Libertarian Discussion #2
Posted August 14th, 2008 by djskiefer
output
Please give me your thoughts:
"Suppose we face a real global crisis. For example, suppose global warming exists and will result in the destruction of humanity, or a deadly bird flu epidemic is sweeping across the globe.
What is a the role of a limited government, if any, in the above scenario?
Give me liberty or give me death?"
Please discuss!
note: I am not asking if you think global warming or bird flu are real or not.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
The problem with government action
in any arena, is this:
I'll use a chessboard analogy - there are at least 6 billion players, all of which are also pieces on the board. There are a vast number of spaces, only limited by means of transportation, all players/pieces have infinite movement capability (unlike real chess) which is restricted only by their financial means which is always not known. Individual needs, wants, and priorities, which are necessary to predict future movement by other players and pieces are impossible to ascertain, and thus, play is entirely impossible, certainly not to 'win' whatever that may be, but even to direct or dictate the moves of others according to any set of rules, since there are none and each piece, as it's own player, is autonomous.
In short, it is an impossible chess game that not only can't be "won" but can't even be played. Yet that is exactly what is attempted every time government tries to solve a problem.
The ONLY purpose of government is to secure the rights of the people. (these rights pre-exist government and are not 'granted' by it or by any charter, but flow from the very nature of Man as an individual being.)
It is not the job of government to 'solve' global warming or protect people from some disease, but rather to ensure that solutions are not unfairly kept out of the marketplace, and that people are not hindered in taking whatever means they see fit to protect themselves. (barring causing harm to another in the process)
If you don't like that answer too bad. Anything else produces totalitarian nightmares in some form, fashion, or degree and I will not let that happen on my watch, or die trying. (hint, hint, I will take those who seek to enslave me or others, down with me)
Remarks
Global warming and bird flue are two different issues, of course. Bird flu is a fact, it is real and for a limited govt. there is a limited role. The govt. should work with private sector companies and the private specialists should come up with innovative ideas. I heard the other day there is a device to detect bird flu in 2 days. The govt. need to "seal" the areas of the bird flu off and probably need to pay the farmers whose animals (cows etc.) are killed to avoid bird flu from spreading, some compensation.
With "global warming" the real question if it is man-made. If it is not man-made, there is nothing the government or any invdividual can do to prevent it and one should consider whether if it is simply a cycle, that passes. In the 1970's "global cooling" was an issue again. If- theoretically speaking - global warming is a man-made issue (e.g. it can never be ONLY a made man thing, as cows and other animals also "contribute" to it, and we cannot kill all our "sacred cows"...), then there is a limited role the govt. can do. The govt. could pass a few laws, and stimulate solutions and inform people (like an infomercial what to do), but most of it should be left to private and public companies to come up with solutions. A LP basic principle is to get govt. as most out of the way as possible while dealing with solutions and fixes to problems, and the same would apply to "global warming". Look at how much money the govt. has wasted on ethanol from corn and how much prices has sky rocketed,, also as a result of this. (See a recent reason TV video on this)
Government cannot 'pay'
any money it first does not take from someone else.
Do you advocate that a single mother working for Wal-Mart should have a portion of her paycheck go to pay a rancher for loss of his herd?
That is what you are advocating.
Remember, the government did just that with tomatoes a moth ago, and it turns out, it wasn't tomatoes after all that were the problem.
Government is NOT the solution and has no place in it. This is entirely for the market to fix. and it will. If it is unsafe to go outdoors, people won't. If they do, that is their risk and their choice.
well,
I was speaking in general terms about the question of global warming. To informed people it is clear that government makes a lot of mistakes and take money from one group of people and give to others. However, I - nor Dr. Paul - is advocating any anarchism, e.g. no government. You do need some sort of government, but that should be minimal as possible. Government can have a role in initiating and facilitating issues, perhaps stimulate certain development by giving part tax exceptions, but probably not for subsidizing anything.
Freedom works
I think in the face of a REAL, UNDENIABLE threat to our survival, people would voluntarily support and participate in whatever mass movement was needed to get the job done. In the same way that I think an invasion of the US would be met by a tidal wave of volunteers coming forward to meet the invader in mortal combat. The biggest problem would be trying to direct them effectively.
More wise words from
More wise words from acala.
But in the case of an invasion, the Constitution provides for a means to direct the people effectively.
Shouldn't the same concept apply to a world crisis?
Should Congress be able to "declare" a world crisis?
