From hearing Ziggy call the show all the time, I've always assumed that "libertarian" in the UK simply meant "Moderate Democrat" in Yank. I never felt the need to call him on it just like he doesn't go around telling people that Oreo is a biscuit, not a cookie, and the peace has been kept.
On the issues I probably do agree with libertarians to some extent or other but I’m not one who’s for automatic hatred of government not matter what
Oh yes, I know. You were advocating that the European Union was a good thing because it removed certain bureaucracy like crossing the border. It was QUITE clear to me at that point you "didn't get it". Here's the test to see if you're a libertarian. "Do you believe it is acceptable to use force or a substitute for force, like fraud, to attain political or social ends?" If you say "No" then you're a libertarian. Knowing that there is not 100% consent to the government and that government uses violence to stay around, advocating government is advocating violence. Even "small government" minarchist types accept this, they just admit that they think a certain amount of violence is needed to preserve massive scale acts of violence (of course, there's all kinds of cognative dissonance there but the point still stands).
Its just the same with many a libertarian no matter what evidence they’re shown government can do good they’ll never agree & carry on hating.
Show me some evidence that me pointing a gun in your face and demanding your money is "doing good". Show me evidence that your mother or sister being raped can "do good". I think you're using heavy handed doublethink to justify that arguement to yourself. Being black is a physical characteristic, being a government thug or bureaucrat is a choice. Saying "government is bad" is a fallacy because government doesn't exist. It's merely people calling themselves government and those people continue to choose to be violent and continue to choose to defraud people. The value judgement, at least on my behalf, is based on a behavior, nothing more. People who choose to harm people are bad.
Sure government isn’t perfect when it comes to implementation but at least government recognizes that food & shelter as a human right.
I didn't know that the UK abolished minimum wage laws! Holy hell! I swear there were minimum wages set in the UK, preventing unskilled workers, typically VERY poor unskilled workers, from providing enough benefit to employers to hire them and give them money to buy food and shelter. Damn.
Additionally, what good is food and shelter if you've now got a theft epidemic? "The poor" in most western nations have greater access to quality food, medicine, technology and shelter than kings did 500 years ago. That whole "steal stuff from one person and give it to someone else" is a slippery slope that will end when there's nothing left to steal because all the people who produce stop because they don't like being robbed. Then you and your benevolent government paradigm can solve the hunger problem by feeding "the rich" to the poor and hungry. It is the natural progression of things. </tongue-in-cheek>
Seriously though, I used to be a "liberal". The "plight of the poor man" rests on my heart greatly. I haven't abandoned those principles in relying on the free market. Indeed, I've found that the free market is the ONLY way to ensure that people are given the ability to produce sustainable wealth for themselves. You can give someone money, but you can't give them job experience, skills, networks and references and ALL of these things CAN be obtained by unskilled workers who are able to work for lower wages or even for free to build those things as stepping stones for better opportunities down the road.
If "the poor" is why you feel that libertarianism is inconsistant, I'd speculate you really didn't understand the concepts well enough. May I suggest Mary Ruwart's "Healing Our World In An Age Of Aggression" and in specific
Chapter 3: Destroying Jobs.
Oh no Ziggy has crossed the threshold into positive liberty & become a hardcore socialist.
I suppose it could have been worse. You could have moved to New Hampshire before making that realization, I suppose.
I actually know libertarians who think that the expectation to care for their fellow man is socialistic
Actually, I'd question the liberty credentials of anyone who said there IS an obligation. Liberty is about personal responsibility and someone who understand that knows that no person things for another person and since thoughts lead to actions, no person can act for another person. Because of that, no person is responsible for another person unless they agree to be (in say, the case of children). Granted, there's an ethical calling for most people to help out. Nobody likes knowing people are hungry or sick or lacking. There's a HUGE difference between a common moral agreement that a thing is bad and should be eliminated and a MORAL OBLIGATION so great that not meeting it justifies HAVING VIOLENCE ENACTED AGAINST YOU. Big difference.
Yeah I’m grateful people do pay taxes to fund help for those who are sick & vulnerable. I’m sorry if you don’t think you should care in some way about your fellow man then you’re a fucking sociopath.
There's something REALLY REALLY fucked up about your world view if the ONLY way to help the sick and vulnerable is to pay taxes. There's a ton of charities in the USA that have upwards of 85% conversion (that is, of every dollar that goes to that charity, $0.85 go towards the cause the charity exists to assist with) and manage to do amazing things entirely on a voluntary basis. Maybe the UK government is that damn efficient, I don't know. Maybe the charities in the UK just suck ass. I know that the money I contribute to private causes does MUCH more to help the sick and vulnerable than tax dollars do. I know those just go to paying bureaucrats who do far to little and get paid far too much. And that's ignoring the whole "taxes are theft" thing which is a REALLY big thing to ignore.
