Paper Government OR A Question for Libertarians

[luna_manar]

So...I am pretty sure that at least one or two people who identify as Libertarian read my journal. And I want to understand something, exactly, because although this is what it seems like, I can't tell if this is actually the case.

I understand that Libertarianism encompasses a range of viewpoints. Most of them favor the minimalization of government and maximization of individual rights.

But in my many contentious conversations with Libertarians (on the Internet, admittedly), I keep running into this problem: these people honestly seem to believe in and support the idea of a paper government. That is: all government structure is a matter of written law, and individuals and businesses are allowed to self-adhere to those laws, and if they do not, no one in government enforces them. Instead, when someone does something wrong...people take them to court. And the only power the government has to enforce the law is in the form of a court judge. Otherwise, police are privately owned, schools are private, roads are private...everything else is private. The only power of government is the interpretation--not the enforcement of--laws on paper. That's it.

I run into these people, and they make me think that Libertarians are crazy. Because, in an ideal world, such a minimalist government sounds great. But it just has no practical application. We would slowly degenerate into chaotic anarchism and tribal warfare funded by businessmen-become-warlords. That's how I see it going down, anyway.

But the "dictionary definition" of Libertarianism seems a lot broader than that. It sounds more like Libertarians aren't anti-government so much as generally in favor of converting government power into government service. Where the people make the rules and the government's only purpose is to carry them out. True democracy: we vote on everything, from taxes to how the town prioritizes its budget.

So which is it? Or is it somewhere in-between? I see a lot of Libertarian web sites, but they all have different ideas of what exactly the word means, and I myself have gotten confused. I mean, I know that Libertarians want "the people" to have as many rights as possible, and the government to have very little if any power to invade your privacy or dictate where you go and what you do and when and how and with whom. But, sheesh, that's what most people want. If that's the only definition, then everyone is a Libertarian. So I've been trying to narrow the base down, a bit, and run into a bit of a snag.

A lot of Libertarians I have spoken to (again, on the Internet) are particularly concerned about money, and what the government shouldn't be allowed to do with it. Many of them love Ayn Rand and claim to be Objectivists. But there seems to be some very circular logic rolling around in these individuals' minds regarding wealth and the role of government in the individual's right to possess it: they believe that it's wrong to tax people at all, and at the same time, believe that if you aren't paying taxes (because you have no job or don't make enough), you're a worthless slacker who doesn't deserve the money. So it's bad not to pay taxes, but it's bad to be taxed. The rationale seems to be "the government shouldn't touch the people's money in any way, shouldn't tax the "legitimate" workers and shouldn't give money to those who don't work, because that was my money you stole from me and I don't want that money you stole to go to people who don't deserve it."

By the same token, charity is a bad thing; giving money to poor people simply encourages them to keep being poor. Or something like that. If they really wanted to not be poor, they'd get educated (because there's just a ton of free government-provided education for poor adults, like public libraries, not that the government should be providing such a thing in the first place, since working people ultimately pay for it and we don't want our money going towards those slacker poor people, who wouldn't be poor if they'd just take advantage of that free education, which we pay for but don't want to, because we don't want to support those slacker poor people...[...]), and get a job (because there's so many jobs available for scruffy people off the street who have no phone number and no mailing address and no means of transport and no money to pay for gas if they had a vehicle) so they can support themselves like a good stand-up citizen.

So, yeah, I'm confused. Do Libertarians in general actually believe this, or have I just run into a lot of really...hard-line paper-government Libertarians who are loud but don't represent the majority?

Comments

[gustinsweatt]

I don't know if you're talking to the right Libertarians. You want to know how it works, pick up a couple of books and go to the following websites:

Pick up Libertarianism from A to Z by David Boaz. I think he will answer a lot of the questions you are asking.

Go and read a lot of articles at www.cato.org.

Read the book "Ron Paul Speaks"

A very interesting African-American blog. Sometimes this guy identifies as a Black Libertarian. http://theblacksphere.net/

The word "liberal" actually came from the word Liberty. Libertarians are actually closer to this definition than any modern "liberal" could every hope to be. Classic liberals support such fundamental ideas as constitutions, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, free trade, and the separation of church and state. You will find that us classic Libertarians support all of the above, my only difference is that I support a republic built on Liberty, not necessarily a "democracy". There are a lot of times where the majority get it wrong.

Yes, I'm a Libertarian, not a "tea partier" though most political pundits on either side of the issue have not one clue what they are talking about when addressing that particular phenomenon.

Yes, I'm a Libertarian. I support legalization of all drugs. Removing our Army from the rest of the world and not being use as a police force so that they may enforce our defense at home and ONLY at home. Having a true free market, something we haven't had in this country since 1913. Separation of Church and state. I am for Gay Marriage because I don't think the government has a right to tell you who you love or where put your genitals as long as it's consensual. The right to manifest your health destiny. I could go on.

You will find it's not that much different than you think.

And while I like Ayn Rand as a person and I like her books, Objectivism is a cult, plain and simple. The only thing that I have ever liked as far as her non-fiction is her views on Capitalism and Personal liberties. The rest of it loses me.

[luna_manar]

Typing this from a phone, so forgive any errors.

That makes more sense to me, and I feel similarly about Aunt Rand. I will take a look at some of those books. I wasn't even aware that Libertarianism had anything to do with the "tea party"--I for the impression that Tea Party supporters are mostly just angry with how the government has been jerking people around for decades, but it isn't a cohesive enough movement to keep the creeps from running their rallies.

I think on personal level, I draw the line at treating large businesses as though they were individuals, to the detriment of the real individuals those businesses serve. I don't want to rob any entrapanuer (sp) of his or her hard earned money. I also don't think it is the role of private business to create law that serves only the interests of profit. So there's this weird conflict for me that I don't think government should be telling anyone how to make a living, because they start micromanaging and making stupid rules that amount to dictating how the citizens live their lives, and I don't think giant conglomerates should go unregulated, because they almost universally screw people when they do and also end up forcing individuals to do shot they have no right to force them to do. It's an infringement of rights either way.

[gustinsweatt]

Libertarians have nothing to do with the Tea Party but for some reason people assume that we are kindred spirits. We are not.

The problem with large businesses, or corporations if you will, is that they are granted lobbying power. This is hardly free market. In fact, it flies in the face of free market capitalism as you are giving most vaunted status to someone and then they are buying influence for government to come in and change the landscape of the market to meet their needs. There are words for this: cronyism, corporatism, or more correctly when the corporations are incorporated into the Government, Fascism. It's not the role of private business to create law and frankly they should not be allowed to do so. You wouldn't have to worry about regulation with the big guys because the market forces would drive competition. Hilariously, we have regulation and yet, from FDR on, we have had government regulating IN FAVOR of the big conglomerates. The idea that regulation helps the little guy and keeps corporations in check is complete myth, lie, fabrication, falsehood. In fact, it is their regulation that is woeful to the tax payer, the individual, and competition. Giving tons of money to idiots like Goldman Sachs, Halliburton, BP, Blackwater, AT&T, GE, etc, etc, (not to mention Clinton's complete government intervention into making it possible for us to only have 5 major media outlets in a country of 300 million people) has created the situation we have found ourselves in LONG before Bush, Clinton, Obama, even FDR ever came into power. The current corporate control that we have began with Woodrow Wilson with the interventionist Federal Reserve who have been used as a cartel to purchase influence in Congress. That was the whole point. They answer to international monetary schemes and do not abide by rules that are governed by the Constitution or decency. Hardly the activity of people who actually engage in a free market.

I won't bore you anymore but when it comes to business and money you could pretty much say that i'm in the Anarcho-Capitalist corner but that's how I feel about life as well.

