A libertarian paradox?

[Citizen James]

How much power should the government have to prevent people from infringing on other people's rights?

Assume for a moment that entities other than governments (people, corporations) can infringe on the rights of others.  That may be hard for some who follow libertarianism as a religious dogma rather than a philosophy (and who, I would argue, are actually somewhat authoritarian in their worldview).

Beyond the obvious (such as kidnapping, murder, and theft) what should people be allowed to do to one another.  Can a person sell themselves into indentured servitude, or even slavery?  Could they do the same with their kids.  Would it be acceptable for companies to set up their own towns where their rules take precedence; could an employee, say, be locked up indefinitely without trial if they had previously signed a waiver as part of an employment contract.  Would it be acceptable to coerce someone into de facto servitude - say an exchange of indentured servitude for life, for life saving medical care for their child.

It is odd as I see two varieties of Libertarian out there - one brand which has a rather positive view of human nature - that most people are, to use a phrase I heard once, responsible enough to be trusted with matches (or their own decisions).  Laws exist to deal with the sociopaths and similar exceptions.  I would suspect that this type would consider the government primarily as a device to ensure individual freedom.    The other group is more nebulous, but tends to have a darker view.  Call them Randroid, or kleptocrat, or just plain crazy/evil - they tend to have a more negative view and believe that it is normal (or even desirable) for one person to exploit another.  Needless to say, they tend to fantasize themselves the exploiter, rather than the exploited - perhaps in part due to a Gaultesque overestimation of self-worth.  Their philosophy strikes me as really more authoritarian - in which they imagine themselves mighty leaders over the lesser peoples they command.

[Lief 🗽]

Assume for a moment that entities other than governments (people, corporations) can infringe on the rights of others. 

Unfortunately, libertarians don't believe in such things.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Assume for a moment that entities other than governments (people, corporations) can infringe on the rights of others. 

Unfortunately, libertarians don't believe in such things.

Incorrect. Stop attempting to speak for libertarians on anything.

[12th Doctor]

Real, deep core, philosophical libertarianism is philosophically and morally bankrupt.  Hence why I only claim slight affiliation with it out of pragmatic concerns.  Libertarianism is not my core philosophy.  Never has been, never will be.  The select placement of the individual above all else can only have disastrous consequences in the end.

[Free Palestine]

The central point of libertarianism is that government should be there only to ensure that individuals do not infringe on eachother's rights.

[Mechaman]

Assume for a moment that entities other than governments (people, corporations) can infringe on the rights of others. 

Unfortunately, libertarians don't believe in such things.

Yet what else besides government do I consistently advocate the overthrow of?

[Associate Justice PiT]

The central point of libertarianism is that government should be there only to ensure that individuals do not infringe on eachother's rights.

     Not only that, but dedicated anarcho-capitalists have argued that pressure from one's peers & private law enforcement would discourage acts of aggression between individuals without government. Not to say I agree with them, but as far as I can tell the notion that only government can oppress people has no existence except as an anti-libertarian strawman.

[crat]

How much power should the government have to prevent people from infringing on other people's rights?

The minimum necessary amount.  This is sticky for a lot of reasons, a big one of which is a wide interpretation of "rights."

Assume for a moment that entities other than governments (people, corporations) can infringe on the rights of others.  That may be hard for some who follow libertarianism as a religious dogma rather than a philosophy (and who, I would argue, are actually somewhat authoritarian in their worldview).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

 

Nope.  Slavery in this country has been legally abolished, and people are not property.  As long as the two parties can contractually agree, what's the problem with indentured servitude?  Isn't this pretty much the idea behind the Peace Corps or Americorps?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What, like HOA's?  Precedence above the law of the land?  I think they'd have to secede, like Petoria.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Patriot Act basically does this to citizens whom never signed the agreement.   And the employee - Locked up by who, his employer, to be tried by the corporation's court system?  Or are you saying that the position that the government is to honor private contracts would allow them to do whatever they want to a person who signs their life away to an employer, taken that far?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No one has the right to someone else's labor, contractual servitude isn't coerced, sound like you're talking about slavery. 

Seriously, I didn't set out to answer with more questions, it just ended up that way. 

While there are some nutty folk out there claiming to be Libertarians, they're more anarchists in my opinion.  I can't even say I'm 100% Libertarian, but of any political stigma, I align with it more than not.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Never in my life have I seen an ideology so focused on what their ideology is in regard to how they determine their positions. Almost every libertarian I've seen on this forum has somewhere in their posts "well, libertarianism says ____" or a variant thereof.

