Is Libertarian Government Equipped to Meet the Challenges of the 21st Century? [Paul]

[COLMustard159]

Fine. Let's start anew. One of Mr. Obama's strengths is that he inspires which encourages citizen participation and a sense of hope which given in enough quantities gets everyone to believe that they can have an affect on government. You will agree that kind of mindset is far more productive than cynicism and a "can't do, won't do, won't even try, but I'll complain" attitude. Kill off hope and a sense of duty and democracy is doomed.

That said: how does Libertarian government encourage citizen participation? Since the government taxes minimally, what incentive do I have to act as a watchdog when I know the government is virtually powerless to do anything to me? They're also incapable of wasting any vast quantity of my money so why, as a Libertarian citizen, should I care what the government is doing? What powerful incentive do I have to remain informed of what my elected officials are doing? (If the government took 1 cent out of every dollar I made, I don't think I'd ever read the news. On the other hand, if they're taking 30 cents out of every dollar I made, I'd be EXTREMELY CURIOUS as to where my money was going and would be more vigilant in my civic duties.)

You didn't really answer this question the first time to my satisfaction. You asked me a rhetorical question and then asserted that it doesn't matter if people stay informed in a Libertarian government (I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion). And then you went on a rant about sound bytes and debates.

So let's focus on this question. Please don't stray from the point.

[Mike_115]

I haven't heard Obama speak much, however he is an inspiring politician. And this is a good quality for a leader to have. But you can't judge a person solely on their leadership capabilities, but in what direction that leadership takes you. Do you support Obama because of what he says, or how he says it? I am NOT comparing him to Hitler, however, Hitler also inspired hope and was a good orator. Once again I am not saying he is Hitler, but the direction is more important than the ability to lead in that direction.

I don't have a defeatist attitude, and cynicism isn't necessarily a bad thing. I believe that our problems can be solved, and very simply. That is by letting the market solve them. I already compared how the market works better than government so I won't bring that up again. I also believe that we can have an effect on the government and that it isn't completely out of control, so I'm not defeatist there either. I'm not killing hope, I encourage participation in voting for libertarian ideals. Is that defeatist because my activism is counter to yours?

I'm really having trouble understanding your argument about high taxation being good because it forces participation. For one thing I don't see very many people involved in the political process even with our high taxation. Some people are interested and some aren't, even with very low taxation I would still be interested in politics. Some people would still not care even with taxation at %50. For another if we had a libertarian government it wouldn't have room for the abuses that ours has, thereby requiring less supervision. If it started to get out of hand again we would then have to get involved and put the government back in it's place. A small government with little oversight can still do less damage than a big government with more of oversight.

[COLMustard159]

Mike_115 Wrote:I am NOT comparing him to Hitler, however, Hitler also inspired hope and was a good orator. Once again I am not saying he is Hitler...

You just had to go there, but I will let that slide...

Mike_115 Wrote:I already compared how the market works better than government so I won't bring that up again.

Correct me if I am wrong, but this is the default assumption of Libertarian (and other theories of) governance.

Mike_115 Wrote:I'm really having trouble understanding your argument about high taxation being good because it forces participation. For one thing I don't see very many people involved in the political process even with our high taxation.

British citizens are taxed more than U.S. citizens. Notice how though they were in Iraq, they no longer are and Tony Blaire is no longer in office. In Canada, they are taxed more, but more people in their country are insured and receive treatment. In the U.S., more is spent on health care and yet less people are insured and receive treatment. The point is these seem to be examples where folks are taxed high and get more out of their government presumably because these folks are holding their officials accountable. I am not saying the high taxation is the sole reason for their vigilance, but simply say that low taxes gives more of an incentive for the masses to be intellectually lazy. (It seems I have found a scandal within the theory! Imagine the headlines: Libertarians push for subsidy/tax credit on mental sloppiness!)

Why is this important? Because the collective intelligence is the fundamental premise of democracy. If, in fact, the masses were incapable of exercising any serious brain power, scrap democracy! I am serious. There are plenty of societies that work great under dictatorships, ant colonies being one of them. Intellectual laziness is a luxury insects can afford. On the other hand, if you believe in the fundamental premise of democracy you would do as much as you reasonably could to "keep people sharp and on their toes." The idea that "something (the market, fate, or divine intervention) will make everything better without trying" is antithetical to participatory democracy.

