Debunking Libertarian Ideology

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The original intent of the founders has been perverted.

The founders of the USA were a contentious lot, who hardly agreed on any one thing, let alone libertarian notions. It is well documented that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are compromises amongst them: few agreed wholeheartedly with any particular part. Thus, looking to the founders for "original intent" is silly: it will vary amongst them. Not to mention that "original intent" (or original understanding) is just as open to interpretation as the Constitution itself because while there is lots of explicit data, it is from many contradictory sources. For example, Judge Bork presents notably non-libertarian versions of original intent.

I think the best way to interpret the constitution is the way the founders explicitly specified in the Constitution: look to the courts, especially the Supreme Court. The Constitution leaves the method of its interpretation by the court entirely to the court to decide. This begs the question of how to judge the interpretive philosophies of the possible justices, but libertarians seldom get that far.

"The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body." Federalist No. 78.

There is no reason short of worship of the founders to presume that the Supreme Court is less capable than the founders. Indeed, many libertarians from outside the US find the authority of the founders unconvincing. One writes: "As a Canadian, I don't give a _damn_ what the `founders' intended. I hate it when a net.opponent trots out some bit of tired U.S. history as a most holy of holies, not to be questioned."

Jefferson himself said this plainly: "Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind... as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times.... We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

The US Government ignores the plain meaning of the constitution.

Often this is presented as "The US wouldn't be so bad if the government followed the Constitution."

"Plain meaning" is a matter of opinion. A plain meaning one century can well be reversed in another, depending on popular usage, historical context, etc. Well intentioned people can disagree on "plain meaning" endlessly, as we see in any non-unanimous court decision. For practical purposes, the meaning MUST be decided one way or another.

Libertarian claims of "plain meaning" are often clearly shaped by their beliefs. Where this occurs, it's pretty obvious that their claims to "plain meaning" are not "common sense".

1. Libertarians are defenders of freedom and rights. The foremost defenders of our freedoms and rights, which libertarians prefer you overlook, are our governments. National defense, police, courts, registries of deeds, public defenders, the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights, etc. all are government efforts that work towards defending freedoms and rights.

   Libertarians frequently try to present themselves as the group to join to defend your freedom and rights. Lots of other organizations (many of which you would not want to be associated with, such as Scientologists) also fight for freedom and rights. I prefer the ACLU. (Indeed, if you wish to act effectively, the ACLU is the way to go: they advertise that they take on 6,000 cases a year free of charge, and claim involvement in 80% of landmark Supreme Court cases since 1920.)

   It would be foolish to oppose libertarians on such a mom-and-apple-pie issue as freedom and rights: better to point out that there are EFFECTIVE alternatives with a historical track record, something libertarianism lacks.

   Nor might we need or want to accept the versions of "freedom" and "rights" that libertarians propose. To paraphrase Anatole France: "How noble libertarianism, in its majestic equality, that both rich and poor are equally prohibited from peeing in the privately owned streets (without paying), sleeping under the privately owned bridges (without paying), and coercing bread from its rightful owners!"

2. Taxation is theft. Two simple rebuttals to this take widely different approaches.

   The first is that property is theft. The notion behind property is that A declares something to be property, and threatens anybody who still wants to use it. Where does A get the right to forcibly stop others from using it? Arguments about "mixing of labor" with the resource as a basis for ownership boil down to "first-come-first-served". This criticism is even accepted by some libertarians, and is favorably viewed by David Friedman. This justifies property taxes or extraction taxes on land or extractable resources if you presume that the government is a holder in trust for natural resources. (However, most people who question the creation of property would agree that after the creation of property, a person is entitled to his earnings. Thus the second argument)

   The second is that taxation is part of a social contract. Essentially, tax is payment in exchange for services from government. This kind of argument is suitable for defending almost any tax as part of a contract. Many libertarians accept social contract (for example, essentially all minarchists must to insist on a monopoly of government.) Of course they differ as to what should be IN the contract.

3. If you don't pay your taxes, men with guns will show up at your house, initiate force and put you in jail. This is not initiation of force. It is enforcement of contract, in this case an explicit social contract. Many libertarians make a big deal of "men with guns" enforcing laws, yet try to overlook the fact that "men with guns" are the basis of enforcement of any complete social system. Even if libertarians reduced all law to "don't commit fraud or initiate force", they would still enforce with guns.
4. Social Contract? I never signed no steenking social contract. That argument and some of the following libertarian arguments are commonly quoted from Lysander Spooner.

