Is it just me or is distaste for Libertarianism contradictory to discordianism?

[fomenter]

So, then a libertarian government would allow a person's pocketbook to determine their health?

No.  It would allow it to determine everything.

this is a far different understanding of Libertarian than i have when i use the word??

[LMNO]

I believe Cain was invoking the "Snark Definition".

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

So, then a libertarian government would allow a person's pocketbook to determine their health?

You mean in the way that the world has run for the past 10,000 years or so? Possibly.

So, then a libertarian government would allow a person's pocketbook to determine their health?

No.  It would allow it to determine everything.

this is a far different understanding of Libertarian than i have when i use the word??

The Libertarian party perhaps, but I assume thats the only view of libertarianism that a lot of people have. Sort of like Conservatives being not much like the GOP party faithful or Liberals not necessarily being 100% in line with Democrats thinking.*


*Cain being a major exception to this.

[Cain]

I believe Cain was invoking the "Snark Definition".

The definition according to the majority of libertarians I read, met, spoken to or otherwise had a chance to understand their position.  Sure, there are people who call themselves libertarians who will no doubt concede that there are a very large number of non-market goods, including health-care and education, and even left-libertarians who reject laissez-faire entirely, but these people are a minority of those who use the name libertarian, and are not considered libertarian by the previously mentioned majority.

They should get themselves a new name.

[LMNO]

So, then a libertarian government would allow a person's pocketbook to determine their health?

You mean in the way that the world has run for the past 10,000 years or so? Possibly.

A man who is shot, with no health insurance and no ability to pay, will be treated by a doctor in today's society. 

[fomenter]

I believe Cain was invoking the "Snark Definition".

The definition according to the majority of libertarians I read, met, spoken to or otherwise had a chance to understand their position.  Sure, there are people who call themselves libertarians who will no doubt concede that there are a very large number of non-market goods, including health-care and education, and even left-libertarians who reject laissez-faire entirely, but these people are a minority of those who use the name libertarian, and are not considered libertarian by the previously mentioned majority.

They should get themselves a new name.

my disconnect could very well come from having considered my views to be somewhat libertarian and having never read Ann rand or associated myself with the party of the same name i take (have taken) the ideals of this country's founding, limited government, checks and balances, accountability,  and personal freedoms as being "libertarian"  i may be way off base on my definitions.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

So, then a libertarian government would allow a person's pocketbook to determine their health?

You mean in the way that the world has run for the past 10,000 years or so? Possibly.

A man who is shot, with no health insurance and no ability to pay, will be treated by a doctor in today's society. 

There is nothing in Libertarian philosophy that would keep him from being treated in that society. Good Samaritan's have always existed and will probably always exist. Libertarian philosophy, at its base doesn't demand money for goods or services, it only demands that the government not force how goods and services are exchanged between two people that wish to engage in mutual trade.

The real problems in a Libertarian society would be from guys like Bernie Madoff, not from some doctor that finds a guy all shot up. One would presume his Hippocratic oath would demand action. Further, from his standpoint, if he lets some poor sod die on his doorstep, thats not good for the old Public Relations. One advantage, in a libertarian society would be the focus on responsibility for self... in all choices. A libertarian consumer would be far more focused on who they bought from and what they bought. A libertarian merchant, doctor etc would feel a greater responsibility toward their own behavior.

Every social option has bad problems. The current society here in the US, promotes lifestyles where people live below sea level, in a hurricane path, with years of warnings... and still assume that someone else will make sure they're ok. The current society here in the US makes consumers feel safe when they buy toys covered in lead paint, because they assume someone else has already made sure its ok.

No system will solve all of our problems, but I'm not sure the ones in a libertarian society would be worse or better than what we have now, just different. What would be better IMO, is more self reliance and self determination on the part of individuals. But then, thats never good for government. Much better to have docile people that use self determination to vote for American Idol

[navkat]

The real problems in a Libertarian society would be from guys like Bernie Madoff,

Which is where I depart from extreme-libertarianism. A truly Libertarian society would actually protect guys like Madoff. The thinking there is that if he was slick enough to get you to give him your money and you failed to do the research and actually trusted him, it's your own fault. You get what you deserve. Profit from the lesson and move on.

I definitely believe there needs to be some level of regulation when it comes to the marketplace--particularly with regards to things like healthcare, food, drugs, etc but ultimately personal responsibility should rule the day.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

The current society here in the US, promotes lifestyles where people live below sea level, in a hurricane path, with years of warnings... and still assume that someone else will make sure they're ok. The current society here in the US makes consumers feel safe when they buy toys covered in lead paint, because they assume someone else has already made sure its ok.

Rat, lumping lead paint with hurricane zones is absurd. How would anybody know their toys were covered with lead paint? It's illegal... are you saying it shouldn't be illegal, and that everyone should be constantly buying lead test kits and testing everything?

I mean, we assume that laws that make it illegal to sell cottage cheese that contains arsenic are protecting us, right? Maybe we should scrap all food purity and safety laws and just assume that every product is poisonous

what the hell

some assumptions are perfectly reasonable.

[navkat]

The current society here in the US, promotes lifestyles where people live below sea level, in a hurricane path, with years of warnings... and still assume that someone else will make sure they're ok. The current society here in the US makes consumers feel safe when they buy toys covered in lead paint, because they assume someone else has already made sure its ok.

Rat, lumping lead paint with hurricane zones is absurd. How would anybody know their toys were covered with lead paint? It's illegal... are you saying it shouldn't be illegal, and that everyone should be constantly buying lead test kits and testing everything?

I mean, we assume that laws that make it illegal to sell cottage cheese that contains arsenic are protecting us, right? Maybe we should scrap all food purity and safety laws and just assume that every product is poisonous

what the hell

some assumptions are perfectly reasonable.

I don't understand what the argument is here. You aren't saying anything he hasn't already covered...or did I miss something?

[Cain]

I believe Cain was invoking the "Snark Definition".

The definition according to the majority of libertarians I read, met, spoken to or otherwise had a chance to understand their position.  Sure, there are people who call themselves libertarians who will no doubt concede that there are a very large number of non-market goods, including health-care and education, and even left-libertarians who reject laissez-faire entirely, but these people are a minority of those who use the name libertarian, and are not considered libertarian by the previously mentioned majority.

They should get themselves a new name.

my disconnect could very well come from having considered my views to be somewhat libertarian and having never read Ann rand or associated myself with the party of the same name i take (have taken) the ideals of this country's founding, limited government, checks and balances, accountability,  and personal freedoms as being "libertarian"  i may be way off base on my definitions.

See, to me, I would consider that conservative liberalism, with the emphasis on liberal side of the equation (I would call it classical liberalism, but libertarians have hijacked that term as well).  When you read guys like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and Benjamin Franklin, in their entirety, not the cherry-picked quotes used by various libertarian partisans, you get a point of view which advocates markets, but only so far as they promote wealth for the majority.  I think it was Jefferson who said "legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property... Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise."  He also sought to weaken copyright protection so that monopolies couldn't form.  Things like that, to me, seperate the intentions of the US founders entirely from libertarians, who hold property ownership as a sacrosanct, moral right in and of itself and regardless of the social cost.

[Jenne]

I think too many of us are too used to seeing the "self-actuation" side of the Federalist Papers' authors as well as the "Founding Fathers," and not the protectionist, socialist side of them.  They thought beyond the ideals of "keep your mitts off my stuff, don't tell me how to live my life" and sought a public welfare as well.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

The real problems in a Libertarian society would be from guys like Bernie Madoff,

Which is where I depart from extreme-libertarianism. A truly Libertarian society would actually protect guys like Madoff. The thinking there is that if he was slick enough to get you to give him your money and you failed to do the research and actually trusted him, it's your own fault. You get what you deserve. Profit from the lesson and move on.

I definitely believe there needs to be some level of regulation when it comes to the marketplace--particularly with regards to things like healthcare, food, drugs, etc but ultimately personal responsibility should rule the day.

Yes, this seems to be similar to my personal views as well.

I can see a government that is focused on education, recommendation and basic regulation against fraud. For example, in Clyde's ideal world there would always be multiple sorts of everything (at least).

Government tested/approved
Trustworthy Non-Profit #1 tested/approved
Trustworthy Non-Profit #2 tested/approved
Trustworthy For-Profit #1 tested/approved
Trustworthy For-Profit #2 tested/approved
Not tested/approved

If people wanted to trust the government standards, they could pick meat, veggies, hedge funds that have been approved to meet the US Gold Star Standard. However, some people might not like the government stuff because *insert reason here*, so instead they could choose the standard set by some other group or select the "Not tested/approved" goods/services/hedge funds.

