The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States. Please give as you are able, and help support our work for a brighter future.
And people wonder why I say that if the Libertarians succeed we're going to see the worst injustices ever inflicted by mankind on each other?
When money is the only thing that matters, only the rich have rights. And every single libertarian I know thinks that somehow, they are going to be one of those "the few, the privileged, the Alpha Elite"
We would probably die, most of us, if libertarians had their 'way'. However hardline Communists (not goo- goo communists, but the ones who mean business-- who want mass carnage) are even worse; libertarians mean well, generally, but hardline Communists appear to be motivated mainly by revenge. One can say there are few violent Communists (as you know, there is always that 1 percent) yet same is true of libertarians, other extremists of all creeds. Fighting is not pleasant, but when it comes to extremists, we have to fight; we do so fairly often without always being aware of it: look at politics, how ugly it is. Perhaps the fundamental purpose of politics is to cut violent extremists down to size.
Mr. Brunsing's conception of libertarianism is both incomplete and disturbingly cynical. I disagree with his assessment.
Libertarianism is not a philosophy of commerce to be applied to ethics. Libertarianism is first a philosophy of morality that can be applied to commerce and to all areas of life.
Everyone, every single human alive daily practices some libertarianism because they are convinced of the practicality. Those of us who advocate libertarianism as the preferred governing principal for states recognize that it is the best way to insure that human dignity is respected while every individual is protected. History proves this.
By the way, Mr. Brunsing - In Dallas Texas, we do pay to sit on the park benches and we also pay to sit in the Dallas Cowboys stadium.
Very few libertarians I have dealt with, and that encompasses several dozen different web sites and forums, seem to see "libertarianism" as you claim to see it.
They are all worshipers of Ayn Rand, believe that no government should exist, and that money is the only thing that should matter when deciding "justice" i.e. If you have money, you get to make the rules.
They intend to ENFORCE this through the use of private armies, personal weapon use, and "charging what the market can bear" for everything from the "air quality" you get to breathe, to the toxicity of the ground you walk on. And if you don't have money, and can't defend yourself through personal violence, you DESERVE to be a victim.
All while crying that the government has a monopoly on violence, and if they could only be "free" from government control, they could naturally rise to the top and become the "creme de la creme" of their "libertarian" paradise.
So, if that doesn't sound like "libertarianism" to you, you might want to come up with a different name for your ideology, because the "Randian Objectivists" have made "libertarianism" another word for "Control of the world by the Elite for the Elite, and screw the masses"
I'm quite willing to believe someone has been lied too, and I would be all to willing to believe it is the "libertarians" I've been dealing with for years doing that lying.
I've delineated nearly two years of "libertarian" thought as screamed at me over and over again by "libertarians" I've spent months coping with one "ayn rand says this, ayn rand says that" argument after another to the point that I finally had to write a blog post outlining the role of governments and markets in social collectives, and how both are needed, but must be properly balanced by regulation, transparency, and accountability, and how human NEEDS must come off the market for once and for all.
http://valkyrieice.blogspot.com/2010/07/on-government.html
I would be quite happy if none of the thoughts I laid out were really "libertarianism" but I'm not really the person you need to tell it to. You should instead tell it to all the "libertarians" who ARE SPREADING this horsehockey as "libertarianism."
That's the political forum of the Immortality Institute, you might need to register to enter, but please, if you truly don't think libertarianism is anything like I delineated, come tell the "libertarians" who say different.
Expect, however, to be labelled "Libertarian in name only" like EmbraceUnity has been. He's about the only "libertarian" I can agree with, since he's a Georgian, not a Randian.
