One of the great jokes of modern America is so-called "libertarianism" -- an ill-defined "ism" with a multitude of meanings in a spectrum of attitudes about government intrusion.
At one extreme, the libertarian is a total anarchist, a believer in no government at all, and a hundred years ago a terrorist and bomb-thrower convinced that the road to libertarian dystopia demanded destroying civilization.
At the other extreme, the so-called "libertarian" is a proto-fascist conservative who uses libertarian buzzwords to achieve a political agenda that would actually involve more government intrusion and not less government intrusion -- intrusion to foster business and protect wealth at the expense of the unwealthy.
The underlying joke across the entire spectrum of political libertarian attitudes is an underlying hypocrisy illustrated by the following:
Consider a "libertarian" named Self Reliant. Mr. Reliant, fifty-five years old, suffers a sudden heart attack. He calls 911, and when the paramedics arrive he directs them to the best hospital in town, which happens to be the university hospital attached to a state university. Mr. Reliant is rushed to this hospital and receives treatment in the emergency room that essentially saves his life.
Mr. Reliant's comical hypocrisy is that nearly every step along the way he's acting in contradiction to his loudly broadcast principles.
1) Dialing 911 and asking for paramedics is asking for help from local government.
2) Directing the ambulance to a local state university hospital emergency room is asking for help from the state in which he lives.
3) Once inside that hospital, accepting emergency treatment is accepting help from the federal government, since it's the federal government that funds nearly all the research and development in cardiac infarction emergency care.
At every step along the way, Mr. Reliant has asked for help from the very local, state, and federal institutions that he claims are intrusions in his "self-reliant" life and that he would like to see disappear.
It's a comedy of hypocrisy. Were Mr. Reliant a true libertarian, he would treat his heart attack himself (and most likely die), or at the least, when the paramedics arrive, he would direct the ambulance into the woods to die among the trees. (Actually, the woods may be off-limits also, since they may be maintained by a local, state, or federal forestry service.)
Like many comedies, this comedy has a tragic side if you flip the coin. The tragedy is that too many Americans are currently behaving like imbeciles in their adoration of absolute and total individual freedom when the reality of our time is that such freedom is incompatible with individual survival.
The libertarian ambulance always rushes to a government funded emergency room.
Our current "libertarians" don't die. They just shout that other people should die.
Question: What alternative to dialing 911 is there for a libertarian in the U.S.A. who suffers a heart attack? Calling a cab, or taking the bus? Driving himself? Having family drive him? These are options, but most likely not the most effective. Emergency services in this country are a monopolized industry with the force of the state behind it; there can be no meaningful competition by private industry without obvious conflicts generated at the government level. To suggest that a libertarian has to compromise his principles in order to use a federally subsidized emergency service is almost on par with declaring it a heresy for a libertarian to pay his taxes; it's in his best interest to comply, despite the philosophical problems he may have in so doing.
Question: For good treatment, what requisites would establish the possibility of such? I would imagine that a flexible source of funding would be helpful, but there is no law of nature which guarantees that a federally subsidized hospital would be better than a privately funded, for-profit hospital, nor is there a guarantee that government alone holds a monopoly on charitable services. Simply because the current dynamic of service is skewed in that direction does not imply that a natural market would look the same way.
You say: "we need to fear any ideology"
Then please, how do we govern if we are not lead by any sort of ideology?
You say "once ideology takes over, tyranny often quickly follows."
Please tell me how the following four pillars of libertarianism make tyranny:
1) Self-ownership: you and only you may do whatever you want to your body.
2) Non-aggression principle: you may not initiate aggression against others.
3) Property rights: you have legal title to anything you homestead that was previously unowned or that you receive through a voluntary contract
4) Contract rights: you may freely exchange property with others
You say "a government at least large enough to service the needs and security of what will soon be 400 million people"
That will be in 2050. Even temporarily viewing things from a statist framework, why waste so much money on a government that could service 400 million but only needs to service 310 million?
p.s.- That's sarcasm, btw. Libertarians would get a little more respect if they actually thought their ideology through, and realized the opposite of tyranny isn't anarchy, it's the perpetually more perfect union that those documents they covet aimed for, but which modern citizens and statesmen continually fail to achieve.
Written by Lysander Spooner in 1867:
"The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: 'Your money, or your life.' And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat. The government does not, indeed, spring upon him from the roadside, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful.
The highwayman... does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber... Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful “sovereign,” on account of the “protection” he affords you...
He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villainies as these. In short, he does not attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave."
Want freedom? Secede. See how that works out.
http://mereliberty.wordpress.com/2011/09/19/the-comedy-of-statist-ignorance/
Oh, but maybe government does it "for the good of the people." This utilitarian argument fails because there is no "good of the people" besides their rights. You cannot calculate everyone's utility and try to maximize it, for all value is subjective. Maximizing everyone's utility assumes that you know everyone's wants and needs. This is not possible.