   The constitution and the laws are our written contracts with the government.

   There are several explicit means by which people make the social contract with government. The commonest is when your parents choose your residency and/or citizenship after your birth. In that case, your parents or guardians are contracting for you, exercising their power of custody. No further explicit action is required on your part to continue the agreement, and you may end it at any time by departing and renouncing your citizenship.

   Immigrants, residents, and visitors contract through the oath of citizenship (swearing to uphold the laws and constitution), residency permits, and visas. Citizens reaffirm it in whole or part when they take political office, join the armed forces, etc. This contract has a fairly common form: once entered into, it is implicitly continued until explicitly revoked. Many other contracts have this form: some leases, most utility services (such as phone and electricity), etc.

   Some libertarians make a big deal about needing to actually sign a contract. Take them to a restaurant and see if they think it ethical to walk out without paying because they didn't sign anything. Even if it is a restaurant with a minimum charge and they haven't ordered anything. The restaurant gets to set the price and the method of contract so that even your presence creates a debt. What is a libertarian going to do about that? Create a regulation?

http://world.std.com/~mhuben/faq.html#intent

[alienlovechild 75]

I make my living as a nerd. Right now, as a high school science/math teacher.

I like clicking the links for these gems.

If you can't trust the political opinion of your high school teacher on economics, who can you trust? What's next? Have your gym teacher tell you about foreign policy and the art teacher lecture on health policy?

Edited June 5, 2009 by alienlovechild

[one...two...tree 2,762]

He's made a convincing argument and being a high school Math teacher doesn't make him any less qualified to challenge any here who espouse Libertarian ideology.

[alienlovechild 75]

He's made a convincing argument and being a high school Math teacher doesn't make him any less qualified to challenge any here who espouse Libertarian ideology.

Even most people here aren't that pretentious to be quoted in Internet forums as a credible source.

Anyway the guy with the leaf blower on the lawn says he's just as qualified to say the article is bunk. He was seconded by Joe the Plumber.

[mRx 16]

This guy is a real piece of work, Steven, but thanks for posting, nevertheless.

I'll focus on his most ridiculous "debunking"

The first is that property is theft. The notion behind property is that A declares something to be property, and threatens anybody who still wants to use it. Where does A get the right to forcibly stop others from using it? Arguments about "mixing of labor" with the resource as a basis for ownership boil down to "first-come-first-served".

Necessarily, it is "first-come-first-serve" ONLY if the land is used. This goes back to the theory of property rights by British philosopher John Locke.

The argument reeks of strawman, however. As, if someone wants to use the land, they may ask permission, or initiate trade for temporary rent of land. The debunker makes a mighty absurd assumption in implying that individuals will not contract land usage to other individuals, and use violence against individuals nearing the property.

To remedy this evident disparity, the debunker suggests the uncorruptable government be holder-in-trust of all property, which would essentially make us slaves of our own land.

The owner of the land has the right to deny use of land, for he is the owner; this represents the soul of property rights.

The second is that taxation is part of a social contract. Essentially, tax is payment in exchange for services from government. This kind of argument is suitable for defending almost any tax as part of a contract.

Calling tax a payment in exchange for services is really quite novel. It also crumbles quite easily.

This wild statement is quite analagous to the funding methods utilized by the Mafia. "Give me money, and I'll protect you, but don't give me money and I will attack you" Quite the paradox, indeed. If services from government are so vital, and so necessary, why not allow individuals to freely and voluntarily make payment for these indispensable services?

One should have the right to opt out of such mandatory funding of services-- seek an alternate supplier of the service, or exclude such services all together. An individual should freely be able to choose which roadways, libraries, and universities they would like to voluntarily exchange for the utilization of. Not be forced to pay for something they may not desire to use. That's coercion, not exchange. Exchange is free and peaceful, not forced.

If we are truly rational beings, and government services are truly indispensible to individuals, then taxation could be abolished, and all government revenue could be attained through voluntary donation, or does the debunker assume that we as a people are stupid, and don't know what's best for us, therefore money must be siphoned from us in order to provide us with some service that's for our own good?

