You'll have to do better than this unsupported screed to prove that society is more than a convenient description. That's all it is. Society has no rights. Only individuals have rights. This is not a libertarian issue, it is a matter of fact.

by Rick Fisk (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 29 comments) on Wednesday, Nov 19, 2008 at 8:14:16 AM

  (0+)

Libertarians believe in free enterprise competitive capitalism, which cannot possibly exist.  There will always be a minority of sociopaths with smarts who will seek every advantage and then use it to oppress everyone else.  Only various socialism(s) can take the rackets away from the crooks.

by John Hanks (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1760 comments [39 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Nov 19, 2008 at 12:19:28 PM

  (0+)

Free enterprise "can't exist". Nonsense. All freedoms, without exception, have the potential to be "abused".  To the liberal, government's job is to eliminate all consequences deemed to be "evil" and if this requires the elimination of fundamental human rights, so be it.

 In all human interactions, the liberal seeks to control, via the use of force such that there is an acceptable outcome. But what the liberal doesn't realize is that by necessity the good outcomes are also being mitigated.

 The job of the government is never legitimate if it seeks to accomplish anything other than protecting the rights of the individual. 

 I am a libertarian not because I want to harm others or want to gain "advantage". I am a libertarian because I refuse to accept that the government has any more power than I have as an individual. If I do not have a particular right to impose my will on others, then I can not legitimately ask the government to excercise such power on my behalf. That is a fraud.

 You cannot give the government any power that you as an individual don't first possess.

by Rick Fisk (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 29 comments) on Wednesday, Nov 19, 2008 at 1:06:48 PM

  (0+)

"To the liberal, government's job is to eliminate all consequences deemed to be "evil" and if this requires the elimination of fundamental human rights, so be it."

Gibberish. As a die hard Washingtonian Liberal ("My fervent wish is that we have established a LIBERAL nation", George Washington), I can say without reservation you have no idea what ALL Liberals think.

Or, are you another boring  Libertarian with a crystal ball?

I have challenged the "geniuses" in the Libertarian camp to debate me ANYTIME about why they are incorrect to oppose universal health care, but to no avail, in fact they try their best to ignore me.

For instance, explain to me why putting universal health care up to open bid, like the Pentagon does with their excessive weapons procurements, is any less "feee market" than DOD's policy?

Why can't all the insurance corporations submit a BID to provide coverage for us all? In point of fact, it is common industry knowledge that the larger the pool of insured, the lower the overall cost per person. In other words, using the lessons learned in capitalism to everyone's benefit, yet "Libertarians" oppose it vigorously ( I suspect because "Libertarians" are closet Republican fascists, better described as corporatists, but I digress).

How would I pay for it?

By closing all the foreign US military bases flung across the globe, and reduce the military to a defense only stance INSIDE our borders, and USE them in PEACETIME to repair infrustructure INSIDE our borders, not in Iraq. Doing something CONSTRUCTIVE for once in my 53 years alive.  I'm quite sure the $1 Trillion we spend a year on "defense" spending will cover the bill nicely.

If not, we'll lop the CIA budget down to three guys sitting in a glass bubble passing Top Secret info to each other,okay? At least they won't be harming anyone that way.

Libertarians want to put their fingers in their ears and sing "LaLaLa, I can't hear you" when asked that question about universal health insurance....I wonder why they oppose capitalism? Or its benefits for everyone but the ultra wealthy?

And, don't even get me started about how Libertarians want to cut "taxes" without explaining where the funding will come from to do so? Yes, let's cut taxes while our Debt explodes, GREAT idea. Maybe if I take it in baby steps so you Libertarians can follow along: "Taxes" are the government's income. Government programs, take "money" to fund.  Now, concentrate: Taxes are that money.

I know I know, a big strain on the Libertarian brain, but give it a try.

Now, the Libertarians are correct on one subject: Legalizing drugs. They were legal when my grannie was a young adult, and my folks infants, and there was no 'scourge" of rampant drug use then, so why do we have prisons full of non-violent drug users sucking up billions of needed government funding? To take away free choice, and control the masses with jackboot law enforcement tactics. Sooo, On THAT, I agree with Libertarians, and so do many, if not most Liberals.