Furthermore, wouldn't the government prosecute the Mafia even if the Mafia only stole from the "greedy rich" and gave to the dirt poor? And yet there is no one to prosecute the government for its crimes. You cannot wiggle around this question. The government *would* prosecute a "benevolent" Mafia. So why is the Mafia illegal while the government isn't?
Taking people's stuff is stealing. Stealing is immoral. No getting around this question. No one has a natural entitlement to anyone else's stuff. Taxes take people's stuff against their will. This is stealing. It's immoral.
Society-oriented action of individuals, however, is praised by libertarians. DO help the poor. DO help the sick neighbor who made the poor decision not to get health insurance. DO create a fund for the elderly or unemployed. But don't put a gun to my head to make me do it.
Plus - representative democracy? Oh yes, I really appreciate a political system where I get to be the tie breaker if the votes are exactly 50-50.
Yeah, those are called *not*-libertarians. Argue against the actual libertarian please.
"Were Mr. Reliant a true libertarian, he would treat his heart attack himself"
No, he would call a doctor from his hospital or the private emergency room. But those don't exist, do they, because of government crowding out investment.
Libertarians are not anti-society. They are anti-initiation of aggression. Libertarians aren't hardcorde individualist in any sense besides the one of "no one may violate the individual." Libertarians still want police, courts, services, etc. What they don't want is someone shoving a gun in your face to take your property from you and then throwing you in jail.
All of the services you mentioned above can be provided much more efficiently and cheaper by a voluntary peaceful market where people provide and receive goods and service in an environment of competition. If you are against voluntary cooperation, and if you are against the non-initiation of force, then you are free to consent to people using violence and theft against you. Just make sure that you don't support any system where your government uses violence against those who do not consent. If you can't accept this, then you are free to leave.
Theft occurs when one threatens violence in order to extract someone else's rightfully owned property. This is precisely how tax money is collected. Additionally, since tax money is stolen repeatedly, this means that taxation is slavery. The average person works 102 days out of every year in order to pay off the government's extortion money.
Google tax freedom day
There is no hypocrisy in using a service one has paid for because one believes the administration is immoral or structurally wrong. One might as well charge conservatives or progressives with hypocrisy for calling the police even though many departments have severe tax or civil rights problems, or readers with reading this article because they dislike the HuffPo in general.
Libertarians present voluntary forms of public administration, not "not government" per se, though that may be a viable option in many cases. Current coercive systems are viewed as obsolete and frequently backfiring, and increasingly people are moving towards and using superior non-coercive or private forms of the services cited.
The people who need to get out are the ones who initiate violence and threats against the innocent and their property. Whoever initiates violence is wrong. Kind of basic common sense don't you think?
If you want government, by all means there is no libertarian who will stop you from living under socialistic rules. There is no libertarian who will prevent you from spreading your wealth around so you feel like a good little liberal.
The key for you to understand is that the government you like, and the rules that you want to live under, cannot initiate violence or threats against anyone who does not consent. To understand this more google panarchy.
“…we have 15 cabinet departments devoted to regulating different aspects of the economy. There are over 100 federal regulatory agencies. There are 73,000 pages of regulations in the federal register. And not to mention state and local governments that have hundreds and hundreds more regulatory agencies that regulate everything from zoning to anti-trust, to everything else.” Tom Dilorenzo
With 15 cabinet departments, 100 regulatory agencies, and 73,000 pages in the federal register, I am doubtful that more regulations will fix are problems. Big government is a failure (see post office, medicare, SS, public education, war on drugs, monetary system, etc). That's why the libertarian movement is strong and growing.
Only a person who thinks they are rich enough to forsake their community could believe in such a fanciful ideal. Since when do people "voluntarily" take care of anything? I would argue that L-ism presents nothing.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Adair
Oh no, no one could ever set up an emergency service without using taxation.
Never mind that Taxation is Extortion, and that the object of government is the benefit of people who control the government, not the taxpayer.
i once heard a guy say "u libertarians who don't believe government should run electricity, should have your power cut."
First, he only presents the two "Extremes" neither of which apply to anyone I know in the Libertarian movement. Already, he is setting up a straw man. A libertarian believes in some government, and wants it very limited, which is represented by neither of the above Extremes.
Now, as for the hypothetical heart attack sufferer. It is true that while living in a nation in which the State (federal or local) controls so much, such as in Socialist states, it is necessary for the individual to use its services. I guess you could call that comical, but I would just say that is realistic. If the Government monopolizes a certain service (health care for example), than no private industry is allowed to participate. So yeah, if youre sick and the only hospital is state run, you go there.
In order to understand the Libertarian Utopia, you have to use your imagination, as the world has yet to see one (although early America was a decent attempt, minus the whole slavery thing).
In a Libertarian's Utopia, the services rendered would be by private institutions, as this is the most natural, efficient, moral way to get things done (there are exceptions: cops, courts, a few others. see the constitution for an enumerated list!).
The government-run monopolies don't have to compete. They are necessarily incompetent to provide these services. Private industry does it cheaper, better.