"Libertarianism is first a philosophy of morality that can be applied to commerce and to all areas of life. Everyone, every single human alive daily practices some libertarianism because they are convinced of the practicality." 1) Libertarianism as practiced might be a philosophy of Amorality rather than morality--you naturally are aware of how extremely difficult it is to be objective concerning one's own morality (or lack thereof) and the morality of those one associates with? what IMO is disturbing is how a certain number of libertarians want the state to give funds & benefits to their families and friends, which is comparable to a PETA member wanting to torture an animal in public; it is positively shocking, even more so in that libertarians would think anyone would fall for such duplicity. 2) Moderate conservatism is an alternative to libertarianism; mod con has a moral trajectory lacking in libertarianism, though all the same there is nothing wrong with libertarianism in and of itself; it is the libertarians themselves, they are fierce to the point they inhibit each other from running for office-- and they should be thanked for that. I have attended libertarian meetings, and they were fratricidal (there were NO women attending) in tone. 3) Your last quoted sentence above: "...every single human alive daily practices some libertarianism because they are convinced of the practicality", is correct yet might merely mean that we are so controlled by our animalistic appetites that we prefer liberty to ethics (remember, one 'E' in IEET stands for ethics). The above is all to say libertarianism is valid, but only in the negative sense. 4) BTW, you might want to consider leaving Texas, it is a large wedge-dominated state, the state that produced LBJ and the Bushes. You might be better off in New Mexico, Colorado, Arizona, even Utah... however far be it for anyone to advise a libertarian on what to do.
Tim, here is the center of it: "It is not mandated that you participate in liberty." That is correct, yet it is mandated you participate in licentiousness: it is everywhere, on every block in every town, in all the cities, in every nation. We are plugged into licentiousness through some connections-- direct or remote-- to organized & disorganized crime, police, detectives, courts, jails, prisons, rehabs, schools, and much more. Tim, I have no answers, only questions, but libertarians do not provide answers to those questions; especially when they shout, "do your own research!"
The statements I made above reflect the core of the various arguments I have been given by "libertarians" minus the "prettifying" rhetoric they use. I've been told repeatedly that "government" is evil, and that it is the source of all problems, that it must be eliminated and the "Market" freed from all control except "supply and demand" and this will magically create a world in which equality will magically emerge without any possibility of government corruption, where people will be able to "shop" for their "Laws" by hiring "private police forces" who will magically not fight amongst each other for control, despite 10,000 years of previous human behavior that says different.
Once you get around all the hemming and hawing and mystical mumbo jumbo about "self correcting reputation markets" you come down to precisely what I described. A "government" in which those with the most "wealth" who can hire the largest and most powerful "personal armies" are free to do whatever they wish while the "common man" has no rights, and no recourse to "the law" to redress grievances, and thus are mere resources for exploitation.
Yet none of this matters to them, because they are convinced that if they had their way, they would be "successful" and "wealthy" and that anyone who isn't "deserves" to be victimized for "not working hard enough"
As a student of both human nature, and history, I can see that the end result of following such a course of action is a complete collapse of civilization, and the creation of the absolute worst case scenarios of technodystopian post-apocalyptic nightmares.
Libertarianism is, as the name implies, the belief in liberty. Libertarians strive for a free, peaceful, abundant world where each individual has the maximum opportunity to pursue his or her dreams and to realize his full potential.
The core idea is simply stated, but profound and far-reaching in its implications. Libertarians believe that each person owns his own life and property, and has the right to make his own choices as to how he lives his life – as long as he simply respects the same right of others to do the same.
Another way of saying this is that libertarians believe you should be free to do as you choose with your own life and property, as long as you don't harm the person and property of others.
Are libertarians conservative or liberal?
You have a better choice than just left or right. The libertarian way gives you more choices, in politics, in business, your personal life, in every way. Libertarians advocate a high degree of both personal and economic liberty. Today's liberals like personal liberty but want government to control your economic affairs. Conservatives reverse that, advocating more economic freedom but wanting to clamp down on your private life.
Please take the “World’s smallest political quizâ€, (top right) to see how liberal you really are?