In the area I grew up in, there is a lovely little Orchard. They have awesome strawberries, peaches, apples, grapes etc etc etc until recently they had fantastic apple ciderm fresh squeezed and processed right there. Until the government came in and shut it down. Now, this wasn't due to an outbreak of Cider bourne Heebiejeebies... this was because the government decided that all cider must be pasturized in a very specific way with very specific equipment and priced all the little orchards right out of the cider business. Cider is now available at the supermarket from some big corporate farm and it is not as tangy or tasty. I would have liked to have the option of still buying their cider, even if it had a label that said "This product does not follow the recommended US guidelines for processing cider".

Same for hedge funds and toys with lead paint (oh except the government is regulating that and still ended up passing bad products to the consumer).

Nigel, my point was not that everyone needs to have their own testing kits, but that our current society ASSUMES that someone else is watching their back. Think back to how many people assumed that there would be plenty of food/water/stuff at the Superdome... when there were lines of folks holding clothes and televisions, but not jugs of clean drinking water. Or that people ASSUMED the toy was fine for their kid to suck on because the government would let people sell dangerous stuff like lead painted kids toys.

Its the assumptions that I'm talking about. The assumptions of people who are not interested in personal responsibility, but figure their survival is the governments responsibility.


Also, Jenne and Cain, a dead on view of Jefferson et all.

[BabylonHoruv]

The current society here in the US, promotes lifestyles where people live below sea level, in a hurricane path, with years of warnings... and still assume that someone else will make sure they're ok. The current society here in the US makes consumers feel safe when they buy toys covered in lead paint, because they assume someone else has already made sure its ok.

Rat, lumping lead paint with hurricane zones is absurd. How would anybody know their toys were covered with lead paint? It's illegal... are you saying it shouldn't be illegal, and that everyone should be constantly buying lead test kits and testing everything?

I mean, we assume that laws that make it illegal to sell cottage cheese that contains arsenic are protecting us, right? Maybe we should scrap all food purity and safety laws and just assume that every product is poisonous

what the hell

some assumptions are perfectly reasonable.

This is an example of why Anarchism works, but anarcho capitalism doesn't.  If you get your toys from Bernie the toymaker, you can be pretty sure about his paint.  If your cottage cheese comes from the farmer down the lane, you can be pretty sure of it.  government or no government.

[Fuquad]

There is nothing in Libertarian philosophy that would keep him from being treated in that society.

Unless you include the fact that a person who isn't required to help doesn't have to help.

Good Samaritan's have always existed and will probably always exist.

True. but if the Doctor isn't a good Samaritan that hardly helps the man that has been shot

Libertarian philosophy, at its base doesn't demand money for goods or services, it only demands that the government not force how goods and services are exchanged between two people that wish to engage in mutual trade.

You're correct. But all that really means is that the Doctor can decide not to give the service if required.

The real problems in a Libertarian society would be from guys like Bernie Madoff, not from some doctor that finds a guy all shot up. One would presume his Hippocratic oath would demand action.

Because people always uphold the oaths they take which is why Bush didn't do anything unconstitutional.

Further, from his standpoint, if he lets some poor sod die on his doorstep, thats not good for the old Public Relations.

I don't think manufacturing cars that are death traps because the company figured that the payouts for lawsuits would be cheaper than redesigning the car wouldn't be good for Public Relations but none of them seem worse off because of it.  

One advantage, in a libertarian society would be the focus on responsibility for self... in all choices.

Because people CHOOSE to be shot by random strangers. A libertarian consumer would be far more focused on who they bought from and what they bought.[/quote]
Sure they would. Mattel was just fined $2.3 million for lead paint in products they sold. I don't see why they wouldn't use lead paint if there were no government regulation about it.  

A libertarian merchant, doctor etc would feel a greater responsibility toward their own behavior.

Nothing says responsibility more than not having to be responsible.

Every social option has bad problems. The current society here in the US, promotes lifestyles where people live below sea level, in a hurricane path, with years of warnings... and still assume that someone else will make sure they're ok.

And which parts of America are safe to live in? from the extreme cold in the north during the winter to the extreme heat in the south during the summer to the hurricanes and tornadoes to the west coast with it's earthquakes and volcanic mountains waiting to erupt. There is currently nothing stopping a company from moving their production facilities. the expense alone wouldn't justify leaving behind a factory in order to move to a Safer" location.    

The current society here in the US makes consumers feel safe when they buy toys covered in lead paint, because they assume someone else has already made sure its ok.

And you're assuming that people are going to feel safer buying from companies that currently use lead paint while it is illegal because with deregulation the company is suddenly going to change the way they do business.