Mike_115 Wrote:For another if we had a libertarian government it wouldn't have room for the abuses that ours has, thereby requiring less supervision. If it started to get out of hand again we would then have to get involved and put the government back in it's place. A small government with little oversight can still do less damage than a big government with more of oversight.

Maybe you are unaware of this but there was a little thing called Shay's Rebellion. Here is a link for your education. You can find more on the wonderful Internet.

http://www.calliope.org/shays/shays2.html

After the Revolutionary War, things seemed to be going just dandy with the Articles of Confederation. I suppose this would be a Libertarian dream for there was no serious federal government to tax the precious wealth of the Colonies/States. Things were not so great! Farmers fearing foreclosure led by Daniel Shays in Massachusetts led a rebellion burning down courthouses (to keep their property from being taken) and when that wasn't enough started looting. And guess what? That's when the Founders (and anyone with any serious property) realized that there needed to be a Federal government to get things under control because the rebellion was spreading! And that's when the Founders wrote the Constitution and created the Federal government that (GASP!) took some of the power of the states and (GASP!) made sure the states made good on their obligations to the national government. Please explain to me how a Libertarian paradise led to a bigger government (which in your mind is inferior). (Hint: I suggest you surrender and admit that Libertarian government in this case is hopelessly fragile.)

If you will read through the literature, the farmers were trying to get the government to help them with their economic woes. (When that wasn't enough, the rebellion started.) Now some deluded fool might believe that only lazy and undeserving people ask the government for help. But we're all smarter than that because we know that these same farmers fought in the war, were quite aware of politics, and made their living off the land. I'd like you to explain within a Libertarian framework (you can't escape the position you've taken) why these patriots were asking the limited government to interfere with their lives by providing relief. Then explain how the free market and limited government could solve Shay's rebellion. (If you have no satisfactory answer, admit it gracefully.)

In summary, I believe I have provided an excellent example of a Libertarian government (certainly by any modern day standards) that miserably failed to keep law and order! Let us be clear. I am not advocating a dictatorship or a police state or national I.D. cards etc. I have simply provided a counter example to your statement:

Mike_115 Wrote:A small government with little oversight can still do less damage than a big government with more of oversight.

Now you may have made this statement because you aren't studious with your history. Most likely, however, you have made this error because of what may be deemed the fundamental principle of Libertarian government or laissez-faire economics (see second paragraph). "The market works better than government." You have simply assumed that the market, however you have defined it (I understand minimal regulations), always solves problems better than the intervention of the government which the People have so chosen to act on their behalf.

As a great detective once said, if the theory does not fit the facts (history in this case), the theory must go (or at the least needs serious modification).

[Taopoet]

Oh, COLMustard159 and Mike_115, I like you both very much, but I don't think I'd sit down with both of you for a beer at the same time.

You've both given me a lot to think about, and I hope others are reading and thinking about this, too. I've also read some of the materials at the Official site of the Libertarian Party, http://www.lp.org. I'm very attracted by the ideas of individual liberty and economic freedom.

I'd like nothing more than to participate in the free market economy by walking down to my local Dutch coffee shop and purchasing (and paying sales tax on) an item that's far safer to self and society than alcohol, the drug of American choice. I'd also like very much to be certain that forever and ever, amen, the same-sex couple who lives next door should be able to benefit from the same societal/governmental respect that my husband and I do. Furthermore, I think it would be really great if American workers like my mom's cousin could get back to work in the factories that supported their professional lives until the owner corporations started benefiting from tax incentives to move good American jobs overseas. And there's no denying that the world could be a better place if American government would spend a little more time minding its own business. There's a lot to be said for Libertarian ideals.

However, the question at hand is whether Libertarian Government is equipped to meet the challenges of the 21st century. I think the answer to that is plain. Not when we're a country of more than 300 million people covering more than 3 million square miles across dozens of diverse climactic regions. I think there's a fundamental conflict between Individual Liberties and Freedoms and the enormous compromises made to support what's best for The Collective when we're dealing with a society of our size and scope.

In states like Maine, Wyoming, Montana, Nevada, and Alaska -- where there aren't a lot of people, the climate is fairly stable to itself, and each individual (whatever his "walk of life") can understand the notion of "that's how we roll in our state" -- Libertarianism makes a great deal of sense. People live as they do because it's how you get by, thrive, survive in that particular place. (I lived in Maine for a total of 15 years throughout childhood, adulthood, and childbearing, so I have some basis in experience for these statements.) In these kinds of smaller societies, the Federal Government and all its rules and taxes are nothing short of intrusive most of the time. These states, or even the larger regions that include them, are the perfect setting for governance that supports more "natural laws" than "government laws."

However, when it comes to this whole country of amazing diversity, how does the Libertarian ideal address the needs of the Many in the context of the needs of the Individual? I suppose Mike_115 might rightly point out that Libertarianism in the US would remove nearly all powers from the Federal level and make it reside with the States. That might serve to make the United States of America (read: Unified Nations of a Larger Collective) more like the European Union in a great many ways.

But we have 200+ years of evolution as a governmental system where everyone can enjoy equal protection under the law. In a Libertarian system, it seems inevitable that we'd have a greater division between states as each becomes more like its own nation. For the first several generations, I postulate, we'd have infighting, animosity, migration to the "better" states, and perhaps even civil war IF we took on Libertarianism as a sudden movement. It would likely take an amazing paradigm shift on the part of the people to embrace and vote-in such a system in the first place, and it would be nice to think that people would come to that place thoughtfully and ready for its reality, but I think that's unlikely in our "don't know, don't care" larger society.

For better or worse, our two major political parties are in many ways the very "more of the same" that people complain about. We experience the push and pull of prioritization based on differences in party platforms. We enjoy economic booms and suffer economic busts, but by and large, in our day-to-day lives, things remain much as they are. America is what it is, and we (especially of the "don't know, don't care" majority) like it that way. For all these reasons, I believe that Libertarianism, for all its inherent strengths, is not prepared to be the American Way.

At the same time, where's the common denominator in American Society? Are we simply too big in land, population, and culture to adequately sustain any form of national government without misery, disillusionment, and struggle? When we compare ourselves to other nations like Canada, France, England, Holland, Switzerland, and so on, we're comparing an Moose to a Mouse, size-wise. Perhaps smaller is better when it comes to running countries -- not just in the size of government, but in the size of nations.

[Mike_115]

Thank you, Taopoet for bringing a more neutral position to this debate. I am taking the extreme position to show how things could be. In reality if that just suddenly happened you would be right, society couldn't adjust. You have to work towards the goal, and you might find a point where you have to stop. Complete lack of governance would only be possible in a utopia where everyone was responsible. However until we evolve into a new species, some government remains necessary. I'm still going to debate the extreme as will COLMustard159 and the truth may be found somewhere in the middle (hint: it's closer to my side ).

I'll try to keep my reply succinct since multiple issues have caused our posts to get quite large. Because you seemed upset by my Hitler reference I'll elaborate a little. If I wasn't voting for Ron, I think Obama would be my next choice (outside of 3rd parties). So I really am not trying to slander him like that.

http://www.fin.gc.ca/toce/2002/cantaxadv2_e.html If I am reading this correctly Canadian taxes are lower, so that is not why they participate more. To be honest I wasn't sure how they compared till I researched it, and had the same assumption of higher taxation as you. I suppose Canada manages their money better (less war and empire) and can help their people more with less funds than we do. This still doesn't support a welfare state though.

COLMustard159 Wrote:The idea that "something (the market, fate, or divine intervention) will make everything better without trying" is antithetical to participatory democracy.

"Without government intervention" is not equal to "without trying." The populous does need to be well informed for democracy to work. However, that's only very loosely related to our current debate.

I am not an expert on Shay's rebellion, until I read that article I was only aware that it happened, and the very basics. I can't be an expert on everything. But, even with your source they weren't asking for help, but for lower taxes. They fought the war, then went back home with no pay, and unbearable taxes. It reads more like an argument between merchants and farmers with the merchants being in control of the government. When fired on they basically ran away crying murder. That's not a revolution, that is a protest. Besides the merchants being in control of the government and high taxes is symptomatic of big government not small. Yes the federal government was too small to deal with the issue, however, they didn't create the problem either. You can't pin that one on the small central government.

[COLMustard159]

Mike_115 Wrote:Thank you, Taopoet for bringing a more neutral position to this debate. I am taking the extreme position to show how things could be. In reality if that just suddenly happened you would be right, society couldn't adjust. You have to work towards the goal, and you might find a point where you have to stop. Complete lack of governance would only be possible in a utopia where everyone was responsible. However until we evolve into a new species, some government remains necessary. I'm still going to debate the extreme as will COLMustard159 and the truth may be found somewhere in the middle (hint: it's closer to my side ).

Someone (or if not, something) is misunderstanding me. I am not arguing for an extreme. I am pointing out the shortcomings of libertarian government. It's quite irritating when fools rush to make a hasty judgment.

Second, the truth isn't always in the middle. Sometimes its actually out in the extremes! If your "truth meter" is centered at an extreme, then wouldn't arriving at the truth mean moving to an extreme as well? On the other hand, if my truth meter is right on the mark, moving toward someone else's frame of reference to oblige a "middle ground" would take me further from the truth. You all know what number lines are, right? (Need an example? I believe in modern day chemistry. Suppose the following situation. You believe in alchemy. Don't tell me that solving reality based problems involves the middle ground of empirically verified chemical formulas and attempting to turn iron into gold.) The truth is simply the truth, neither more nor less, and is independent of whatever compromises we'd like to convince ourselves are necessary to save face when we are wrong.

Mike_115 Wrote:Because you seemed upset by my Hitler reference I'll elaborate a little. If I wasn't voting for Ron, I think Obama would be my next choice (outside of 3rd parties). So I really am not trying to slander him like that.

I was not upset. I was actually amused...it shows a certain kind of depraved mentality that tends to extremes. It's not "slander." It's "libel" since it is in print and published.

Mike_115 Wrote:http://www.fin.gc.ca/toce/2002/cantaxadv2_e.html If I am reading this correctly Canadian taxes are lower, so that is not why they participate more. To be honest I wasn't sure how they compared till I researched it, and had the same assumption of higher taxation as you. I suppose Canada manages their money better (less war and empire) and can help their people more with less funds than we do. This still doesn't support a welfare state though.

Define welfare state. This can mean a government that gives at least one kind of "handout" to its people. Or if your extremes mentality that you've exhibited is in play, it means a government that "nannies" (is that the word your ilk use? I'm not accustomed to politicalspeak) its populace.

Most Canadians don't think they are being nannied. To them, health care is a societal responsibility (this contradicts the premise of ALL great things stem from sole self interest). They do not feel offended that the money they pay into the system helps someone other than themselves. (Heavens! It may even be helping someone who doesn't work!) Because everyone must pay into the system, everyone has a stake in how efficient the system works. And since their health care system is tied to the government, they can hold the system accountable via their elected representatives. (I don't know of any HMO in the U.S. where a policy holder has a chance at giving the boot to the CEOs. The best I can do is go to another HMO that has very similar bad policies.) The idea that "we're in it together and I owe society something and conversely society owes me something" is missing from libertarian government and to the ideologues is heresy.

Mike_115 Wrote:

COLMustard159 Wrote:The idea that "something (the market, fate, or divine intervention) will make everything better without trying" is antithetical to participatory democracy.

"Without government intervention" is not equal to "without trying." The populous does need to be well informed for democracy to work.

You are right. But let's have the whole truth out, shall we? The answer is a wise a combination of government intervention AND an engaged citizenry. The foolish libertarian will argue that NO government intervention is necessary and may yell and scream at the history of governments who did nothing and performed miserably (see President Hoover, see Shay's Rebellion).

Mike_115 Wrote:I am not an expert on Shay's rebellion, until I read that article I was only aware that it happened, and the very basics. I can't be an expert on everything.

The last sentence was not necessary. Your defects have been all too apparent.

Mike_115 Wrote:But, even with your source they weren't asking for help, but for lower taxes. They fought the war, then went back home with no pay, and unbearable taxes. It reads more like an argument between merchants and farmers with the merchants being in control of the government. When fired on they basically ran away crying murder. That's not a revolution, that is a protest. Besides the merchants being in control of the government and high taxes is symptomatic of big government not small. Yes the federal government was too small to deal with the issue, however, they didn't create the problem either. You can't pin that one on the small central government.