I'm not really interested or affiliated in all the other diatribe in the article. Not too concerned with Federalists in the 1800's nor semantic meanings of the US constitution.

Here is a principle that I believe in Steven:

Non-Aggression Principle

"A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim."

-L. Neil Smith

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Matt,

Forgive if I'm misunderstanding your argument regarding property. How do you declare something as property - based on whether you use it or not? Do you believe in some natural law to property?

[mRx 16]

Matt,

Forgive if I'm misunderstanding your argument regarding property. How do you declare something as property - based on whether you use it or not? Do you believe in some natural law to property?

Well, I'm not sure what the Libertarian position is on property rights is, but I do agree with Locke's theory about the natural law of property rights that an individual be entitled to whatever unused natural resource he mixes his labor with as property. Defining "unused" could be a problem, but I really don't see it as something that couldn't be resolved peacefully through arbitration.

I don't profess expertise in such law however, nor do I profess to know (or follow) the correct political positions of Libertarianism, so don't pick me apart.

I prefer economics to politics.

[Peikko 1,575]

Property in this context is not simply land, it's the ownership of anything at all.

[Texanadian 10]

I had a feeling this would be an interesting thread.

It seems to me that land is owned by government upon it's immediate finding. In Canada, the government encouraged immigrants to come over and buy low cost land from the government back during the creation of the country.

Probably the most basic argument is of the income tax. A worker is exchanging his personal labour (something he solely owns as it's his body) to an employee for some sort of payment. Typically cash. Nowhere does the government have a right to tax the employee's earnings on this. The govt is the 3rd party that does nothing in exchange for taking their cut.

As far as constitutions go, it looks like it's something that the overwhelming majority of Americans support. Show me a politician who wants to abolish the constitution and I'll show you a person who won't get voted into office.

As for governments being the protectors of rights and freedom. That's the whole point of Libertarians. That government should ONLY exist to protect rights and freedoms. Not to run car companies and federal school systems and the million other things that they have their hands in. Rights and freedoms at the personal level between private parties can be substituted (for the most part). But when a government comes in and creates a law that takes away your freedom, there is no alternative. Example: A pool down the street says nobody is allowed to swim in the pool between noon and 6PM.....So you go to a different pool. But if a government says nobody is allowed to swim from noon until 6PM, then nobody is allowed to swim!

Look at the highway system. In the 1970's the federal government instituted a national 55 mph speed limit. It sucked. Driving through west Texas where the road is straight and there is nothing to look at for hours? Too bad. Now the states are allowed to set their own speed limits. In central Houston (mega traffic), it's 60 mph. Outside of Houston, it's 70 mph. In west Texas the speed limit is 80 mph. Even Hawaii has "interstate highways" which were bound to the federal 55 rule of the past. Another reason that Libertarians push for greater local government control rather than central control.

Laws: Everything is legal until it's made illegal. Therefore government can only take away freedoms. Now obviously there are things which are universally regarded as wrong. Murder, rape, kidnapping etc. Thus we have government uphold laws that deem those to be illegal. But there are other laws that only some people think should be illegal. Things that others consider a personal infringement. Fireworks for example. None allowed here in Harris county (the largest county encompassing Houston). I used to live near a place where it was illegal to whistle outside after dark. Walking down the street whistling to yourself? Illegal. Marijuana possession is another example. This is where Libertarians have the thought that you can do anything you want as long as you're not infringing on anybody else. You can box in the air as much as you want. But as soon as you punch somebody, it's assault. You can smoke marijuana as much as you want. As long as you're not driving while under the influence or creating a public nuisance (noise, theft, whatever). Noise tends to be more alcohol related. Alcohol prohibition was an awful example of government reducing your freedom to drink. And people died from it. Since there was no drinking allowed, there were no standards. The booze you bought could have been mixed in somebody's bathtub. People died from poisoning. Gangs murdered people to protect their alcohol turf the same way gangs do with other illegal drugs today. Now the anti-Libertarian might say oh but alcohol is something that benefits from government regulation. But in this instance, it's not so much the regulation as it is the legality of it. If I walk into Home Depot and a board falls on my head, I can sue them. But if Home Depots were made illegal tomorrow. I would have no recourse in court over them since I myself would have been doing something illegal.