Regarding the statement that Liberals "want to eliminate all the consequences deemed to be "evil", that is nonsense. In fact, if you wish to abuse the freedoms given in our economic society, I encourage you. If you wish to abuse the Rights of being sovereign, go ahead.

As a Liberal,I also would encourage regulators and law enforcement to fine or imprison your silly behind if you do it in a way that infringes on anyone else's freedom. THAT'S what Liberals believe, fyi.

But, I wouldn't "take away your freedom" to commit crimes. By all means, do so, so we can get you away from freedom and peace loving  Liberals.

Nor would I try to stop you "Libertarians" from standing outside elementary schools and hand out play guns, as you have done in the past.

Why wouldn't I oppose that? Because I AM a Liberal, meaning you have the Liberty to be as big an ass as you please.

Because you have the freeedom to be as silly and asinine as you please, and I'll let John Lennon answer too:"But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow." So, go stand out there and pass out play guns to kindergardners, 'kay? No one will stop ya, we all enjoy a good laugh. Just don't get too close, eh?

No one wants to "take away your guns", either. You confuse what most Liberals stand for with fringe  elements. Personally, I think everyone ought to own many guns. Because I am a Liberal that understand why our Liberal forefathers, like T.J. and G.W. made sure we could.

Now, go back and study your elementary school lesson about how foolish you look when you GENERALIZE, or else subject yourself to more ridicule from those you falsely malign with your gibberish.

Have a nice, Liberal day. Liberals gave you that Right.

by David Hastings (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 116 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Nov 19, 2008 at 5:04:51 PM

  (0+)

John Hanks writes: "There will always be a minority of sociopaths with smarts who will seek every advantage and then use it to oppress everyone else."

That is precisely why libertarians and anarchists want the government to have little or no power to control people's lives or take their property.

by Rocky Eades (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Wednesday, Nov 19, 2008 at 2:08:58 PM

  (0+)

Libertarians do not seek to restrain the government so that they can hurt people. They seek to restrain the government because generally the types of people who do want to harm people gravitate toward positions of "legitimate" power so they can engage in oppressive acts without repercussion. Liberals apparently want to speed up the process by which tyrants are able to gain power.

by Rick Fisk (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 29 comments) on Wednesday, Nov 19, 2008 at 2:31:27 PM

  (0+)

What sets fundamental libertarians apart from all other political ideologies is that libertarians understand that the state is an organized crime syndicate. Crime, fraud and lies are the roots of the income tax and the federal reserve. NO other political ideology understands these methods of transferring wealth from "the people" to the state (and it's elitist cronies). THIS is the most important postulate of government. ANY political ideology that doesn't "get it" renders themselves irrelavent. Hence, libertarianism is the best (not the optimum) there is, with all its faults. i.e. what good is a political ideology if it supports a government that kills and steals???????

by Mark Watterson (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 207 comments [133 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Nov 19, 2008 at 1:48:33 PM

  (0+)

I confess that I feel some ironic satisfaction when my critics attack ideas that I never put forward. ("The straw-man fallacy"). This tempts me to believe that my authentic ideas are unassailable. True, "society," per se, has no rights, except as a surrogate for the rights of individuals. Judges have rights (better "privileges") to rule on objections and to invoke sentences, but these are rights and privileges of the office, not of the individual who holds the office. And that office is bestowed upon individual judges by the collective ("social") entity called "government." Libertarians, by the way, acknowledge and sanction the existence of courts, as instruments designed to protect the life, liberty and property of individuals. Ergo, libertarians acknowledge the existence of a collective entity (the courts and the rule of law which are "social institutions") with properties that are absent from its consitutent parts, just as the properties of table salt are distinct from those of its constitutent elements. I wouldn't want to sprinkle elemental sodium and chlorine on my popcorn. Second: I didn't say that "free enterprise can't exist." But like any organized competitive activity, it can't exist without rules and referees to enforce those rules, any more than a football game can be played without rules and referees. Third: "All freedoms, without exception, have the potential to be abused." Of couse, that's simply a truism. And now we are facing the consequences of the abuse of the "freedom" of unregulated capitalism. I say "capitalism" rather than "free enterprise," since, as I noted in the essay, capitalists detest "free enterprise" and competition, and strenuously avoid them through deregulation and through control ("purchase") of government. Fourth: "To the liberal, government's job is to eliminate all consequences deemed to be 'evil.'" Nonsense! Liberals attempt to mitigate evils, but are well aware that evil can not be "eliminated." As for the "elimination of fundamental human rights," read the liberal document, the Declartion of Independence: "to secure these rights, governmentare are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the government." And read again the functions of government enumerated in the Preamble to the Constintution of the U.S., which include "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." Sounds like the liberal program to me. Fifth: "The state is an organized crime syndicate." More nonsense! Some states are, and some states are not. Among the latter are the state agencies that saved my home from "The Old Fire" in 2003, and FEMA which came to the rescue of the victims of Hurricane Andrew during the Clinton Administration, and would have come to the aid of the victims of Katrina, if Bush had not effectively dismanteld it. Much more to say, but I've about shot my bold. For more, read my book, "Conscience of a Progressive." www.igc.org/gadfly/progressive/^toc.htm .

by Ernest Partridge (106 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments) on Wednesday, Nov 19, 2008 at 2:42:24 PM

  (0+)

As put forth in my original comment, understanding is a necessary prerequisite to adopting sound political ideology. Only the libertarians have demonstrated required knowledge for proper government (see Albert Jay Nock's "Our Enemy, the State" and many other writings of the early Libertarians, or don't just quote Frank Chodorov, read him). I'm sure your book is a good read for the naive.

by Mark Watterson (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 207 comments [133 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Nov 19, 2008 at 3:31:56 PM

  (0+)

Capitalism is a failure. "Liberal Democracy" which isn't Democracy at all but a Republic is also a failure. The solution is Direct Democracy with a real system of checks and balances along with a socialist economic system which is basically economic democracy.

by Ty (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 888 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Nov 19, 2008 at 3:42:36 PM

  (0+)

IS Direct Democracy at work...  this is why we do not have a "direct democracy" in the United States.

by steve scheetz (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 829 comments [52 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Nov 19, 2008 at 9:46:01 PM

  (0+)

Thanks for the well-reasoned article and the discussion it sparked.

It says a lot about those who reacted to see who responds with heat and who with light.

by Richmond Shreve (30 articles, 70 quicklinks, 17 diaries, 156 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Nov 19, 2008 at 4:29:25 PM

  (0+)

Libertarianism is fundamentalist belief in a non-existent perfect God called 'The market'. Once you start thinking of it that way and comparing to how other religious fundamentalists require and observe dogmatic adherence to laws that are ridiculous on their face and often cruel and inhuman, then Libertarianism is easier to understand.

The Libertarian bible has one page with two laws.

1. The market is never wrong

2. If the market is wrong, see rule #1.

by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 20, 2008 at 12:46:34 AM

  (0+)

I agree will/would not work.    Any political system based on some "absolute" ideaology would soon break down.    As someone posted above, libertarianism might be the closest thing to the best system, though certainly not perfect.

I myself lean toward libertarian thought, but realize a world without regulation is possible only if I'm the only one in it.   Controls are required.

The problem I have with todays "liberals" (different from yesteryears) is that they don't understand policy creep.     Ideaology vs reality.

Social Security for instance, starts as a program most believed was for retirement for those that paid into it.    This soon morphed into disability fund, a widow with children fund, an illegal immigrant with needs fund, and so on.     To add to this SS thing, (Gharducci) liberals want to now assess a 5% tax on earnings, which workers are "obliged" to pay into, at a government guaranteed 3% interest rate, backed by government bonds.  Does anyone believe that this will not turn into a second social security ponzi scheme?    Another community slush fund?

Can an individual opt out by agreeing to put that 5% into a fund of his/her own?   Of course not.    That would be against the "good of society" angle.

To back up this type of government prescribed system requires "force".    Anything that requires force should be suspect on it's face.    Thus with libertarians and liberals, the "twain shall never meet".

by sommers (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 174 comments [38 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 20, 2008 at 8:26:21 AM

  (0+)

...from being a Libertarian. If you can accept that Libertarians are not anarchists, and that Libertarians believe in MINIMAL government, NOT NO government, then you will be a Libertarian.

The real difference between Liberals and Libertarians is where they place their priorities. Liberals more often put the good of Society above the rights of Individuals. Whereas, Libertarians more often believe that Individual rights trump the "good of society." But NOT always. 

No rational Libertarian believes that individual rights and freedoms are absolute, only anarchist believe this.  As demonstrated by your Commons analogy, individual good can conflict with the good of other individuals within a society in situations where property, resources, or threats are indivisably held in common. This is where rational Libertarians believe is a legitimate place for government to exercise its power to limit individual freedoms. 

But this a far cry from giving government the power to "redistribute" wealth by stealing individual property in the name of the "common good." 

by roy lutz (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 79 comments [6 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 20, 2008 at 9:16:15 AM

  (0+)

Interestingly, physical scientists find that many approaches: “atomist”, reductionist, and “emergent phenomena”, statistical, information theory, etc, work to describe, explain, and predict the behavior and properties of physical systems.  Limiting a political philosophy discussion to distinctions between definitions of individuals and society and reasoning by analogy to the atomist and emergent phenomena approaches used in the physical sciences seems pseudoscientific at best to me.

From my experience reading articles and comments on Opednews, critical of Libertarianism, no matter what the details of the argument, what comes though loud and clear is that critics simply do not like the assumptions made by Libertarians as they attempt to establish their political philosophy on a logical basis with clear axioms and definitions.  So, they try to discredit the assumptions by any means, no matter how sloppy the reasoning, including accusing Libertarians of being “selfish”.

Thankfully, the author does not do that.  Rather, the author tries to discredit the Libertarian assumptions by arguing they are not capable of admitting the existence of “emergent phenomena” such as the “independent existence" of "the public" and "society".  Then by a transitive property the author extends this incapacity to a denial of the validity of concepts, such as “public goods”, “public interest”, “social harm”, “social injustice”, law, courts, etc.

The author then draws a analogy concerning emergent entities, basically: society and the public are to individuals as: chemical compounds, languages, and living organisms are to elements, words, and cells, the emergent entities having qualities distinct from their components.

I really fail to see that the author has made any valid point or argument at all.  I’ve never heard a Libertarian claim that predicating their arguments on individual rights denies the existence of a group of people referred to as the public or a concept such as society.  From what I can tell Libertarians are perfectly amenable to the idea that the public can interact and produce complex group behaviors that cannot be discerned in advance from individual behavior.  Individuals are far too complex for that.

As to the idea that Libertarians deny the independent existence of the public and society, that argument seems positively silly.  The author and Libertarians simply define the terms differently.  When Libertarians say “the public” and “society” they are defining both to mean a set of individuals, not that a set of individuals cannot behave in ways that individuals cannot or would not.

I hear Libertarians objecting to the tendency of politicians to equate their own will with the collective will of “the public” and “society” and by extension with the actual will of the individuals in society, as if politicians can actually be trusted to divine such things, and as if individual wills can somehow be lumped together and averaged, like an average family consisting of 3.7 people.

When the author uses the terms, the public and society, he is defining the public and society as something independent from the set of individuals.  Whatever the author claims is different about his definition of the public and society in terms of emergent phenomena, the Libertarian would prefer to try to deduce from the set of individuals and assumptions about individual rights.

These two truly different approaches both have advantages and disadvantages. If the number of individual components is large, the system is complex, and it is very difficult to predict emergent phenomena, so the Libertarian approach is better suited to analysis of smaller systems, and Libertarians would do well to revert to direct observation of emergent phenomena in larger systems.

The author’s approach is more like that of a historian, who acknowledges that individuals can play key roles in complex systems, but prefers to reason from a base of knowledge that compares observations of emergent phenomena in many different complex systems.  This approach may actually do a better job of predicting emergent phenomena in some situations, but it can also lead to conclusions that say “the public” or “society” should sometimes overlook the essential dignity and rights of individuals for “the good of the many”.

In reality, an individual in society is not analogous to a cell in a body or a termite in a termite colony.  And, I hope society does not evolve further in that direction. 

by Paul Rye (7 articles, 2 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 500 comments [44 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 21, 2008 at 12:53:37 AM

  (0+)