Live well, don't kill anyone, have lots of sex, don't steal and don't let anyone get in the way of your happiness in dreams, within reason.

[luna_manar]

Just a note: I didn't know that the Tea Party was associated with Libertarianism. To be perfectly honest I don't know diddly squat about the Tea Party. All I hear about them are people making fun of them and picking the worst examples of the protesters to try and claim every single Tea Party member is like that. I doubt that's true. But in any case, I have never associated Tea Party and Libertarians.

But this helps draw the lines, in any case.

[luna_manar]

Also, also. I know your answer is ideally " go look it up," but sometimes it is just difficult to know where to start. I'm not entirely sure if fit's .meant to imply that I''m being lazy by asking the question. If so, I disagree with that. But the links will be helpful, and I will look at that book.

There are other ideas that I can't agree or disagree with until I know more. I don't know how human rights can be maintained when business is not regulated. I don't know how we would handle people who make bad decisions with drugs or guns or whathaveyou, if just anyone could acquire them. I am not saying I think it is right to ban or restrict these things, but you will always have the problem of irresponsible, exploitative, and/or power-hungry people. If there are no laws governing how people sell/use a potentially wildly dangerous product, if all of a sudden they erased all the lines on the roads and took down all the road signal and speed limits, how would the traffic be controlled? And if the answer is "companies control their own product," how is that better than the government controlling the product? Am I to believe the company will hive me the information I need to make an informed decision? As it is, I have to struggle against the tide to find information relating to research done on the prescription medications I take.

[gustinsweatt]

Human rights are maintained by an informed public who do the research on their own, as you do with your prescription medicine struggle or not. Again, if people start dropping like flies from a product, people stop buying the product and stop supporting the company and said company goes out of business. This works when you don't give preference to news companies who also happen to be reporting on the very product made by said evil Corporation. You don't need a government to regulate what common sense already tells you. Governments are definitely not in the business of Human Rights by the way or all computer CEOs like Steve Jobs or Bill Gates as we know them would currently be residing in the Hague. However, just because their are irresponsible people in the world, you do not punish those that are responsible because of the actions of a few and what they "might" do or have done in the past. You don't set up a net that stops all Civil Liberties in the name of safety. Frankly, simpler government works. Collectivism is a sham. What it takes though is people actually being responsible, which admittedly makes this entire thing, frankly, impossible these days. Coddled techno-crats is about all we've been left with. I mostly think that it's time to cut off my own penis so that I don't have to deal with procreating in this mad world. Yeah, I'm one of those that thinks the world is nothing more than a cold dark place but yet I still try to change it. I'm rambling....

Also, the argument that you raise about speed limits is one of the oldest in the book and frankly, not true and completely misunderstands Libertarianism and takes it way too literally. Libertarians are not into suspending ALL rules or mulling about saying, "do whatever". They believe that as a community, you have the right to make your standards, traffic rules included. Putting in laws for safety however does not give you the right stamp out Civil Liberties like those outlined in the Patriot Act or outdated Sodomy Laws.

[luna_manar]

First of all, I was not arguing. Please do not treat my questions as an argument. Neither you or other Libertarians are under attack by me. I am admitting ignorance and asking for clarification, that is all. I did not take the driving laws idea from anywhere; if it is "common,"I'm guilty of unoriginality, perhaps, but not sheep-minded parroting. I am glad that it is an inaccurate portrayal that does not apply to Libertarianism. That clears some things up.