These high taxes were imposed by the state governments. So it seems that we have situation where you can have high taxes but no existence of an oppressive federal government. It seems you cannot scapegoat the nation's capital here.

So who must Mr. Libertarian scapegoat? As always, taxes. But that wasn't the only cause of the Rebellion! But know this: even without the higher taxes (how much is high? Please do tell.), the farmers would still risk foreclosure because their crops couldn't cover the cost of seeds due to inflation. (Don't get off into a tangent about the money supply. Please. We don't need these scapegoats.) Now, why do you think the individual states imposed such high taxes? It wasn't for a maintenance of an empire nor was it for a welfare state. (Sigh, your favorite scapegoats are missing here.) THE HIGH TAXES WERE THE WARTIME DEBT INCURRED TO DEFEAT THE BRITISH!!! (Once again, the idea that "we are all in this together.)

So now we have a problem that is too big for all the little states to deal with. Maybe if somehow the states were able to pool their collective resources together they could solve the problem. WHICH THEY DID! The problem wasn't the small central government. The problem was the non-existence of a strong central government to deal with the inflation crisis and unrest before it broke out into an armed conflict.

Mike confuses the issue (and himself) by stating the small central government "didn't cause the problem." Of course, they didn't "cause" the problem. They didn't "cause" the inflation and the state's high taxes. Because they were a weak central government, they couldn't really cause anything to happen! Which included dealing with the economic problems of the citizenry before it erupted into a looting spree.

So it still seems the libertarian ideology is backed into this nasty corner that history cannot deny: 1) the U.S. was Libertarian originally. 2) Because of its shortcomings, the U.S. moved away from a Libertarian government. 3) And moved toward a more centralized government, a "bigger government."

I think the Libertarians have failed to explain these wonderful facts away. I would be much more satisfied if they simply accepted this as an example of a failure of their dogma (as the Founders did). (I think the best that I will get out of them is: it would work if everyone was evolved and responsible. In other words, it works, but not in the real world. Its sad, because Libertarians who I've chatted with offer no solution of how to get people to become more "evolved and responsible.")

I doubt the ideologues will do this however. I think I'll start another interesting Libertarian post instead. It's very interesting! My original post was if Libertarian government is suited to meet the challenges of the 21st century. The Founders in the 18th century already knew the answer!

As I am sure you have all learned, to have political opinions without even a basic understanding of history is very foolish.

[Mike_115]

I am done debating you. All you seem capable of is attacking (as opposed to debating). I am not going to play your game any longer.

[Taopoet]

Mike_115 Wrote:I am done debating you. All you seem capable of is attacking (as opposed to debating). I am not going to play your game any longer.

I'm with you, Mike_115. I'd really like to talk more about this question, because I think there's a lot of terrific nuance the Libertarian movement can add to our current body politic.

I'm reminded of two important ideas by what will surely be the end of this thread:
1. Echoes of Hillary mocking ideas she can't possibly deign to agree with, and thus tossing herself further into the abyss.
2. Echoes of conservatives, neo-cons, republicans, and all their brethren who quite understandably won't listen to liberals because they [we - I'm counted among them] are so vitriolic in our positioning that they'd have to throw their self-esteem out the window to even consider what we have to say. Better to just shut down and turn away under that kind of disrespect?

We can disagree without being disagreeable, as Senator Obama says, and only by avoiding being disagreeable can we hope to learn anything from one another.

See you 'round the other threads, then.

[shetonaz]

Yes, this is completely true. And a large part of the technology of the last hundred years was developed in order to process those resources. This is a major difference between 'now' and 'then': we have the power to do greater harm than ever. What do you think that a corporation would do, if it were suddenly freed of all environmental regulations?

[Mike_115]

shetonaz Wrote:Yes, this is completely true. And a large part of the technology of the last hundred years was developed in order to process those resources. This is a major difference between 'now' and 'then': we have the power to do greater harm than ever. What do you think that a corporation would do, if it were suddenly freed of all environmental regulations?

If you read through the thread (it's long I know) I already addressed that. The issue isn't removal of restrictions, but handling the issue differently, and more efficiently. When you actually respect property rights you will realized that if you pollute my property you are violating those rights. This opens the door to law suits against the ones doing the polluting. This would require a lot of societal change, and couldn't happen immediately. You would have to phase the old laws out, as the courts start to recognize actual property rights.