As for the big guys with guns who will come and arrest you argument. It's true. Try not paying your IRS bill for a couple years and see what happens. Apparently the government owns your labour (income taxes)

So why isn't Libertarianism more popular? Because it involves a great deal of personal responsibility. Freedom = responsibility. You can't have one without the other because they're the same thing. The freedom to live on your own instead of with your parents means you now have to earn money to afford housing, food, rent, TV, telephone, or however else you want to live. Government continually fools the people by promising (the individual) everything while taxing somebody else (the group) for it.

[Scott & Lai 12]

I had a feeling this would be an interesting thread.

It seems to me that land is owned by government upon it's immediate finding. In Canada, the government encouraged immigrants to come over and buy low cost land from the government back during the creation of the country.

Probably the most basic argument is of the income tax. A worker is exchanging his personal labour (something he solely owns as it's his body) to an employee for some sort of payment. Typically cash. Nowhere does the government have a right to tax the employee's earnings on this. The govt is the 3rd party that does nothing in exchange for taking their cut.

As far as constitutions go, it looks like it's something that the overwhelming majority of Americans support. Show me a politician who wants to abolish the constitution and I'll show you a person who won't get voted into office.

As for governments being the protectors of rights and freedom. That's the whole point of Libertarians. That government should ONLY exist to protect rights and freedoms. Not to run car companies and federal school systems and the million other things that they have their hands in. Rights and freedoms at the personal level between private parties can be substituted (for the most part). But when a government comes in and creates a law that takes away your freedom, there is no alternative. Example: A pool down the street says nobody is allowed to swim in the pool between noon and 6PM.....So you go to a different pool. But if a government says nobody is allowed to swim from noon until 6PM, then nobody is allowed to swim!

Look at the highway system. In the 1970's the federal government instituted a national 55 mph speed limit. It sucked. Driving through west Texas where the road is straight and there is nothing to look at for hours? Too bad. Now the states are allowed to set their own speed limits. In central Houston (mega traffic), it's 60 mph. Outside of Houston, it's 70 mph. In west Texas the speed limit is 80 mph. Even Hawaii has "interstate highways" which were bound to the federal 55 rule of the past. Another reason that Libertarians push for greater local government control rather than central control.

Laws: Everything is legal until it's made illegal. Therefore government can only take away freedoms. Now obviously there are things which are universally regarded as wrong. Murder, rape, kidnapping etc. Thus we have government uphold laws that deem those to be illegal. But there are other laws that only some people think should be illegal. Things that others consider a personal infringement. Fireworks for example. None allowed here in Harris county (the largest county encompassing Houston). I used to live near a place where it was illegal to whistle outside after dark. Walking down the street whistling to yourself? Illegal. Marijuana possession is another example. This is where Libertarians have the thought that you can do anything you want as long as you're not infringing on anybody else. You can box in the air as much as you want. But as soon as you punch somebody, it's assault. You can smoke marijuana as much as you want. As long as you're not driving while under the influence or creating a public nuisance (noise, theft, whatever). Noise tends to be more alcohol related. Alcohol prohibition was an awful example of government reducing your freedom to drink. And people died from it. Since there was no drinking allowed, there were no standards. The booze you bought could have been mixed in somebody's bathtub. People died from poisoning. Gangs murdered people to protect their alcohol turf the same way gangs do with other illegal drugs today. Now the anti-Libertarian might say oh but alcohol is something that benefits from government regulation. But in this instance, it's not so much the regulation as it is the legality of it. If I walk into Home Depot and a board falls on my head, I can sue them. But if Home Depots were made illegal tomorrow. I would have no recourse in court over them since I myself would have been doing something illegal.

As for the big guys with guns who will come and arrest you argument. It's true. Try not paying your IRS bill for a couple years and see what happens. Apparently the government owns your labour (income taxes)

So why isn't Libertarianism more popular? Because it involves a great deal of personal responsibility. Freedom = responsibility. You can't have one without the other because they're the same thing. The freedom to live on your own instead of with your parents means you now have to earn money to afford housing, food, rent, TV, telephone, or however else you want to live. Government continually fools the people by promising (the individual) everything while taxing somebody else (the group) for it.

:thumbs: