
A Defense of libertarianism (and response to Zed, etc.) - grandalf
A few notes in defense of libertarianism:<p>In response to the recent slew of articles posted to HN criticizing libertarianism, I have decided to jot down a few points that I think were overlooked.<p>First, George W. Bush and the Republican party are NOT libertarians.  Zed's argument was essentially this, and it's about as logical as declaring that you're going to write an essay about the flaws of vegetarianism and then proceeding to mention a bunch of bad things about pepperoni.<p>Republicans occasionally use some libertarian rhetoric, but they do not follow it at all.  George W. Bush has increased the size of government tremendously, and he's intervened in international affairs and created all kinds of entangling alliances, etc.  Libertarians are also strongly opposed to the "family values" rhetoric used mostly by Republicans and by some democrats.  Libertarians have been opposed to nearly everything Dubya has done, from No Child Left Behind to the Iraq war to the Treasury's bailout of wall street.<p>Before we continue, I'd like to recommend two books for those curious about what libertarianism actually is -- Milton Friedman's "Capitalism and Freedom" and David Boaz's "Libertarianism: A Primer".  Both articulate a lot of the philosophical and pragmatic aspects.  Of course, Atlas Shrugged is interesting for its presentation of a moral argument in favor of capitalism.  Notably, it is mainly a critique of crony capitalism, something I think most people would agree is quite different from what capitalism should be.<p>I've found that many times, people stop at the superficial goal of a government program when determining how they feel about it.  Social Security is an example:  The idea of everyone paying 1% and then being able to offer everyone basic financial security in old age is not controversial -- I'd say most libertarians would consider it very low on the list of programs that ought to be changed.  However may people seem to stop with the program's initial goal and forget about the trends -- increasing costs and increasing retirement age, and no guarantee that the congress (and the public) will support the necessary tax increases needed to keep benefits remotely the same.<p>So some consider the program "good" because it has a noble end, and others express scepticism because of the various deficiencies.<p>It's worth noting that if we judged all programs by the nobility of the proposed end, there would be absolutely no reason to think any of them would be successful.<p>One argument I am quite sympathetic to is that with federalism we get "50 experiments in democracy" to paraphrase the Federalist Papers.  Doing a program at the federal level is like using 1 Petri dish, and doing it at the state level is like having 50... which seems more scientific to you?<p>I'd like to see state legislatures, governors, etc., challenged to come up with creative ways of solving the nation's great problems... this doesn't really happen today.  Instead, both parties raise vast sums of money fighting over "wedge issues" that are extremely unlikely to change any time soon.  It would take a 2/3 majority to create any of the amendments that the parties promise/refuse, and that's just not likely to happen the way congress is at present.  Federalism is a good example of a concept embraced by libertarians -- it respects the basic "engineering" that the legislative process actually is, and recognizes that the first solution may not be the best one.  I think it's hard to read the Federalist papers without seeing the whole process as a massive engineering work in progress.  So it's just good QA to have a lot of tests running simultaneously.<p>It's probably not necessary to mention this, but libertarians aren't opposed to regulation, they just try to have a clear-headed view of the actual outcome regulation without getting attached to the stated goal of the regulation.  One study that was done by Regulation magazine (affiliated with Cato) showed how an EPA law about polution failed to account for how wind blows pollution between municipalities.  Anyone who cares about the planet would hope that environmental regulation be as effective as possible.  Cato wasn't throwing stones at the idea behind the regulation, just the alpha version of it (which was the first and only attempt, and current law).  Critics would claim that Cato's critique proves that the institute opposes environmental regulation of all kinds, an assumption which couldn't be further from the truth.<p>People respond to incentives, and every law or regulation creates winners and losers and sets in motion incentives that will have effects over time.  Libertarianism is about having a scientific view of this and not getting attached to the first attempt.  I see how this is possible when everything seems like it's winner take all, which it is at the federal level, which is yet another reason why it would make more sense to focus on state laws as trial versions of important regulation, so that after a few years other states would modify their laws to include the best ideas of other states, not just on paper but the ideas that actually got the best results and lent themselves to the most effective enforcement.<p>I should add that libertarianism does try to maximize freedom, both social and economic.  People should be able to have adult sex lives free from government intervention -- anal sex, oral sex, gay sex, etc.  But they should also be free to engage in whatever they want to do economically -- buy some marijuana, take a job that pays $1 per hour, invest in risky stocks, etc.<p>Compared to libertarians, those in both parties are extremely paternalistic about some or all of these things.  Paternalism is the idea that someone sitting on high is in a better position to decide what you should be ALLOWED to do than you are.<p>Part of the allure of many politicians is, I think, the "Frodo Baggins" similarity -- an inexperienced yet pure of heart leader to vanquish evil and usher in drastic change.  Ironically both George W. Bush and Obama fit into this mold.  Libertarians are skeptical of this top-down wisdom and are hesitant to put too much power in the hands of one person.  I forget who said this, but "power corrupts.  Absolute power corrupts, absolutely".   One question to ask is, if people had trusted George W. Bush less or if he'd had less power, would we have had a hugely expensive, wasteful, futile war?<p>Bottom line:  libertarianism is about economic and social freedom, an engineering approach to legislative problem solving, and a scientific assessment of the actual effects that regulations cause.   Ironically, libertarianism is painted as extreme when it's actually the least dogmatic of the major political persuasions.  Note that you may have gotten quite irate at the mention of states deciding Roe v Wade, at the thought of discontinuing social security, etc.  If you did, it's because you are reacting in a dogmatic, not a scientific way.  Libertarians have the courage (and the philosophical obligation) to continue to question reality at the expense of loyalty to the grand causes of either party.
======
martythemaniak
As an engineer and an ex-libertarian that managed to (thankfully) outgrow it,
I have to say that what you describe isn't actually libertarianism as
practised and understood by libertarians at large, but your own personal
interpretation of it. Is is actually somewhat close to my current views and I
would never call myself a libertarian, nor would libertarians call me one of
them.

You seem to believe in a weak central government and strong state governments
that try new approaches and get shit done. This is nice, except most
libertarians believe in weak governments in _all_ levels of government. No,
not a government that works as well, not an efficient government, but a
_minimal_ government.

As an example, take the health care debate. Compared to some european
countries with good healthcare systems, the US spends substantially more (~15%
vs ~9% of GDP) covers substantially fewer people (the millions without
coverage) and the overall health of the population is poorer. By nearly all
objective measures, a good public system is much better than an all-private
system and yet, we know this is not compatible with libertarian ideology - you
will have to search far and wide to find a libertarian group that supports a
public healthcare system.

Like I mentioned above, the libertarian ideology is one of _minimal_
government, which is sometimes, but not always the best type of government.
This is why libertarianism relies on simplistic catch-allisms (government=bad,
regulation=bad, private-good) and parodies of reality like Atlas Shrugged and
other Ayn Rand fiction-pseudo-philosophy writings and not your idealistic
"engineering and scientific assessment of reality" idea.

~~~
fauigerzigerk
European health care systems are a double edged sword for startup founders. I
have lived in several european countries and researched the matter for some
others as well because I like to move around. I'll spare you the details
because they are mind boggingly complicated.

The issue is that in most countries there is no separate health care system.
There is an integrated social security system, including pensions, etc. The
problem is that there is a minimum charge that you have to pay irrespective of
your actual income.

This "standing charge" varies a lot. It's negligible in the UK ($15 per month)
and (I believe) in Ireland. But it's awfully high in most of continental
europe ($300 per month). That increases the burn rate for self funded startups
by about a third.

The reason why it's so high in some countries is that you don't get to choose
what kind of risks you want covered. The assumption is that you pay for the
older generation so that the next generation pays for you.

It's one size fits all, decoupled from individual choices. You must pay into
the retirement system even if you decide (as I have) that you are never going
to stop working unless you're unable to (which should be covered by a basic
disability insurance which is much cheaper)

As a result, many people (including myself at this moment) have no health
coverage at all. Either because they cannot afford it or because the rules are
so complicated, inconsistent and inflexible that people with unusual CVs slip
through the net.

~~~
tome
> This "standing charge" varies a lot. It's negligible in the UK ($15 per
> month)

Do you have a reference for the "standing charge" in the UK? I've never heard
of it.

~~~
fauigerzigerk
Yes as I said in the other post, the self employed pay class 2 and class 4 NI
contributions: <http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/nic/background-nic.htm>

The rates are here: <http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/rates/nic.htm>

If you earn below 5715 per year you only pay class 2 NI contributions, which
is 2.4 pounds per week.

[edit] I forgot to mention that you can apply to be exempted from class 2 NI
altogether. I didn't do that because 2.4 pounds per week seemed already very
low to me.

~~~
psykotic
My understanding is that income tax as well as NIC contributions go towards
funding the NHS. Anyone is eligible for NHS treatment, even foreigners, so it
seems inaccurate to say that your contribution to the NIC is what pays for
your health care.

~~~
fauigerzigerk
I didn't say that and I really don't know how much of the NHS is being paid
for by NI contributions.

The point is that in the UK you pay according to your actual profit wheras in
other european countries you pay a lot starting on the day you register your
business.

------
natmaster
Libertarianism is about the most basic pragmatic view of life. There simply
isn't enough variance in human intelligence for a few people at the top to be
able to make effective decisions for everyone else. Libertarians believe in
three basic rights - life, liberty, and property. All government should do
only/everything necessary to preserve those rights. It follows then, that
Libertarians are strongly against regulation unless it is absolutely necessary
(as this leads to corruption, monopolies, etc).

From the perspective of environmental issues, the government is not doing
ENOUGH to protect people from corporations that violently destroy citizen's
rights to life and property. The corporations do not own the air in the sky,
they don't have a right to pollute the river you drink from, and they
certainly don't have a right to cause you to be diseased by Mercury poisoning.

~~~
tome
On the other hand, there /is/ enough variance in human intelligence (or at
least human capability) for huge disparities in wealth even in social
democratic societies. How much more pronounced must this difference be in a
libertarian society?

~~~
natmaster
Libertarianism is all about distributing power, instead of consolidating in.
This results in less violations of individual liberty (you don't have
governments stealing from the poor and giving to the rich, or corporations
polluting the land the poorer live on, or large media conglomerates
effectively brainwashing people into submission). This results in mostly and
increase in prosperity for the poorer folks, while the rich of the rich might
not be able to sustain their position (although there will still be rich
people).

~~~
tome
I admire the desired outcome (and that of Shimrod in a different reply), but
I'm skeptical because of the history of inequality that capitalism has
manifested, which has only increased with the liberalisation of markets.

It may be possible to successfully argue, as you and Shimrod do, that
inequality is, in significant part, because of rather than in spite of the
government. I'd rather like to see such an argument. As I understand it the
classic libertarian arguments have focused on increasing production and
efficiency rather than decreasing inequality.

(NB decreased inequality is a very different thing from decreased poverty)

~~~
natmaster
Please show me this capitalist country so I can move there.

It is true, Libertarianism does not focus on decreasing inequality - at least
not in the sense of absolute privilege, because it is a meritocracy -
Libertarianism does, however, focus on decreasing inequality of opportunity.
If you decide to slack off like the cricket during the summer - your fault.
But you learn, that maybe next time you should work, instead of getting bailed
out and then noone has incentive to ever do any real work. This is why
communism failed. The truth is, that if you want people to not go hungry, and
live prosperously, the only way to do that is to craft the game, such that the
Nash equilibrium is beneficial, rather than harmful. And yes, there are some
people incapable of taking care of themselves - they might be handicapped, or
get in a car accident - however, in a society of prosperity and freedom,
people will have enough extra, and not be afraid of everyone trying to steal
what they have, that charity will increase. So, first, you decrease the poor
population to a size that is pretty much as small as theoretically possible,
and then those people are taken care of by the abundance of all others. I
mean, if you had $1million dollars, and you didn't have the government trying
to take it all the time, would you really pass up helping out those in need?
The reality is, that there will always be poor people, and history has shown
that socialism certainly does not solve that problem (the more socialist
countries have more poor people). If you claim the US is a capitalist system,
well it might be compared to some other countries, but then again, we are more
prosperous compared to those countries as well.

------
darjen
I'd recommend reading some Murray Rothbard before anything by Milton Friedman
or Rand. It's even free online here:

<http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/ethics.asp>

~~~
llimllib
Rand is not a libertarian.

~~~
psykotic
And arguably neither is Rothbard, who is much closer in his view on ethics to
Rand than to von Mises.

------
ckinnan
Social Security taxes are actually a rather large 12.4% of income. (this
includes the employer contribution, which is economically part of a worker's
compensation.)

<http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/taxRates.html>

Worker "contributions" also are immediately spent on unrelated programs (the
trust fund is given special government IOUs that are valueless) leaving an
unfunded liability in the trillions of dollars. On a cash-flow basis, the
program will begin to run in the red as the first boomers retire in 2017.