I don't often see liberals running around saying "well, liberalism says x so I believe in x" and I certainly don't run around Atlas saying "well the socialist position in this case is x which is obviously where I come down on this as well." But for some reason, the ideology so focused on individualism seems to be the quickest to walk around spouting the same thing in unison based on what they read on some libertarian's blog or heard in the latest Ron Paul newsletter.

[Mint]

The group think is a bit ironic, isn't it? That said I think people get a skewed perspective on libertarians because most of their interactions are with self-professed 'intellectual' ones online though. In real life I've met plenty of people that identify as that or clearly lean in that direction without being quite as dogmatic.

[Free Palestine]

Never in my life have I seen an ideology so focused on what their ideology is in regard to how they determine their positions. Almost every libertarian I've seen on this forum has somewhere in their posts "well, libertarianism says ____" or a variant thereof.

That's because libertarians have to point out what their ideology is, in response to all the libertarian-bashing.  There is no "Book of Libertarian" that says what libertarian be.

[Mint]

What about all of those people who obsess over what a 'true conservative' is too? They're just as common.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

It's better to avoid labels altogether. Don't re-define yourself just in with fit some pre-existing label.

"Libertarian" was a fairly free and loose term for a while, but now its becoming associated more and more with neocons like Bob Barr and Glenn Beck.

[Хahar 🤔]

Never in my life have I seen an ideology so focused on what their ideology is in regard to how they determine their positions. Almost every libertarian I've seen on this forum has somewhere in their posts "well, libertarianism says ____" or a variant thereof.

You haven't? This is a defining feature of Marxist thought.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I suppose I just don't hang out with enough Marxists then.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

No kidding, there are about a thousand different sects of socialists all claiming to be the true socialists.

[Alexander Hamilton]

I suppose I just don't hang out with enough Marxists then.

u in da jcp homie

[Marokai Backbeat]

No kidding, there are about a thousand different sects of socialists all claiming to be the true socialists.

Well it's a little different to criticize the purity of someone and to constantly be making sure you're in line with the "libertarian position" on the issue.

Even so, I'd call out a difference, considering libertarians are supposedly more individualist and independent minded opposed to the more collectivist tendencies of socialists.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     This reminds me that I used to have a rather elitist tendency to say "libertarians think X" to mean "I hold this libertarian position because I believe X". Holding a position because your ideology demands it is decidedly backwards. Generally you have a particular ideology because of your world view, not the other way around.

[Хahar 🤔]

Generally you have a particular ideology because of your world view, not the other way around.

That's how it ought to be, but forgive us if we don't see it in abstract debates on libertarian policy.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Generally you have a particular ideology because of your world view, not the other way around.

That's how it ought to be, but forgive us if we don't see it in abstract debates on libertarian policy.

"We"? Who else do you speak for?

[Хahar 🤔]

Generally you have a particular ideology because of your world view, not the other way around.

That's how it ought to be, but forgive us if we don't see it in abstract debates on libertarian policy.

"We"? Who else do you speak for?

You.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Generally you have a particular ideology because of your world view, not the other way around.

That's how it ought to be, but forgive us if we don't see it in abstract debates on libertarian policy.

"We"? Who else do you speak for?

You.

This must be that type of wit that only you find witty again.

[k-onmmunist]

Never in my life have I seen an ideology so focused on what their ideology is in regard to how they determine their positions. Almost every libertarian I've seen on this forum has somewhere in their posts "well, libertarianism says ____" or a variant thereof.

I don't often see liberals running around saying "well, liberalism says x so I believe in x" and I certainly don't run around Atlas saying "well the socialist position in this case is x which is obviously where I come down on this as well." But for some reason, the ideology so focused on individualism seems to be the quickest to walk around spouting the same thing in unison based on what they read on some libertarian's blog or heard in the latest Ron Paul newsletter.

You can't trust everything you read. You automatically assume any economic data is true, which is one of your greatest debating weaknesses. Sometimes, problems cannot be solved empirically.

[dead0man]

How much power should the government have to prevent people from infringing on other people's rights?

Enough to get the job done, being as careful as is possible to do it without infringing on anybody's rights themselves.  It's probably not possible, at least in 2009, to get this perfect.  Anybody that tells you otherwise either doesn't get it or is lying.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why would we need to assume an obvious fact?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

no

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Good God no.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sure, why not?  As long as the people are free to come and go as they see fit.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, of course not.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think the second one is a very rare species.