>> http://www.libertarianism.com/
Quote – “Everyone, every single human alive daily practices some libertarianism because they are convinced of the practicality." 1) Libertarianism as practiced might be a philosophy of Amorality rather than morality--you naturally are aware of how extremely difficult it is to be objective concerning one's own morality (or lack thereof) and the morality of those one associates with?... 2) Moderate conservatism is an alternative to libertarianism; mod con has a moral trajectory lacking in libertarianism, though all the same there is nothing wrong with libertarianism in and of itself; it is the libertarians themselvesâ€
Some agreement here.. There maybe a slippery slide towards amorality towards the extremes of liberal freedoms, and indeed, as I have said previous, it is up to individuals to decide just how liberal their views really are? Liberal yes?... Libertine?
Yet rather than see walls between our political views, perhaps we should focus more on the connections between them?
So Hands up.. who does not agree with the above and is thus not a libertarian at heart?
At what has all of these comments to do with the “capitalist†park bench?
"Libertarianism is, as the name implies, the belief in liberty. Libertarians strive for a free, peaceful, abundant world where each individual has the maximum opportunity to pursue his or her dreams and to realize his full potential.
The core idea is simply stated, but profound and far-reaching in its implications. Libertarians believe that each person owns his own life and property, and has the right to make his own choices as to how he lives his life – as long as he simply respects the same right of others to do the same.
Another way of saying this is that libertarians believe you should be free to do as you choose with your own life and property, as long as you don't harm the person and property of others."
Okay, nice idea.
Now tell me how to make it happen, in a way which does not promote the suffering of the overwhelming mass of humanity, and in which every human is actually provided with what they need to actually "reach their full potential" without having those needs actively denied to them by other people seeking to better themselves at the expense of others.
Every human has five basic needs that must be met to ensure that they can "reach their potential". Those needs are food, shelter, medical care, education, and security. Without these five NEEDS being met, they cannot have "maximum opportunity"
The purpose of a collective at its most basic level is to provide those five basic needs for all individuals in the collective. It does so by enabling division of labor to create shared resources which are then allocated to provide NEEDS for all individuals. Co-operative action enables needs to be met most efficiently and enables surplus creation of resources, which can then be used for growth. Without those basic needs being met, no individual has the ability to "pursue their dreams" because all effort will be dedicated to meeting the five basic needs.
ONLY once those five NEEDS have been met can the individual focus on something other than the survival instinct.
In our current society, and in every other society we have ever formed, the five basic needs have become a Commodity. They have become markers in the game of status, denied to those of low status, and demanded as tribute far in excess of actual need by high status individuals. So long as NEEDS are considered commodities, and thus "carrots on a stick" rather than "Basic Necessities" that are absolutely essential to enable ever human to "realize his full potential" we will never end suffering, and never achieve your "free, peaceful, abundant world" because there will always those who are denied needs so that others can profit.
Now, if you have an actual solution to that sad fact, I'd love to hear it. If not, what makes "libertarianism" different than the endless "serf/Aristocrat" system of Status Seeking that has been the norm for all of human history? How large a percentage of the population will you dismiss as "unimportant" and condemn to suffering so that the rest can "enjoy their liberty" How many victims will you claim "deserve" to be victimized?
To have universal "liberty" that number has to be ZERO.
Firstly, you are aware that all the text above the website link is not mine, and is taken directly from the website? This is my error, I usually clearly mark everything with quotation marks.. yet I was in a hurry earlier so apologies for this confusion and the typos also.
However, I do agree wholly with these statements, despite their simplicity, as I believe most folks would? We all want these liberties and freedoms and the opportunities afforded by them? But does this make me a text book libertarian by any of the varied definitions offered by this label? Well I'm not so sure, as I adamantly avoid all labels and would not prescribe nor subscribe to any political party, especially liberal parties, and I have never thus far. Although one should never say never.
Your earlier points on libertarianism may well be valid, and there are certainly problems in the practicability's of implementing the purely libertarian ideals above, yet we should still strive to overcome these limitations? And hopefully utilising the emerging technologies you yourself quite rightly profess and with the abundance of material needs they may well provide?
Your points are well stated, and I have read your similar comments before regarding the five basic needs. I agree with these, and I also agree that a purely libertarian ideal would not cater for all of the people all of the time, by simple point of fact that what is freedom for one, encroaches on the freedoms, needs and opportunities of another. So the "collective" and supportive political philosophy guided by socialism is also of great relevance, which by its nature also has it's own negative and restricting problems that stifle opportunities and creativity.
So what's the answer? I'm not so sure, yet perhaps the way forward is to incorporate all of what is best from each political philosophy – conservative, socialist and liberal – and form a hybrid philosophy? And based on the basic libertarian ideals of freedom and egalitarianism? I do believe in the "collective" unity and responsibility of societies towards their peoples and that this must work with the co-operation of individuals and the awareness of personal responsibilities towards the harmony of the "collective". As you well know my ideals involve the "realisation" of connectedness and of personal awareness and responsibilities, driven by education which requires nothing less than ethical evolution?
However, I do believe, despite the hype, that there will always be poor, or rather a "poorer" class or caste of world society, and this may be apparent for various reasons. (1) That these true ideals of egalitarianism are almost as impossible to be realised, due to the inherent complexities of organising these potentials and opportunities logistically. (2) There will always be peoples and societies that will not participate, and that there are individuals that simply do not agree with these freedoms and ideals, and even anarchists that would maybe oppose any world political movement towards any kind of unity?
In this way your ideals of the provision of material needs and abundance are greater than mine, as I cannot as yet see past this natural lack of resources for all, although the principles may be sound. However this does not distract from the ideals of equality of freedoms and the opportunities afforded to all classes to rise above their situations. Again, complex problems to overcome and we all need to "work" towards these ideals. I do not dismiss anyone as unimportant as this is in direct opposition to my ideals of egalitarianism.
I agree absolutely with your understandings of the abuse and misuse of commodities, and this is all part of the greedy capitalist and competitive struggles and sufferings that we must strive to overcome. We are all born and bred to compete for lack of opportunities driven by a supposed lack of resources and status. This is all a part of the change in world philosophy that is required to promote awareness of this truth, and that selfishness needs to be revealed for what it really is and for what it stands for. Competitiveness does not equate with trampling on the freedoms and opportunities of others.
So to surmise.. You are in favour of promoting technologies to overcome lack of resources, promote abundance and overcome egoism… I am in favour of promoting ethical evolution, a change of mindset driven by personal awareness and personal responsibility. Both of these are methodologies that will succeed eventually, although I cannot forecast any realistic timescale for either of these as yet.
My only long-term complaint (not that complaining helps anything or anyone) re this subject is: libertarians want the state to help their familes & friends-- nevertheless, why libertarians should want such is entirely understandable; albeit it is extremely unpleasant when libertarians raise their voices in defense of their positions, their words become as unintelligible as fundamentalists, hardline Leninist-Maoist-Marxists, National Socialists, and other hotheads.
I can agree with the ideals of libertarians as stated above, because I do think it is vital that everyone be allow the maximum in personal liberty, even if that is tending towards "libertine". I refer people often to the book Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do http://mcwilliams.com/books/aint/ because I believe quite strongly that everyone has the right to do to themselves and their personal property what they wish.
However, I also believe just as strongly that every member of a collective, be that a city, a state, a nation, a business, a religion, or whatever, has a duty to contribute to the good of the collective. The entire point of a collective is co-operative effort to enable EVERYONE to benefit.
Just as strongly I believe that Collective has as it's single, sole, solitary DUTY to provide for the needs of the individuals that comprise it.
In that sense, the role of "government" is to provide for the five NEEDS. It's laws and regulations all need to directly apply to that duty, from ensuring the security of it's citizens by making all sub collectives act in ways that do not harm citizens, but which promote the well being of the collective. It must also ensure that those individuals who harm the collective are neutralized. But at no point does that include the responsibility of regulating individual "morality" or behavior which does not DIRECTLY HARM THE COLLECTIVE.
Thus, my recommendation is a balance, Government should provide for the collective the 5 NEEDS. This includes enforcing laws and regulations that prevent harm or exploitation of the collective, as well as collect "taxes" sufficient to ensure that the collectives needs are met.
AND THAT IS IT. It has no business regulating individual behavior, morality, beliefs, etc, SO LONG AS THOSE THINGS DO NOT INFLICT HARM ON THE COLLECTIVE.
A balance must be kept. You want to charge for sitting on a bench, fine, so long as EVERYONE HAS A HOME. If not, it's nothing but cruelty to those homeless who have been victimized by the status game.
Membership in the collective must be voluntary. The benefits it provides must be available to all who join. By choosing to join the collective to receive those benefits, you agree to participate in the co-operative providing of the benefits you receive.
If you choose not to join the collective, that is your choice, BUT DO NOT EXPECT TO RECEIVE THE BENEFITS.
That is where I run into an enormous issue with many "libertarians". They want to be free from obligation to the collective (in this case government) BUT THEY STILL WANT THE BENEFITS.
You want to live in the US, and drive on Government provided roads, go to government provided schools, enjoy government provided police protection, etc etc etc, THEN YOU ARE OBLIGATED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CO-OPERATIVE PROVISION OF THOSE BENEFITS.
Taxes are not, and have NEVER BEEN theft. Period. end of discussion. Theft is a one sided exchange, Taxes are an exchange made in return for all the above listed benefits.
If you don't wish to participate in the collective, YOU FORFEIT THE BENEFITS. It is as clear and cut and dried as it can possibly be.
Thus, the actions the collective should take for those who do not wish to participate in the collective? Remove you from all benefits of the collective. Revoke your citizenship, pay to move you to whatever country you wish to go to, and wave goodbye to you as you cross the border. If you own land and property within the collective's boundaries that cannot be moved with you, you must be compensated with their identical value in land and property in the location you chose to move too. Removing you from the benefits of the collective you have chosen to leave should not harm you in any physical or material way. Emotional trauma is your own affair.
Simply put, if you refuse to participate in the co-operative provision of benefits for all members of the collective, you are a parasite, sucking benefits, while providing nothing in return. If you participate in ANY WAY, even if such participation is minimal, then you are supporting the collective good, and deserve sufficient support to enable you to reach your maximal potential, but if you REFUSE ALL PARTICIPATION, you are harming the collective good, and simple removal is all that is mandated. Feel free to go find another collective to provide your NEEDS.
We are driven by instinct to form collectives. We do so naturally, and promote our survival by doing so. Forcing someone to remain in a collective is not part of this instinct. It is due entirely to the status and domination games of our reproductive drives. A properly balanced collective is one in which the reproductive instincts have been minimized in the government structure via transparency and accountability. It has no need of forcing individuals to remain in the collective. It needs force only in preventing external threats from harming the collective, and in protecting individuals from physical threats from other individuals or subcollectives within the larger collective.
No such collective exists at present, but we are developing towards it. Within 20-30 years, it is likely to be the form adopted by the US, and by the end of the century likely to be voluntarily adopted by the rest of the world as well, as individuals make the choice to join the collective to receive the benefits of belonging.
Actually, many libertarians would be more than happy to pay for private schools, roads, etc but since one is forced to pay taxes to support them, whether or not one chooses to pay for private schools, etc, why wouldn't they use them? One does not choose the society one lives in, they are forced into it via birth. The fact that legislation inhibits the growth of private enterprise doesn't mean the desire to support it isn't there. (see: illegal activites in general).
Your definition of theft is merely semantical. It could just as easily be said theft is taking from another against their will. It does not matter if the goons doing it think it's best for me.
Lysander Spooner: "Taking a man’s money without his consent, is also as much robbery, when it is done by millions of men, acting in concert, and calling themselves a government, as when it is done by a single individual, acting on his own responsibility, and calling himself a highwayman. Neither the numbers engaged in the act, nor the different characters they assume as a cover for the act, alter the nature of the act itself."
Your authoritarian actions against those wishing to be left alone say enough for themselves. Seems libertarians aren't the only ones creating nightmares. "Emotional trauma is my own affair"? Wow, I thought we were trying to take care of the homeless people so they don't get emotional trauma? Or is just so they can eat and you can feel self-righteous?
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false-face for the urge to rule it." - H.L. Mencken.
Don't get me wrong, your intentions are good, as are most roads leading to hell, but its in your refusal to understand not everyone wishes to live like you, and would desire nothing more than to be left alone and leave others alone. That this difference of mere opinion ("belief" in your own words) does not give you the moral right to deport them and otherwise force them to conform to your will or the will of a some majority tryanny.
Wake up and smell the bullshit facism. At least stop the rhetoric.
Ah, so you make assumptions far beyond what I said, and I'm the villain because you made those assumptions.
I said IF YOU CHOOSE NOT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE COLLECTIVE.
That means you go to the collective and say, I DON'T WISH TO BE IN YOUR COLLECTIVE.
And they revoke your citizenship, AS YOU DECIDED YOU DID NOT WISH TO HAVE IT.
They move you from the collective, AS YOU DECIDED YOU WISHED TO NOT BE A PART OF THE COLLECTIVE
They ensure you lose no monetary or property worth by providing such in your new collective of choice
And they wave bai bai.
Emotional trauma of "leaving your home forever" or whatever YOU INFLICTED ON YOURSELF BY MAKING THAT CHOICE.
And you could have chosen to leave the US at any point and time following your 18 birthday. You chose not to, and to participate in the US collective. You chose to retain your rights as a citizen, and to receive the benefits of being a citizen. YOU MADE THAT CHOICE BY NOT LEAVING.
At what point did ANYTHING I say indicate that ANYONE would be FORCED to belong to a collective? YOU MADE THAT ASSUMPTION, then blamed me for it.
Now, if you wish to discuss what I ACTUALLY SAID, rather than your additions that you argue against, we might be able to talk. But arguing with yourself over what you decided I said is pointless.
You make assumptions as well. Why is it assumed that someone not wanting to be aggressed upon simply by nature of where they happen to live on the planet would want to be evicted?
"Instead, they appear far closer to the reactionaries of the past, more interested in preserving the entrenched positions of the privileged than in seeing any meaningful reforms. The ‘liberty’ in libertarian seems to apply only to the freedom for the powerful to defend their advantage."
This is too an important blog to forget , hence this quote from last year. Libertarians are motivated, so we don't want to stereotype them all as Randians. However, aside from the author's (if memory serves, it was Mr. Treder) valid point that the future needs mixed economies, and so forth, libertarianism is only really useful for individuals, it wouldn't do much for families-- as family members have to compromise with each other, and libertarianism is uncompromisingly individualistic. So right off the bat one might say libertarianism would be looking towards the distant future when families wouldn't matter as much. Now, women living in a libertarian 'society' wouldn't be much of a problem, yet numerous men and children would be too swayed by their appetites to behave responsibly enough in maintaining liberty. Frankly, when you examine behavior rather than what is said, it appears most men-- including libertarians-- would want power even beyond that of alpha men, and liberty appears relatively insignificant in that light.
gseletko • Perth, Western Australia • Aug 16, 2010
Seems to me like the simple core idea/definition behind "libertarianism" is something that everyone would agree upon, but the conflicts arise when we discuss the 'process' of achieving such a noble goal.
Liberty is a noble goal but these days the term libertarian has become associated with a distinct set of processes for achieving that goal, usually oriented around money and the free market.