I do still question prioritizatikn of companies over government. To me they seem equally brutal, but government is the only thing I as a citizen have any direct control over. As an employee, and in some cases as a consumer, I have no ability to deny an abusive company my patronage. I can't not-buy my thyroid medication. I can't go tell my employer to eat a bag of ducks, I'm quitting, because I cannot lose my insurance and it is a fait beg that I'd default on my mortgage before I'd find another job. So, I still do not have an answer for what the people are to do when a company with loads of money to pay for lawyers bears down on an individual who has very little money by comparison. In such a case, equal legal representation is impossible. Individuals have very little means by which to protect themselves against employers who treat them poorly. The argument I often hear is that the person could just quit and get another job. I know from my own experience that is easier said than done, and I do not accept the idea that the struggle for my livelihood against unfair demands is a Liberty, or the price I must pay for Liberty. I guess I simply think it is wrong to fail to protect the individual from abusive employment on the idea that doing so would infringe on the employer's rights, especially when the employer is a large company, rather than a person or small business. To me it seems that Civil Liberties shoild apply to the individuals but not an organization. I just don't think that companies are the same, morally, as individual people. And even if they were, just because the employee had the right to walk away does not mean the employer has the right to treat that employee like shit, just like that individual cannot punch another person and then hand them money and expect not to face charges. Although the two may seem like different things, emotional abuse and overworking one's employees is just as if not more detrimental than punch to the stomach; it just takes place over time instead of a few seconds. Taking advantage of someone who is desperate for income and so they have no good option (put up with the abuse or miss your rent) to protest in any meaningful way is not an uncommon practice. In this kind of economy, I just don't think enough people would boycott or walk out on their job to punish such a company. So how should that behavior be stopped?

Again, I may sound like I am arguing and my examples may be tired ones, but I pose the situations because I have not yet received an answer that makes sense to me. I may again be misinterpreting the point, but that does not make my questions or the situations I'm describing invalid and my tone is not meant to be contentious or accusational.

[gustinsweatt]

I was merely addressing the message itself as an argument, not the messenger. I was merely pointing out that I have had that particular point brought up to me concerning traffic laws and it has been brought up many times. I wasn't inferring that you were being argumentative and it's unfortunate if you thought that was the perspective I was addressing you from. It's not. So don't think I'm under the impression that we're having an argument. Trust me, we're not.

No one is actually advocating the priority of business over government in the Libertarian community. In fact, it's quite the opposite. There is a word for what you are describing: Fascism. When government and the corporate state converge to make one entity where government defers to corporate interests is not free market just like the Soviet Union didn't have a clue what Marxism was at all, though the scarecrows and bankers in the 50s would swear that they did.

It is a complete myth that you do not have an avenue to deny anyone patronage and that there an exception to that rule. In my opinion, that is completely false. Simply don't, just realize that there are consequences by doing so and that the road less traveled will be the more difficult road. If you do not work in a right to work state, you have the right to unionize and you should have a Human Resources department wherever your work regardless of whether it's right to work or not. Your state also provides you with a Workforce commission with state appointed attorneys to take up your case, regardless of your background. You have the possibility of moving over to another company to be more competitive with your benefits and actually ask those questions concerning said benefits in an interview with your potential new employer. Women looking to have children do it all the time when they bring up maternity leave, I know have been in such interviews. With the internet, you absolutely have the power deny patronage to anyone. You can order materials from a plethora of different people from all of the world and support them instead of those in your community if you are dissatisfied with them. You may spend more money but you will cut back on other things or find other ways. I complain all of the time that I love store fronts and despise e-business but that is where my business is going. The internet is informative, competitive, and I can buy in my own little world never driving to the Wal Mart down the street, giving Wal Mart more money to fire cancer patients who work there when they engage in smoking marijuana for pain alleviation.

Hilariously, the government would rather see more people die on the border for a plant that doesn't have near the toxic chemicals that cigarettes do and studies show that hemp is good for you in more ways than one. And yet what's that? Government regulation deems that you have to go to jail for engaging in a practice that is not near as violent or life threatening as alcohol. In fact, I could give you about 100 different examples of how for at least 100 years, our government has made the wrong decision over and over again through their uninformed, populist intervention. War, crime, theft, blackmail....most of the things that are actually occurring under the cover of night this very day all in the name of "safety" and regulation. Why? Because it gets them votes. You actually think they give a shit about any of us? Come on.

As far as your example of medication, yes, you must have it. Imagine how cheap it would be if the market drove the value like they do in Europe and Canada? Imagine what would happen if government didn't regulate pharmaceuticals in this country. Imagine that they wouldn't allow backdoor lobbying, allowing these companies to file patents so that other drug companies cannot make cheaper generics, forcing you to purchase their name brand. Imagine how cheap that would be and how you actually could go down and buy it without insurance like they do in other countries and the cost is around 15 bucks. The problem with our drug system in this country is BECAUSE of regulation from the government not just because of the companies themselves. Again, look a VA hospital and tell me that the government is doing a better job. I defy you too. I can point you to about 30 VA locations in the last month that are getting sued for infecting returning combat soldiers with HIV, Cancer causing drugs, staph infections, etc, etc, etc. Why? Because the taxpayer is worried about cost which means in the grand scheme of things, survival of the fittest. Hardly the health care system we should be striving for. Again, it's very simple: what you are talking about is corporatism, cronyism and the antithesis of free trade. It''s not capitalism and it's not Libertarianism. It's greed, pure simple, something that is not specific to any system. It's happened under Marxism, it's happened under Socialism, it's a human condition that no government regulation is ever going to keep you safe from.

However, no, corporations should not have the same status as a person. That is, again, not a tenant of Libertarianism and most Libertarians will tell you that it's WRONG. By the new court appointed status to corporations, they could hold public office, which is ridiculous. I founding fathers fought this very same battle when Dutch/East India Trading Company and Bank of England were trouncing over everyone's rights because they had the same rights as you and me.

Now, the legal issue that you raise has nothing to do with free market but the problem with the justice system. That's another can of worms.

To answer your question "how would that be stopped" at one point WE did. It's called Unionization and a business having a reputation. However, as we have started to go to a more service based economy model, more people are happy with their stuff and don't strike and organize anymore. You totally could walk out and fuck a company up royally but people don't because of the following: kids, dying parents, iPods, X-Boxes, Cars, stuff, TVs, house payments, and yadda yadda yadda. So, either find another job, which yes, it isn't easy but neither is putting brakes on a car but it can be learned and it can be done. I think people have had the government allow the media to feed you bullshit that we have limitations and that is simply NOT TRUE. It may take us years to get out of situations but it's the getting out of them that's the point.

[luna_manar]

Hmm. I'm not sure what the media says about these things: again, I'm severely out-of-touch when it comes to things like that. I know what I find when I look things up on Wiki or Google and what I see in comments on forums and blogs and the like. But I generally keep to my geek-news and I get mad about things like Predator drones. :}

Using my work as an example, I basically threatened to leave and then got promoted to a position that didn't treat me like shit (I assume because they wanted me to stay). Also, my boss, who was half the problem, was fired not lone after that. I have a new boss I like very much and my job is good as it has ever been. So that worked out; I would have left, and I would have found something else. I also would have missed rent payments in the interim--like you said, family, medical expenses. I guess I understand that "it's hard but it can be done," but it's not at all like learning to put brakes on a car. Learning to put brakes on a car is difficult...but it won't affect your health. Quitting your job and looking for another one can. So the choice isn't just hard, it's a gamble with your health and possibly your life.

I just don't think that businesses should have that kind of power over a person's life. I think that if you have to quit your job, you shouldn't have to worry about not being able to afford medications that suddenly become excessively expensive. But who would ensure that, if not the government? I get what you're saying; and I don't disagree that the government has been horrifically corrupt for a long time; but if government services are not the answer to things like unemployment, I want something else to take its place.

I don't like the government, but I hate bloated business with no conscience and the fact that my job is the only thing holding me above a pit of spikes more. The problem, as you've mentioned, is that there seems to be an increasingly blurred line between government and business, and that's quite disturbing.

It's just a very complicated subject. Thanks for the input, though.