Leadership
Government needs a constant, low level of suspicion directed at it at all times - eternal vigilance. In times of crisis that suspicion needs to be greatly heightened because those are the times when government grabs power and destroys liberty. In case of a real invasion, there will be no need for any official declaration of emergency. Leaders will step forward to direct the action and they will be followed based on the confidence they command.
In the case of a real emergency other than an invasion, the same should hold true. I don't favor giving government any special powers to handle a world crisis. That is just inviting them to declare one and the first casualty will be liberty.
double
double
Ok, so from a constitutional
Ok, so from a constitutional perspective you think that Congress's powers to declare war, raise and support armies, provide and maintain a navy, make rules for the regulation of land and naval forces, to provide for suppressing insurrections and repel invasions, to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining a militia, and for governing them as employed in the service of the United States, are really unnecessary?
They could have just as well been left out of the Constitution?
I think theoretically, a world crisis power could be ratified which doesn't result in the loss of liberty. For example, we could fund it using excise taxes and and imposts.
But you are right, from a libertarian perspective, additional power in the hands of a government is rarely a good thing.
Let's take my atroid post below ...
I am an industrialist by trade.
There is no doubt that I would enter into any agreement necessary to save my life. This would include giving up my entire fortune. Our forefathers acted in a similar fashion. They actually one-upped this scenario. They sacrificed their fortunes for freedom, not life. (Actually, this could be viewed as one in the same)
There is precedence.
I would rather put my faith in freedom rather than government.
Next discussion topic.
Having said all that, this may possibly be one scenario where government may also act appropriately. I stress the word "may".
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/...
Ur a jackass... And a fool....
What is your M.O.,
It's not real so why ask a question that a our current government official would ask?
If we had a constitutional government then I would think legislatively through Congress there would be an answer and response of some kind. Now they wouldn't force a policy, but keep in mind the biggest polluters are collectivist governments themselves...
But this is the 2nd question that points out to how much of a troll you are, or you're just plain ignorant of the procedures of a republic.
Look these reports over to help educate yourself:
U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 scientists dispute man-made global warming. Debunks "consensus". EPW 2007 Dec 20
2007 was the 9th consecutive year of global cooling. Washington Times 2007 Dec 19
Over 100 prominent scientists warn UN: Attempting to control climate is ‘futile’. CFP 2007 Dec 13
Why don't you read the "Report from Iron Mountain" off the
www.freedom-force.org website.
I'm sure you'll have some Libertarian #3 question down the road, So
I'll answer it this way through my question.
What's the opposite of above me?
Lol, ok. The answers to
Lol, ok. The answers to these questions may be obvious to you, genius one, but they are not so obvious from various libertarian perspectives. This is evidenced by the arguments below.
First recall that I made special note that I do not give a rat's ass what you think about global warming and bird flu for the purposes of this question. If it makes you feel better, replace "global warming" with "massive donut heading towards earth" and replace bird flu with "unexplainable man-eating fungus epidemic". If you think that for some reason our earth is totally immune from global crisis, then you're living in a dreamland. Besides that, these questions are meant to be intellectual exercises so that I, and others who are new to the libertarian/constitutionalist/Ron Paul philosophy can learn more. These are the issues that I will be engaged in furious debate against socialists in a few years when I run for office as a Ron Paul republican, so I want to be prepared. I apologize if I do not know all the difficult answers yet, genius one.
You give a somewhat satisfactory answer from a constitutional perspective:
"If we had a constitutional government then I would think legislatively through Congress there would be an answer and response of some kind. "
But not so from a libertarian perspective. For instance, a constitutional government could pass an amendment requiring mass vaccinations. Clearly, this might conflict with some libertarian ideals.
What's the opposite of "above me"? Below all of us?
Is not the federal
Is not the federal government's role to provide the things that the individual can not do? Take national defense for example. National defense should be one of its few roles.
If that is the case, then should the federal government not have a role in a crisis? On the other hand, they failed miserably with regard to Katrina.
(Remember, I'm learning here.)
Maybe if the world really
Maybe if the world really was in grave danger, an amendment would be easily ratified to help.
Whatever happens, I think we all agree that it must be done constitutionally.
Yes. Its called the Elastic
Yes. Its called the Elastic Clause.