~~~
dgabriel
Boomers have already started retiring. The first wave became eligible in 2007.
Perhaps you mean the peak?

~~~
ckinnan
Right, sorry, 2017 is the year the total paid to retirees is greater than the
incoming contributions.

Medicare is already running in the red, by the way.

~~~
dgabriel
That is terrifying.

------
snewe
Lord Acton said "power corrupts":

<http://mises.org/story/1086>

I think that an important part of libertarianism is its fairly consistent
position for negative liberty:

<http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/>

------
lallysingh
This brings up my key critiques of libertarianism.

First, libertarians seem to enjoy attacking other political parties specific
positions while taking only a rhetorical one themselves. This feeds into #2:

Second, until the libertarian party actually puts together a platform, they
aren't a real party. The reason's simple: first, nobody can tell what they're
really voting for in terms of deltas to the legal codebase, and second,
without going in with a plan, I don't think we'd even get the libertarians to
agree with each other for doing anything.

To sum it up, I haven't seen a political party that's taken a real stance, but
would rather sit on the sidelines and throw stones. Call me when you have a
platform, not rhetoric. I don't want argument, I spent 11 years in a college
town -- I've done it to death, I want actual proposals that I can personally
evaluate. Until then, all I hear is ideology, and that's the _last_ thing I
want in government.

~~~
mmmurf
The Libertarian party is a fringe party that is mostly concerned with hemp
legalization. I know libertarians (small l) who vote for each major party some
of the time.

The point of discussing libertarianism is to see the philosophical difference
between someone who advocates personal freedom and economic freedom vs someone
who doesn't.

------
mdasen
So, I lean libertarian on many things. However, the problem I see with
libertarianism is that it posits that people aren't that effected by those
around them. Gay sex is fine because it's a personal decision - yeah, I
totally agree. Taking on billions in risky loans that cause economic collapse
is fine because it's a personal decision - I really disagree.

I hate the idea of paternalism and as someone involved in the small business
arena I really wish the government out of my way most of the time. However,
people affect others. You buying an SUV increases the aggregate demand for
gasoline which raises the price of gasoline and so I pay more at the pump
because you bought an SUV. Maybe that shouldn't be regulated, maybe it should.
You pollute and lower my standard of living. Maybe it should be regulated,
maybe it shouldn't.

The problem is where libertarianism typically draws the line. Shooting me: not
ok! Investing in risky stocks that destabilize the economy creating a panic
that loses millions of jobs and causes enough chaos in my personal life:
that's ok (according to the original poster).

I do have a lot of respect for Milton Friedman - in fact, he argued that one
of the functions of government was to combat the neighborhood effect of things
like pollution. However, most libertarians I know today aren't so keen on
things like pigovian taxes to correct differences between marginal social cost
and marginal private cost.

And part of this goes down to freedom of choice. Let's say I decide that a
fireworks display would get people together watching it, having BBQs, etc. I
could get dominion over the most choice seating from the government, but
plenty of people would be able to watch for free - a positive externality. So,
there is an argument to be made that this should be subsidized because people
won't create enough fireworks displays if they have to pay for it themselves
since they can't capture the revenue from the benefits because people can
freeload. However, not everyone gets to decide for themselves whether they
would appreciate this event. Maybe you hate people and don't want to
socialize. Either way, it's unfair to take money from you to pay for something
that you might not want.

So, there are two issues: first, there's the issue that I don't want people
messing up my life too much. So, there should be (in my opinion) limits on how
much stupid risk someone should be allowed to take given that those risks
often affect other people. You want to destabilize the economy? No, not ok.
Second, there's the issue on how much we should be individuals or how much we
should be a society when it isn't such a dire situation. Should the government
chip some money into a parade? Should the government encourage community? How
far should the government go on pollution? I'm sure no libertarian would argue
that the government shouldn't regulate dumping nuclear waste into my drinking
water, but what about a coal plant, what about CO2 from cars?

Libertarians aren't foolish people. It's just that often times I find myself
thinking, "well, that's fine and good for you, but it doesn't scale." Like,
it's fine to let someone like Warren Buffet do whatever the hell he wants.
He's responsible, stable, and smart. As we've seen recently, even CEOs
commanding many millions a year in compensation aren't able to work without a
net.

The problem really is that freedom doesn't exist. There's definitely more
freedom and less freedom, but freedom doesn't exist. Why? Because your actions
affect me. The fact that some geniuses at Citibank and others screwed up makes
it harder for me to switch jobs, means raises are going to be nil this year,
etc. The freedom they had took away freedom I had. And so it becomes a
balancing act and often I get lectures about freedom as if it isn't such a
balancing act.

How do you deal with this balancing act? I don't know. It's hard. You want to
maximize happiness. This is probably my biggest beef with libertarianism
because freedom != happiness even if there is a strong correlation. Maximizing
freedom for freedom's sake just seems silly to me. Anyway, it isn't always
clear how to maximize happiness and in some cases you just try to do the best
you can and fail. I really hate any pure philosophy. I just don't think any of
them apply in life. And libertarianism, in its pure form, just doesn't work.
People affect each other. If you're willing to bend libertarianism a bit and
keep a strong eye on freedom while making sure you keep in mind how one's
actions affect others (both directly and indirectly), I respect you.

Hopefully that was halfway coherent. We'll see tomorrow morning.

~~~
metaguri
Thank you for this.

I think that the field of game theory, and as the most simplistic example, the
prisoner's dilemma, shows that libertarianism, as defined by the idea that
individuals acting in their own self-interest will create the greatest common
benefit, is flawed. Specifically, this will limit the benefit of each
individual as well as the aggregate.

Individuals acting in their own self-interests categorically do not arrive at
optimal solutions for themselves or for the whole society. It's a complete
joke, mathematically provable, and thus ridiculous that it's still being
argued. We need coordinators. All forms of government have been imperfect at
achieving perfect coordination, which has inspired libertarians and
objectivists and etc., but that doesn't invalidate the coordinators' work.
Instead, a meaningful endeavor would be to improve the scientific rigor and
quality of the policy-based coordination. This is what my research as an
undergraduate was based around...

Libertarian, I invite you to go start an investment bank and act in your own
unfettered best interest. I'd be hard pressed to see you not end up in a
similar situation to investors in any of the past bubbles and collapses.

~~~
msluyter
To your example I would add the "Tragedy of the Commons":

<http://dieoff.org/page95.htm>

The tragedy of the commons demonstrates that with certain shared resources,
when everyone freely pursues their rational self interest not only is utility
not maximized, sometimes the result is catastrophic.

Libertarian solutions to the tragedy of the commons usually involve attempted
parcelization and privatization of existing commons, and while that's
practical in certain cases, in many others -- fishing grounds, air quality,
global warming, etc... -- it is not.

~~~
yummyfajitas
Privatization of fishing grounds, in the form of fishing rights distributed by
auction, is a widely used means of managing fisheries. It works well when
property rights are actually enforced (e.g. a body of water controlled by only
one nation).

~~~
msluyter
This makes some sense -- I guess I was thinking mostly of the devastation of
fishing stock that has occurred over the last few decades in areas that aren't
managed. However, I'd question whether the notion of fishing rights is truly
libertarian. It obviously requires a fair amount of government intervention
and management, to the extent that the more extreme anarcho-capitalist types
would find it unpalatable.

------
dpatru
One way to understand the difference between the typical
Democrat/Republicanism mainstream majority and libertarianism and is to
consider at what level each analyzes government action. The typical politician
asks if a law encourages people to do the "right" thing. The libertarian asks
what special reasons exists to use government force and if there are special
reasons, what is the least intrusive way to accomplish the goal.

------
russell
So what is the libertarian position on monopolies, oligarchies, and antitrust?
What do libertarians do when individual corporations have so much power that
they distort the market? What do they do when the corporate self interest is
contrary to society's interest?

------
tome
Can somebody who understands Libertarianism help me with the following thought
experiment?

Suppose Libland is a libertarian state. The occupants of Libland stay alive by
eating Food. Xia is another state. For whatever reason, they don't like
Libland, and for whatever reason, they can produce Food much more cheaply than
Libland.

Xia starts flooding the Libland market with cheap Food, so that it's is
uneconomic for anyone in Libland to produce Food, and the Food industry
disappears.

Suddenly Xia cuts of Libland's food supply, and invades several days later.
Libland has no means of producing food in short order, and they cannot buy it
from anyone else for some reason (for example Xia is the only other state, or
it would take too long to open trading routes with other states).

How does Libertarianism cope with this situation?

[edit: please don't treat me as stupid or a troll. I genuinely want to
understand libertarianism, and extreme counter-examples are a method of
understanding that I find very helpful]

~~~
cmac
This is an interesting example but I think it's not very really helpful in
understanding Libertarianism.

First let me answer your question directly: in this example, Libland is
undoubtedly screwed because Xia has a monopoly on the food supply. The people
of Libland would not be able to cope with this situation and they'd most
likely be overrun. Sure, there will be pockets or resistance with guerrillas
doggedly fighting on for years or decades, but as a state, Libland would no
longer exist.

Nevertheless, I think that the example isn't helpful because of two positions:

1) The unexplained reason why Xia can produce food so cheaply. 2) That it
would be uneconomical for anyone other than Xia to produce food.

In the real-world, there would be a competitor for Xia to supply food. Even if
Xia started off as the only supplier, someone would realise that they could
enter the market supplying food that's a little cheaper, higher quality or
just a little more different. The people of Libland, knowing the dangers of
relying on only one source, would then also start purchasing from the
competitor _in_addition_ to Xia.

I therefore think that your hypothetical scenario wouldn't exist outside of
the 'thought laboratory'.

~~~
gravitycop
_the example isn't helpful because of [...] 1) The unexplained reason why Xia
can produce food so cheaply._

No explanation is needed.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_advantage>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage>

~~~
cmac
Well, I think an explanation in real-world terms is needed, not theoretical
definitions. For example:

1) Does Xia have better climatic conditions? If so, why wouldn't neighbouring
countries have similar conditions to become a viable competitor?

2) Do the have better packing and transportation technology? If so, why can't
another country develop/buy/steal the technology?

3) Etc, etc.

Hence, my point is that the imposed constraints may not normally exist.

~~~
gravitycop
Interestingly, substituting _gas_ for _food_ , this very scenario is playing
out while we speak. <http://news.google.com/news?q=ukraine+gas+crisis>

------
netcan
I think it is important to look at what I see as the two main sides of
'libertarianism'.

-The Moral Argument-

Libertarianism is about rights & opposing coercion. Other people & by
extension governments should stay out of other people's business. Don't tell
me where to work or what to do. Don't tell me to wear a seatbelt. Mostly that
works fine

-The Economic Argument-

There is the second argument that (when it being criticised) gets called
'idealistic' or 'religious.' This is the idea that by not intervening in
peoples' lives & by extension in companies, everything will work out good.
Markets will function better. Economic output will be higher. Public good
would be increased. This relies on economic theories, theoretically anyway. So
far, most countries are really a balance here.

These are seperate & the arguments for them are seperate. On the first, I am
pretty clear where I stand: I agree mostly with the libertarian position on
personal rights. I am against drug/alcohol/seatbelt/smoking/exercise bans,
prohibitions or requirements. I am willing to relax that if the negative
public effects are substantial & prohibition side effects are less
substantial. So if we legalised drugs & found we ended up with a severe
amphetamine problem, I would consider reinstating the prohibition.

My biggest problem is the welfare approach. For a similar reason to the
amphetamine prohibition above, I think that welfare/health is essential &
should be provided by the state. If it is provided by non-state bodies to a
sufficient level, the state doesn't need to do it. I would even extend that to
international welfare.

The economic arguments get very technical. It is also an area where theories
are rarely good at being predictive. I see the connection between the moral &
economic theories. But I am not as worried about the rights of a corporation
as I am the rights of an individual.

~~~
ohxten
> For a similar reason to the amphetamine prohibition above, I think that
> welfare/health is essential & should be provided by the state.

I think you will find that a libertarians actually don't mind it being
provided by a /state/ government (myself included) The issue comes in when the
/federal/ government provides it. This is not freedom, because unless you move
from the USA you are forced to subsidize what is arguably an inefficient
system caused by bad government policies.

