually be violating his "right" to employ whom he wishes under conditions he wishes.

Why would it be any less a violation of rights if it were made into a law or constitutional amendment?

Unless EVERYONE agrees to fund said legislation, your Constitutional law would still be mandating "theft" from the population to make and enforce said law they personally don't agree with, even though you may.

Are you going to enslave people and force them to support human working conditions? There's nothing in Libertarian ethics which indicates it's wrong to use sweatshop labour. Freedom of association, after all!

Originally Posted by xjoe3x

Just pick up a history book or other countries.

Originally Posted by Skerlnik

"Whatever you want to do is fine, as long as I don't think it affects or hinders me" is a philosophical recipe for chaos.