Deciding how others are governed: Liberal vs Libertarian (1 Viewer)

[Mithrae]

Despite potentially vast differences in outcome - and often therefore considerable antipathy between the two groups - both libertarianism and liberalism share the common basic foundation of emphasis on individuals' liberty.

As I see it, there are two main differences between the two ideologies, and I want to focus on the second here:

1 > Libertarianism (by which I mean modern/American/'right-wing' libertarianism) emphasises or maintains as a fundamental 'right' the notion of private property, whereas liberalism sees private property - since, by its very nature, it involves restriction of others' freedom - as a secondary, socially-derived concept which is legitimated only by the consent of the governed.

2 > Libertarianism then proposes limits on what a society can/should do collectively, as a society, through their government, restricting it essentially to protection of citizens' lives, liberties, wellbeing and properties; whereas liberalism entails no such arbitrary restrictions.​

I want to focus on the second because I think it's the one where the difference of opinion is most understandable, because while I believe that the libertarian ideal - that societies should not have public education or healthcare or scientific funding or space programs or the like - is indeed somewhat arbitrary, it's impossible to deny that the liberal approach will inevitably force things upon some citizens without their explicit consent. Even if 90% of the population believed that public funding for scientific research is a good thing, there's still that 10% being taxed for something they don't want. Even if 90% of the population believed that speed limits are a good thing, there's still that 10% having their freedom restricted even though they had not (yet) harmed anyone.

Obviously, there's considerable overlap there - many if not most libertarians would support speed limits, for example - and that's a big part of the reason why I consider a strictly limited government to be an arbitrary, or at best subjective ideal.

But the point is that both ideologies involve deciding how other people are governed: Are we to be governed, to some level of approximation and restraint, by what most people in society actually want? Or are we to be governed under the sterner restraints which some possibly long-dead minority lays down out of genuine, and perhaps well-founded fear of a 'tyranny of the majority'?

In that light it seems to me that a key issue, if either ideology is to be internally consistent, must be that of tacit consent: People must have the option of choosing not only a different ruling party, but a different form of government to live under. I'm not sure there are any perfect answers here, but this line of thinking gives rise to a few questions which I for one find quite interesting.

A > Should electoral systems, constitutions and the like be open to referendum every quarter-century or so, so that each generation has their say in their form of government?

B > Should we aim towards more open migration policies and, potentially, more economic equality between nations, so that individuals have more options from year to year under what kind of government they'll live?

C > Can it be reasonably argued that, for example, simply taking a job and benefitting from/participating in a society is enough to constitute tacit consent to its regulations?

D > If so (or even if not), should a nation leave enough leeway that people, if they want to, can live quietly in the wilderness with no interactions - even ones that benefit them - with the rest of society? If so, what happens if more people decide to do that than there is wilderness to accomodate them? If not, what gives any arbitrarily-delineated society the right to claim complete dominion over all the land it does, so that no-one can even live there without suffering their regulations?

E > Should there be options available for people - not necessarily limited by pre-existing boundaries such as the American states - to withdraw from an existing government and create their own? If so, how might it be accomplished? If not, why not?

What do y'all think?

 

[TheHammer]

]I want to focus on the second because I think it's the one where the difference of opinion is most understandable, because while I believe that the libertarian ideal - that societies should not have public education or healthcare or scientific funding or space programs or the like - is indeed somewhat arbitrary,

The premise above is not accurate. Most libertarians support the idea that public education should be the authority of the most local government closest to the people. Most libertarians libertarians believe that healthcare is a power granted to the States and the people by the Constitution and the federal government has no authority to be messing in it.

In a nutshell, libertarians believe in limits on government and modern liberals believe the limits should be on individuals. Modern liberals believe in BIG government and libertarians believe in BIG individual liberty.

 

[joG]

Despite potentially vast differences in outcome - and often therefore considerable antipathy between the two groups - both libertarianism and liberalism share the common basic foundation of emphasis on individuals' liberty.
.......

I do not quite see that and further down you contradict the proposition yourself. The two are mutually exclusive of each other. While one says the liberty of the individual defines the community, the other one by necessity puts the well being of the community ahead of individual freedom.

 

[Mithrae]

The premise above is not accurate. Most libertarians support the idea that public education should be the authority of the most local government closest to the people.

You might be more qualified to say what most libertarians believe than I am, but in fairness that's not really saying a lot. Public education generally requires taxation, and if - as is often stated, and which you have not disputed - private property is considered a fundamental right by libertarians, it would seem quite strange if most libertarians would unreservedly grant that power to local governments. Undoubtedly there are many libertarians who see value in public education, and believe that there is a way for that to be accomplished without violating their more basic principles; but the fact remains that there are also many (and often more vocal) libertarians who'd insist that schooling should not be within the government's purview whatsoever.

Most libertarians libertarians believe that healthcare is a power granted to the States and the people by the Constitution and the federal government has no authority to be messing in it.

Again, given the caveats above, you may be correct if you said 'many' libertarians - or to be even more precise, many libertarians in America. Ask yourself why a libertarian in Canada should accept the delegation of powers written in the US Constitution. Then ask yourself why 21st century Americans should accept the delegation of powers written by 19th century Americans? That's one of my questions, and I rather suspect that (whatever their final answer) there are more than a few libertarians who've asked themselves the same thing.

In a nutshell, libertarians believe in limits on government and modern liberals believe the limits should be on individuals. Modern liberals believe in BIG government and libertarians believe in BIG individual liberty.

If "You nasty, me nice!" is the best you can manage, it's probably best to leave this for the grown-ups

 

[Mithrae]

I do not quite see that and further down you contradict the proposition yourself. The two are mutually exclusive of each other. While one says the liberty of the individual defines the community, the other one by necessity puts the well being of the community ahead of individual freedom.

Are you implying that you oppose things like speed limits? Building safety regulations? Health and safety standards in food preparation industries?

Tension between what Joe wants to do and how it's going to affect Billy are inevitable in any society. Mature people recognise this, and seek to find an optimal (even if never perfect) way of reconciling that tension. If your personal philosophy is that the community can go stuff itself, that you'll do whatever you damn well please regardless of how it affects others, then that's your call of course.

I suspect that many, if not most libertarians have a slightly more nuanced perspective than that however, and in the spirit of respectful dialogue I sought to recognise the ambiguities of that tension in my post.

 

[joG]

Are you implying that you oppose things like speed limits? Building safety regulations? Health and safety standards in food preparation industries?

Tension between what Joe wants to do and how it's going to affect Billy are inevitable in any society. Mature people recognise this, and seek to find an optimal (even if never perfect) way of reconciling that tension. If your personal philosophy is that the community can go stuff itself, that you'll do whatever you damn well please regardless of how it affects others, then that's your call of course.

I suspect that many, if not most libertarians have a slightly more nuanced perspective than that however, and in the spirit of respectful dialogue I sought to recognise the ambiguities of that tension in my post.

If you want a nuanced perspective, I would propose the economic model. In principal you might say that those that want the government to produce, what are defined in economics as public goods are libertarian, while those that want to have government additionally produce essentially private goods are liberals. The divide is relatively well defined, though a few products clearly have dual character. You might want to treat external effects separately, but will find that their handling can usually be interpreted as a public good. That should give you all the differentiation you need and you will still find that the groups have extremely little overlap.

 

[fmw]

Are you implying that you oppose things like speed limits? Building safety regulations? Health and safety standards in food preparation industries?

.

When most of us talk about wanting less government, we really refer to federal government. Local laws most often arise from public pressure. State laws do to a certain extent. Federal laws in general arise from the government's desire for power and control. The things you list here are governed locally and, while there thousands of example of stupid local laws, most of them are there because the public or at least a portion of the public wanted them there. The laws are usually developed from the ground up. Federal laws are developed from the top down and more often serve the desires of those in power than the interests of the people. While it is possible to communicate with a representative in Congress and even motivate the development of a bill, very few federal laws occur this way. Mostly it is a top down system.

Those of us with libertarian leanings want less of that. We generally want government as close to the people as possible.. Personally, I would like the federal government to answer to the states and derive its revenue from the states rather than direct taxes. That way we would have a federal government responsive to others rather than being responsive to itself. Sure we want building codes and speed limits. We don't want most of what happens in Washington.

 

[TheHammer]

You might be more qualified to say what most libertarians believe than I am, but in fairness that's not really saying a lot. Public education generally requires taxation, and if - as is often stated, and which you have not disputed - private property is considered a fundamental right by libertarians, it would seem quite strange if most libertarians would unreservedly grant that power to local governments.

If most libertarians believe in the Constitutional rule of law, (and I reckon they do), they accept the fact that libertarianism and anarchy are two different animals and the fact is the States and the people constitutionally hold the power to decide the education issue. Again, I propose that most libertarians, (at least the libertarians I know), believe that the best of public education is conducted by the most local of government simply because the most local politicians are the most locally responsible to the citizenry.

 

[TheHammer]

Undoubtedly there are many libertarians who see value in public education, and believe that there is a way for that to be accomplished without violating their more basic principles; but the fact remains that there are also many (and often more vocal) libertarians who'd insist that schooling should not be within the government's purview whatsoever.

I propose that the latter example you present, would likely be better defined as anarchist rather than libertarians. Defining libertarianism as well as any political ideology isn’t an exact science. The libertarians I know promote the vast majority of the Constitution, especially the Bill Of Rights. They promote “limited” government not anarchy.

 

[1750Texan]

Libertarians believe in a lot of cool stuff.

Liberals put pragmatic solutions to practice.

 

[Master PO]

If most libertarians believe in the Constitutional rule of law, (and I reckon they do), they accept the fact that libertarianism and anarchy are two different animals and the fact is the States and the people constitutionally hold the power to decide the education issue. Again, I propose that most libertarians, (at least the libertarians I know), believe that the best of public education is conducted by the most local of government simply because the most local politicians are the most locally responsible to the citizenry.

the founders rejected education by the federal government at the constitutional convention.

 

[Master PO]

A > Should electoral systems, constitutions and the like be open to referendum every quarter-century or so, so that each generation has their say in their form of government?

would not work....people are driven by passion, and they can be easily seduced, beguiled by those who are evil seeking power.

Federalist 62 and federalist 63 would explain it in more detail.

 

[TheHammer]

Again, given the caveats above, you may be correct if you said 'many' libertarians - or to be even more precise, many libertarians in America. Ask yourself why a libertarian in Canada should accept the delegation of powers written in the US Constitution. Then ask yourself why 21st century Americans should accept the delegation of powers written by 19th century Americans? That's one of my questions, and I rather suspect that (whatever their final answer) there are more than a few libertarians who've asked themselves the same thing.

Canadian libertarians are bound to the Canadian laws. I’ll let Canadians worry about their own reasoning for their libertarian views and issues for dealing with Canada’s laws.


When somebody can present a valid rational argument that the individual rights, limits on government and the only justification for government is by the consent of the governed, (as are the principles and values of the American National Constitution), are no longer valid principles worthy of respect and honorable loyal following because they are outdated, then I for one will be interested in their opinion. Thus far I’ve not noticed such an argument.

If "You nasty, me nice!" is the best you can manage, it's probably best to leave this for the grown-ups

And that’s supposed to mean what?

 

[1750Texan]

the founders rejected education by the federal government at the constitutional convention.

..as they rejected freedom for Africans. Yes the FF were fallible.

 

[Master PO]

..as they rejected freedom for Africans. Yes the FF were fallible.

:2razz:

can you tell me, what this has to do my statement.....nothing...did you make yourself feel good?

 

[TheHammer]

the founders rejected education by the federal government at the constitutional convention.

Didn't stop the BIG government feds from violating the Constitution though did it?

 

[Master PO]

Didn't stop the BIG government feds from violating the Constitution though did it?

no it didn't, as the anti - federalist stated it would not.

ALSO the federal government "congress" has not authority to create to legislation on property which is not federal...sept 5 1787

 

[TheHammer]

Despite potentially vast differences in outcome - and often therefore considerable antipathy between the two groups - both libertarianism and liberalism share the common basic foundation of emphasis on individuals' liberty.