There -is- another way. I think all of you would be interested in reading "The Best That Money Can't Buy - Beyond politics, poverty & war", by Jacque Fresco
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35935841
Apologies for any spelling errors and the very brief comment, I'm on my iphone.
Take Libertarian Party members, though: I wouldn't trust them so much as across the street. At the libertarian meetings I attended, the attendees had the glitter of steel shavings in their eyes that Gorky described Lenin as having. If one of the libertarians disagreed with another, he was called a 'statist'-- spit out as if to say 'Trotskite!'.
Politics today is mausoleum.
Two more brief comments on what it is concerning libertarianism that IMO makes it as unappealing as (GOP) Republicanism:
a) Libertarians don't want others to generalize about libertarians, yet they themselves generalize about statists.
b) Libertarianism, as most ideologies, is dominated by men. The Libertarian Party-- for the obvious example-- is clearly a male-dominated enterprise. Whither the liberty in that?
Needs/wants: It's a conceptual error to treat the two as being qualitatively distinct.
There are _contingent_ needs of course: loosely speaking, I 'need' to call my mum *if* my goal is to reassure her that I'm okay. I 'need' to turn off the heating before leaving *if* my goal is to minimise my utility bill. I 'need' to find food *if* my goal is to prolong my life. But the way the solemn term 'human needs' is used makes it clear that this isn't about contingent needs (I haven't seen 'calling ones mother' ever cited as a human need), it implies objective fact, needs that simply must be met, full stop. But no such needs exist.
To convince yourself of this, remember that the desire to stay alive is itself a 'want', felt with varying strength by different people; Some choose to end their lives, some take bigger risks with their lives than others in order to satisfy other competing desires. Everything that humans value competes on the same 'scale', from the extension of life, to eating chocolate. There are no categorically distinct 'needs', that simply must be met 'full stop'.
The reply might be that 'needs' refers to only those 'wants' that extend human life. This doesn't solve the problem either. Imagine that ten years from now a drug is created that doubles human life expectancy. Is this drug a 'human need'? If so, it must be the case that human needs have never been satisfied before the creation of this drug (but of course the same applies to the improved version of the drug that will be created further into the future, and so on--'human needs' will never be met, so we needn't talk about them). On the other hand, if this drug is not a 'human need' (but food and water are), why not?
These problems all go away when we remove the artificial distinction between needs and wants. What we call 'needs' are really 'wants' that _most_ people value very highly (eg. the extension of life, and indirectly food, water and shelter as proxies for that). There are no 'human needs', and markets are the best system we know of for satisfying subjective 'wants'.
"libertarians are anti coercion, not anti-park bench."
Don't know, we'll see. It is difficult to trust anyone anymore. At any rate, I'm not an expert on anything but futurism, which is a racket like everything outside of pure science; we will see if libertarians are in fact serious. It isn't paranoid to assume, though, that many libertarians-- lets conservatively estimate the the number at 40 percent-- want the state to help their people, if not themselves. So here is a question: if 40 percent of Communists (real Commies, not goo goo commies) are kill-crazy and do not really want to free laborers, then what do you think of Communism?: not a whole lot. Libertarians at this time do not convince me personally at all- esp. of their comprehensive sincerity. All matters are basically matters of life & death, which is why people play for keeps. Anyone who wants excessive power is my enemy, and if they hide behind diplomatic public relations plus other subterfuges then that goes double.
It has been a long game-- but the game is over. There are not enough people to con anymore to make it worthwhile, IMO. But go ahead, try. Just please: no injured innocence. No "poor little innocent libertarian who wouldn't hurt a fly."
If someone needs others to con they can as a last resort choose family members as victims, kin are captive audiences.
IEET Blog |
email list |
newsletter |
The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States.
Contact: Executive Director, Dr. James J. Hughes,
Williams 119, Trinity College, 300 Summit St., Hartford CT
06106 USA
Email: director @ ieet.org phone:
860-297-2376
Listen/View
IEET Blog