Sociopathic, stroppy are they apt descriptions to describe libertarians, well not all libertarians but good percentage I’ve encountered. Another apt description would be dogmatic & when I’ve banged on libertarian philosophy it’s been fair accusation of me. Problem is if you attempt to deviate from libertarian philosophy then you’ll get whole load of crap from libertarians you’re not libertarian
There is only ONE criteria for being libertarian in my book. You believe that initiating violence and committing fraud against people is ALWAYS wrong. You can't "stray" from that. It's not a platform, it's a core principal. You either believe initiating violence has it's place and are not libertarian, or you believe initiation of violence is wrong, and you are.
I don’t believe that the group have the right to beat up upon them to conform.
Unless that individual disagrees with the idea that he should pay taxes. Then he should be beaten up and threatened with time in a cage, because you've already labeled him a "sociopath". Hrm, I love the logical consistency there.
But how to ensure mob rule, tyranny of the majority etc, well having thought about that dilemma the only way to ensure mob rule or the tyranny of the majority is by the means of governance.
Ancient statist arguement is ancient. How, good sir, is mob rule avoided by a process in which a majority of people, in most cases quite willing to use violence and hoping to be lost "in the crowd" to escape punishment? I'd say it sounds like you're cutting off your nose to spite your face, but that's even a bit more sane than what you're arguing here. A mob is needed to prevent a mob. Huh.
Worth remembering my hero JS Mill though argued in favour individual rights & against the tyranny of the majority. But its also argued that Mill argued in favour of state invention in one’s life if required.
I say this constructivly... It REALLY sound to me as if you've got an identity issue. You can't let someone else dictate your ideology. The times you call up to FTL and this post and some others ones, every time you've complained it tends to revolve around the idea of some group rejecting you for having a different ideology. Tough. Fucking. Cookies (as Mark would and has said). Nobody else thinks the same way you do. Nobody will have the same stance on all of the issues that matter to you. If you require the agreement of a group in order to feel sane and rational in your beliefs, you're always going to be an outcase.
John Stewart Mill is not a libertarian. Nicholas Capaldi claimed he was, but he himself was a liberal utilitarian. They're composed of some of the same letters, but they're not the same thing. The phrase "the ends justify the means" alone is enough to raise hackles with principled libertarians since it's usually a precursor to something that violates the NAP.
Too most libertarians what I’m saying right now is socialistic puke but libertarians misunderstand liberals. Liberals aren’t trying to restrain people from succeeding like socialists they’re trying create an environment so that individuals have the opportunity to succeed.
I used to be liberal. I don't think there's any misunderstanding at all. I STILL want that - I just recognize now that it doesn't happen through violence. Commonplace theft and violence cause neighborhoods to decay. A violent spouse causes the goodwill and safety in a home to vanish. Crime on a wide scale in a city causes the city to get less valuable and less desired. Ironically, the exact same thing is true of national and regional interaction. Going around hurting people, stealing their property and destroying their assets does NOT result in more people having opportunity. ONLY leaving people free to make their own decisions about their bodies, their lives and their money will enable them to succeed. It's not a matter of liberal vs libertarian GOALS, it's a difference of violent vs non-violent MEANS.
Somebody once said a libertarian views a man down a well as still able to have free move just they need make more effort, a liberal thinks that’s ridiculous & gives the man a helping hand.
I think whomever said that was a moron simply trying to discredit libertarianism. Some people really hate the idea that they are responsible for their actions of lack of it. Some people actually find it easier to encourage everyone else to do for them rather than actually doing it themselves. No wonder that person would rather convince you to pull him up from the well rather than take a few moments of caution and using the well safely and not falling in.
Typically libertarian would legalize all guns & that’s it where as a liberal in favour of liberalizing gun ownership will probably think its best to have some form of regulation.
Yes, and once you're done with that, you really should begin working on regulating pencils. You know, because pencils misspell words. Pencils aren't tools. They're not in control of the people who own pencils. Without all these unregulated pencils, we'll have tons and tons of misspelled words! Think of the children!
Liberals are prepared to use the system or adapt the system to achieve their aims but many a libertarian just want to destroy the system & nothing short is a sell out.