I'm a strong believer in the 10th Amendment. If it ain't in the Constitution,
it's for the states to decide. If the people of a state want welfare, they'll
vote someone in who will give it to them; whoever opposes can move to another
state. 50 different implementation possibilities for everything. That's
freedom.

~~~
netcan
I'm not American. But frankly, I don't know what it is you guys have with your
constitution. It's part of the legal framework. It's OK. The US Constitution
was a legal framework for operating a problematic place & it did that job
quite well. But I have no idea why it keeps getting referred to as if it's
some sort of ultimate moral authority. The Bill of Rights is also a good sort
of a document. But I don't see why it is better then any other high level
statement of morality.

Some parts of it seem outdated. The US isn't an ungovernable collection of
states that need Federation only for dealing with other countries anymore.
There is also nothing wrong with Federation if it works. Even if you decide to
work at county level, that's fine. But as with anything, you end up risking
income discrepancies & the consequences of this (migration, resentment,
estrangement, etc.)

But anyway, that's a completely administrative issue. How you should form a
Government (states//Federation, Republic, Kingdom) is one thing. Deciding what
this government should do is a seperate issue.

If you are not opposed to Government provision of health/welfare (or as I
prefer Government guarantee of these, but the de facto difference is quite
small), I think you are pushing the definition of libertarian.

------
johngunderman
I enjoyed reading your post. Eric Raymond made a good faq on libertarianism
that I think helps support your position.
<http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/libertarianism.html>

------
baddox
As someone who generally considers myself libertarian, yet admittedly doesn't
fully understand all the philosophies and intricacies of it yet, I enjoyed
this read. I have a question about your marijuana comment: can you point me to
a good read about a consistent libertarian drug policy? I'm certainly for
legalizing marijuana simply because alcohol and tobacco are far more
dangerous, but for more dangerous drugs it's a bit harder to argue for
legalizations. However, while I haven't completely formed my opinion on drug
policy, I tend to think that every drug SHOULD be legalized, and that doing so
wouldn't harm society much. I can't really back up my opinion yet, other than
by listing these two points: 1) We are allowed to do things like climb
mountains and drive cars, given a certain amount of training and/or a test,
not to mention eat whatever we want and refuse to exercise, even though all
these are objectively shown to be rather dangerous. 2) I personally would not
start trying all the dangerous drugs were they suddenly legalized, so I
suspect reasonably wise educated people also would not, and there would not be
some huge decay of society just by legalizing drugs. In fact, I have no
research to back me up, but I tend to think legalization (which really is just
decriminalization since we all know drugs are quite available and common)
would introduce competition, drive the prices of drugs down, probably make
drugs more safe (i.e. not mixed with other, worse substances), and remove the
association of drugs with slums/high-crime areas. I welcome more educated
libertarians to comment on my ideas and educate me more fully.

~~~
ohxten
There is a real-world example against prohibition of narcotics, and that is
prohibition of alcohol. It did not work. Billions are spent on the War on
Drugs, and yet it's clear that it's easier than ever to get drugs on the
street. Posession of marijuana is the number one most committed crime.

The point you made at the end is essentially the argument for why legalization
of drugs will solve a lot of problems. Competition will bring in ligitimate
sellers (as in the alcohol industry) and get rid of all of the crime that
comes from the local dealers who "own" street corners.

------
waddletron
If you are interested in Libertarianism but you instinctively are suspicious
of capitalism or even currency, perhaps you would be interested in Anarchism.
You can read about many interesting aspects of Anarchism with regards to its
relationship to other ideas such as Capitalism, Marxism, State Socialism, and
the current system we have in America.
<http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html> If you think the abolition of money
and markets is the abolition of economies, you are wrong and I invite you to
read this very short intro to Anarcho-Communism, a post-capitalism way to live
and organize. <http://struggle.ws/wsm/rbr/rbr10/communism.html>

------
davidmathers
"Zed's argument was essentially this"

grandalf, I think you missed one of Zed's main points. Here's a more
entertaining, less rambling, version from Belle Waring:

[http://examinedlife.typepad.com/johnbelle/2004/03/if_wishes_...](http://examinedlife.typepad.com/johnbelle/2004/03/if_wishes_were_.html)

In the real world there are large, extemely powerful, centralized power
structures. And they don't plan to go away, only to become more powerful. If
your libertarian politics doesn't include an actual plan to diminish the power
of these centralized social organizations that want to control people's lives
then it's not politics, it's fantasy.

The 'A' is not really 'B' the way I define 'B' in my fantasy world argument is
used by idealists of every stripe. Ask any Marxist about the Soviet Union.

~~~
grandalf
I consider the government one of those "large, centralized power structures".
It has its pluses and minuses. At present I pay it thousands of dollars every
month to help fund a massive war in the middle east and an enormous bailout of
Wall Street and Detroit. If I stop doing this I will be put in prison.

Dow Chemical is one other such organization, as is General Motors, as is
Google, as is Canada, etc.

Why do you presuppose that it is necessary to diminish the power of some of
these organizations?

I would argue that one of the main reasons that corporate interests become
"large, centralized power structures" is because they are able to manipulate
government regulation to their advantage.

There was a Stanford Entrepreneurial Thought Leaders talk where one guy said
how much he loves starting companies in heavily regulated industries --
because there is such a high barrier to entry that once you do the extensive
paperwork and legwork and politicking get approved there is very little
competition.

The real "sweet spot" for firms is to be in a heavily regulated AND heavily
protected industry (aka too big to fail). The military industrial complex is
one such example, as is the financial services industry (as of the past few
months) and also now the US automotive industry.

So rather than viewing the world as one in which government protects me from
these entities, I view it as one where these entities conspire to prevent
revolutionary innovations from threatening their dominance.

Further evidence that countries do this is the big trend toward treaties to
prevent "tax competition" between countries. France doesn't want Poland luring
companies in with low corporate taxes, etc. This is blatant collusion. Why are
state taxes typically lower than Federal? Not because state regulators aspire
to less grand programs than Fedreal ones do, but because it's easy to move to
a different state, not so easy to move to a different country.

Consider how many businesses spend more money on a presence in Washington DC
than they do on innovation. Google learned from Microsoft's mistake and now
has an active office in DC trying to build influence -- and with Schmidt's
appointment has the ultimate influence in the new administration.

To maintain its status as legitimate, one of these entities, government, must
constantly reinforce its own story through pageantry and pomp. Did you know
that George W. Bush conducted more ceremonies than any other president?

We're supposed to believe that all other "powerful, centralized power
structures" are evil (various companies, Saddam's Iraq, Castro's Cuba) and
that the only hope lies in unquestioning, unthinking loyalty to the US
government. We're taught to see all regulation only as the "grand vision"
associated with it, not as a law that creates incentives, winners, and losers.
We're taught to fear and to trust. We're given black and white messages like
"good and evil", etc.

I just refuse to believe this. I live in a country where "The Patriot Act"
takes away rights and where the financial services industry -- for quite a
while the biggest industry donor to both major parties -- gets a massive
bailout from the Treasury department. We live in a place where eating
according to the USDA food pyramid will lead to heart disease while benefiting
the dairy and beef and corn industries.

Why do I not just think we should strive to improve regulations against "evil
corporations"? I think people are capable of processing information and using
basic cognition. In many cases, such as the SEC, regulations only lead to a
false sense of security. Isn't it a bit crazy that in the same period that
Madoff's firm conducted the biggest scam ever, the SEC was warned of this by
multiple parties and instead chose to shut down prosper.com on a technicality?

I'm not anti-government, but I would like to see more competition -- in the
form of more being handled at the state level so that we can see the effects
of multiple approaches to solving the same problem, as well as move to a
different state if we find its regulatory environment preferable.

------
greendestiny
Actually in most cases libertarianism is simply the position of arguing that
the Government is causing whatever problem happens to be being discussed at
the time. Unfortunately the idea of libertarianism isn't against regulation is
a bit of a fantasy, because no matter what, someone can and will take the more
extreme position against regulation and this person will be seen as more
libertarian. I think ideologies are in general are flawed in their ability to
be more easily defended if taken to the extreme.

~~~
johngunderman
which is exactly why no ideology should be taken to an extreme. You end up
with Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin.

~~~
ckinnan
On the whole, the Founding Fathers were extremists for liberty. They were
quite radical, by the standard of their day and certainly by today's
standards.

Extreme liberty == Articles of Confederation (the first failed U.S.
government, wasn't strong enough) versus extreme national socialism == 10s of
millions dead.

------
Harkins
Can you find any examples where libertarianism has failed, instead of saying
that people have failed libertarianism?

If not, it's a religion rather than a political philosophy.

~~~
grandalf
One example that is often cited is the so-called "deregulation" of energy
markets.

There was not actually deregulation. The markets were still highly regulated,
so the act of deregulating part of them threw the whole system out of whack
and everyone wanted to reinstate regulation.

~~~
Harkins
So a deregulation failing proved libertarianism right?

Libertarianism is like prayer. If it works, the religion is right. If it
doesn't, you did something wrong and it's right.

~~~
grandalf
Take the passage of Prop 8 in California -- libertarians do not think that
marriage should be something that the state meddles in at all.

Examples abound. I just mentioned one deregulation example because such things
are often touted as libertarian accomplishments when in fact markets are often
still highly regulated and the deregulation was just a handout to one interest
or another.

------
wheels
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=419503>

------
s_baar
Real hackers use anarcho-capitalism.

------
rubing
If you want to know about libertarianism, then listen to Free Talk Live's
podcast.