So you think that this
So you think that this scenario would give Congress unlimited powers because the inability to do so would cripple its ability to apply enumerated powers?
these are both illusions
just as any global crisis would be. but for the sake of playing...none. only people can change illusions they create in their own minds. maybe if the government wanted to have a moment of group think to decide the illusion is gone? instead of the group thinks they spread all over the t.v. now. ~peace
Take global warming ...
government isn't going to solve this issue.
It is the private sector that raises awareness.
It is the customer that chooses the hybrid technology and decides to pay more.
The industrialist satisfies demand, therefore a hybrid will be built.
Consider how much safer car technology would be if Nadar wasn't successful in his quest to get government to force the industry into minimum safety standards.
Here is a better scenerio that requires more thought.
What if there is a huge astroid that is scheduled to hit the earth.
Would the private sector act faster and better to solve this problem than government?
To me, that is the million dollar question.
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/...
I believe that the private sector will
act better and faster any day of the week on any pressing issue of this sort. the private sector is also more likely to do it in a way that doesn't harm anyone.
www.wegetit.org (for Christians and others interested in balancing enviromental concerns with the needs of the poor around the world)
Libera me, let the truth break, what my fears make--Leslie Phillips
Progress happens in spite of...
Progress happens in spite of government. If we want to "Save the Planet," governments should be the last place we look for help.
I agree
I agree
Interesting ideas. I agree
Interesting ideas.
I agree about your million dollar question. That's why I included a long term (global warming) and short term (bird flu) global crisis.
Libertarians say yes,
Libertarians say yes, anarchists say no
In case you are unaware
a lot of libertarians are zero government libertarians.
Most everyone on LRC is for example.
I would say a minority, but
I would say a minority, but whatever.
No, that's true
You're correct. Most libertarians are for small gov't.
However I should note that, if one looks at the libertarian scholars and theorists, one predominantly finds that they are "zero-government."
Is there a difference
Is there a difference between "zero-government" libertarians and anarchists?
Yes,
I think there is quite a difference.
Anarchists: some people who go by this term are simply "people who are creating chaos." (ie. molotov cocktail throwing, black bandana wearing, etc.)
Other people who go by the term are use it in the strict a-narchy (opposition to rulers) sense. These a-narchists are typically left-wing, opposed to capitalism, and often advocate initatory violence to further their cause.
Zero-government libertarians: I think they are best summed up by the LRC slogan of "Anti-war, pro-market, anti-state".
They completely embrace capitalism, and believe the initiation of violence is immoral.
Most libertarians who support zero government
call themselves anarchists. It's usually "anarcho-capitalist," "free-market anarchist," or "individualist anarchist."
Yes, some of those get used at times
But, above I was just pointing out that the term anarchist without any prefix is not commonly used by libertarians (especially if they know better).
I agree that
they don't usually call themselves "anarchist" without a prefix. They want to make sure that they're not confused with communist anarchists, which most anarchists are apparently, at least worldwide. Capitalist anarchists may outnumber anarcho-communists in the U.S.
Hehe, that's good that they are outnumbered
I've never understood the anti-capitalist mentality of anarchists.
I mean, every economic system uses capital and is therefore capitalist.
The more important question seems to me whether people are free (as in free-market capitalism) or not free to own capital (as in socialism).
Correct, The zero-gov't
Correct,
The zero-gov't libertarians are all for the market governing the people. Which means the people governing the people.
LewRockwell.com
I dont agree with all of their principles. But love their economics
In what time frame?
If this is going to happen in 200 or more years from now, then the government shouldn't do anything. We are on this Earth to live life to the fullest. We shouldn't be forced to sacrifice for a future that we will not be part of. Let the future deal with it. If civilization ends, it ends. Nothing lasts forever.
Can't one be responsible and
Can't one be responsible and not be forced to sacrifice for the future? Isn't it common sense to want to leave your children and grandchildren a healthy world?
Why should one ounce of happiness or
consumption be sacrificed for future generations? It's not common sense to me. I don't see why the future should be taken into account at all if we're not going to be there. The Earth is for the living.
Maybe consider one scenario
Maybe consider one scenario in 200 years, another in 3 days or so.
Well considering that I value my life above all other things
if there is action that can be taken that will save my life, I support whatever it is, and I mean whatever it is. Without one's life, there's no point in anything.
In this scenerio you would
In this scenerio you would look to the private sector for the solution. And if the solution, on a free market, didnt come to fruition. Then the people apparently didnt care enough to get the job done.
If the free market
is going to kill me, then I don't want the free market. What's the purpose of supporting a free market if it kills you? Liberty as an end in itself doesn't make much sense. I support liberty because it ALMOST always works the best to protect life and prosperity.
So what you are saying is
So what you are saying is this. It is ok to steal from another if you are protecting yourself.....NO NO NO NO 100 times no. One basis of libertarianism is property rights. It is not ok for a government to steal from its citizens in any scenario. The free market will determine what the people want. If you want to live. Then go create a market where the people will support it. This will always work for the peoples benefit. The free market doesnt kill people. People kill people. You have missed the point completely and your arguement is the same arguement that governments use to make their tyranny look reasonable to the people in their state.
Consider the libertarian who
Consider the libertarian who believes that the government has no right to provide for a national defense. Now consider a foreign invasion. Do you believe that if people want to live, they should go create a market where people will support it?
Is it okay for a government to provide for a (constitutional) "world crisis defense" without stealing from the people?
It is ok for a government to
It is ok for a government to provide for "world crises defense" but they have to ask the people to do so. In a sound money situtation. War will only be funded by the peoples money. If the people dont want war, whether it is in defense or not, then they simply wont pay for it. You have to protect peoples property rights. For instance the gentleman who is argueing with me below. If he were to come on my property to steal food because he is hungry. I have a decision to make. If I have an abundance of food and am a nice moral guy. I might just give him food. If im close to starvation or dont care for others well being. I just might shoot him dead on the spot.
I see. So please let me get
I see. So please let me get all of this straight and try to see the bigger picture. I'm new to all this and things are starting to make sense now:
There can be a huge difference between being a Constitutionalist and a Libertarian.
In fact, liberal and social ideas can be constitutional, as long as they don't violate a few basic rights. Amendments can be ratified if the people REALLY want them.
With that being said, we all know liberal and social ideas RARELY work. As it turns out, libertarian ideas are often the best bet. It also turns out that the Constitution, as it is, is very libertarian. So under a constitutional framework, I should defend a libertarian philosophy.
Im not sure if your being
Im not sure if your being sarcastic or not. But social programs can in themselves be unconstitutional.
The constitution was in itself not a living breathing thing. Its interpretation is not supposed to be changed and it is there that government violates it.
But, yes. many "old School" libertarians do not like all of the constitution. Thomas Jefferson was very libertarian. He did not agree with alot of the constitution. He thought it didnt restrain government nearly enough. And before you go saying liberal ideas. You need to understand that all of todays liberals arent what original liberals were. Original liberals were libertarian. Today's liberal are neo-liberals.
No sarcasm. Instead of
No sarcasm. Instead of saying "liberal" or "social", let me say "non libertarian".
For example, as a libertarian you believe that the government should have no role in saving the world.
But you also accept that the Constitution *could* allow for the nonlibertarian idea of a "world crisis defense", if the people really want it.
The Constitution may not be living and breathing, but the founding fathers had the good sense to allow for Amendments.
It would depend on what that
It would depend on what that world crisis was. If it was foreign war. Then volunteers can go from the each state and take up arms as a soldier. But if it was an economic situtation in another country. Then the private sector could take care of funding other countries. People have the freedom of giving their money away. The government should have the freedom or purpose of giving your money away. You have to keep in mind that root of the constitutional issues that currently plague this country, all stem from a central bank. That central bank that isnt on a gold standard, is unconstitutional.
"The government
"The government 'shouldnt"....typo
If I am about to die of starvation
and I have no other way to get food but by stealing then yes it's ok for me to steal. Your form of libertarianism would convince me to die. I do support property rights, but emergency situations can arise where all rights are to be thrown out the window. I am all for a system that protects private property, but I'm not going to die for it. I'm not going to die for anything. My form of libertarianism hold life as the highest value, not liberty. Liberty is simply a MEANS to preserving and nourishing life. I argue for limited goverment, just as Dr. Paul does. My argument does not support advocacy of tyranny, because tyranny does not work as well as liberty at protecting and nourishing life. It merely acknowledges the liberty does not always work perfectly. And if there is ever a time when liberty is going to end my life or put me in grave danger of being killed, then liberty ought not to exist at that time.
Do you support allowing every individual to have a nuclear bomb at their home? How about private property rights? This is a case where liberty has to take a backseat to life preservation.
"I do support property
"I do support property rights, but emergency situations can arise where all rights are to be thrown out the window."
Those who would sacrifice Liberty for Security, Deserve Neither..........