You're really not helping your case. That "willingness to use the system" is the problem. The system does EVERYTHING it does with violence or the threat of violence. If you're okay doing that, fine. I couldn't and I advocate that people refrain from hurting other people. If "the system" weren't violent, this would be a different issue but it IS inherently violent. If you disagree, explain how you'd fund your welfare programs without violence, threats of violence or fraud. I'd happily support a system that effectively helped people and didn't go around being violent.
because secondly I believe government can do good
As you said, what does "imagination" have to do with this. You believe government can do good. Good is "not hurting people". Government as exists can't do anything without hurting people. Believe all you want, imagination doesn't make a thing true. Just ask George Lucas.
Yeah libertarians utopian daydreamers who if you don’t agree with their vision then you’re a statist, a fascist or mentally ill.
Statist means "believes the existance of a state is moral or needed and believes that such an entity can solve problems". You're a statist. You're pretty clear about it, you believe a state is needed and you beleive that it can solve problems. It's a statement of fact, not a statment of value. If you like to attach negativity to the term and feel insulted, fine. But you ARE a statist because you advocate a state and think it can solve problems.
I was never really a libertarian as my website illustrates as libertarians don’t generally campaign for betterment of environmentalism nor champion labor rights
When you say "betterment of environmentalism" do you mean "threaten to shoot people if they don't meet the environmental guidelines you think are proper"? Yeah, I'd say that's a pretty unlibertarian thing to do. If by "betterment of environmentalism" you mean spending a TON of money at your company to replace energy inefficient computer equipment, run your systems from renewable solar and wind energy when feasible, avoid funding companies that pollute wantonly, buying products from companies that are working on solutions to REMOVE pollution, advocating technologies like plasmgasification over landfilling, trying to convince others not to litter, removing it from areas when feasible and reducing waste when possible than I think you're wrong. Libertarians on average (and surely I'm generalizing, I'm sure there are some libertarians that would be quite happy in a toxic wasteland) simply want to do these things without being violent. I have to admit though, I do contribute to pollution indirectly. See, my wife files taxes under my name, so I'm actually funding this organization that sends a TON of crap into space, ravages the materials from around the world, uses them to DESTROY buildings, people and nature. But see, now I have a conflict. Do I fund government, which you claim is good and needed or do I preserve the environment by refusing to fund the most BLATANT and DESTRUCTIVE polluter on the planet? Hrm...
By "champion labor rights" do you mean "threaten people doing business with violence if they dont' pay X amount for X units of time"? Last I checked, every time minimum wages went up, so did unemployment. My math might be fuzzy, but I'm pretty sure that "poorly paid" workers make more money that "unemployed persons". Also last time I checked, food and rent and clothing had actual costs. I'd really think that "making a little money" makes people better able to meet their needs than making no money. As noted, minimum wages destroy jobs. I advocate ending licensing regulations that prevent people from using their skills to build wealth voluntarily. I advocate ending mandatory minimum wages so that people who would rather work and get paid less can do so. Not everyone takes a job for money. Unskilled workers in a free market can say "I'll work for free for a month if you give me a chance" in order to make the risk of hiring someone less risky. Without this ability, the unskilled worker will be passed up by someone with minimal skills nearly every time (I mean, if you've GOT to pay them $7 an hour either way, why NOT get the one with more experience?). Minimum wage laws prevent people from building experience, reputations and credentials needed to get HIGHER paying jobs later. The ultimate irony of that? The unskilled worker is more likely the one who absolutely NEEDS those wages to survive. By advocating and end to those institutions you advocating allowing more people to build wealth and provide for themselves peacefully. I do champion labor rights.
One of the truisms people kept pointing out to me was that being as I’m disabled & considering other problems I’ve suffered in my life if were not for the welfare state then I’d be dead.
Are the people of Britain so sick and depraved that the ONLY way you can have your needs taken care of it to rob people at the point of a gun? I'm really sorry you live in a place like that. Here, there are all kinds of people and organizations who will call people and ask them to give money to help people in need. In 2006, even with the government people stealing a lot of money, Americans gave $295.02 billion dollars in charity of their own free will. That doesn't cover the man-hours volunteered at places like Habitat For Humanity or real goods like canned food that go to food banks. Yeah, when people are so selfish and sick that the only way a disabled person can get his needs met is by violence, I don't exactly blame you for thinking violence is a good thing, but my experiences show me otherwise. People are generous, moral, giving and ethical and that doesn't require a threat of jail over here. It blows my mind to think how much good would be done if people had 100% of their income to potentially give to charity.
I really am rejecting libertarianism & waving goodbye too many a libertarians, embracing social-liberalism & liberals.
Best of luck to you on that! Please turn the lights off if you're the last to leave.