Modern liberal's idea of "individual" liberty is more like the individual's liberty to collectively gather and conspire to write hundreds of gun laws, anti-smoking laws, food police laws, hate crime laws to punish thought, anti-religious practice laws, anti private property use regulations,(when the use violates nobody's rights), and support for the right-wing's unconstitutional Drug War as well as fleecing taxpayers to use the proceeds to bribe the vote with unconstitutional federal social programs.

Libertarians oppose all of the above.

 

[Mithrae]

For all the spirited responses from liberal and libertarian alike, only one person has so far even brushed on the key issue of the thread: Both libertarianism and liberalism on face value imply some degree of self-contradiction, because while they are based on emphasis of individuals' liberty, they are nevertheless views about how other people (ie, everyone in a given society) should be governed, whether they like it or not.

Even the most ideal liberal democracy would have small numbers who don't like the way it's run.
The most ideal libertarian republic might even have majorities who want to accomplish so much more through their government.

So what are the most ethical/practical/ideologically consistent ways of responding to the inevitable dissatifaction with government? Ernst barkmann rejects occasional electoral/constitutional referenda as too easily subject to corruption. What does everyone else think?

Should the option of withdrawing entirely from a society be kept open for those who wish it?

Should migration be promoted more as a viable way for people to choose their society and form of government?

What about seccession?

Or can mere participation in a society be considered tacit consent to its form and laws, however loudly one complains?

 

[US Conservative]

Despite potentially vast differences in outcome - and often therefore considerable antipathy between the two groups - both libertarianism and liberalism share the common basic foundation of emphasis on individuals' liberty.

As I see it, there are two main differences between the two ideologies, and I want to focus on the second here:

1 > Libertarianism (by which I mean modern/American/'right-wing' libertarianism) emphasises or maintains as a fundamental 'right' the notion of private property, whereas liberalism sees private property - since, by its very nature, it involves restriction of others' freedom - as a secondary, socially-derived concept which is legitimated only by the consent of the governed.

2 > Libertarianism then proposes limits on what a society can/should do collectively, as a society, through their government, restricting it essentially to protection of citizens' lives, liberties, wellbeing and properties; whereas liberalism entails no such arbitrary restrictions.​

I want to focus on the second because I think it's the one where the difference of opinion is most understandable, because while I believe that the libertarian ideal - that societies should not have public education or healthcare or scientific funding or space programs or the like - is indeed somewhat arbitrary, it's impossible to deny that the liberal approach will inevitably force things upon some citizens without their explicit consent. Even if 90% of the population believed that public funding for scientific research is a good thing, there's still that 10% being taxed for something they don't want. Even if 90% of the population believed that speed limits are a good thing, there's still that 10% having their freedom restricted even though they had not (yet) harmed anyone.

Obviously, there's considerable overlap there - many if not most libertarians would support speed limits, for example - and that's a big part of the reason why I consider a strictly limited government to be an arbitrary, or at best subjective ideal.

But the point is that both ideologies involve deciding how other people are governed: Are we to be governed, to some level of approximation and restraint, by what most people in society actually want? Or are we to be governed under the sterner restraints which some possibly long-dead minority lays down out of genuine, and perhaps well-founded fear of a 'tyranny of the majority'?

In that light it seems to me that a key issue, if either ideology is to be internally consistent, must be that of tacit consent: People must have the option of choosing not only a different ruling party, but a different form of government to live under. I'm not sure there are any perfect answers here, but this line of thinking gives rise to a few questions which I for one find quite interesting.

A > Should electoral systems, constitutions and the like be open to referendum every quarter-century or so, so that each generation has their say in their form of government?

B > Should we aim towards more open migration policies and, potentially, more economic equality between nations, so that individuals have more options from year to year under what kind of government they'll live?

C > Can it be reasonably argued that, for example, simply taking a job and benefitting from/participating in a society is enough to constitute tacit consent to its regulations?

D > If so (or even if not), should a nation leave enough leeway that people, if they want to, can live quietly in the wilderness with no interactions - even ones that benefit them - with the rest of society? If so, what happens if more people decide to do that than there is wilderness to accomodate them? If not, what gives any arbitrarily-delineated society the right to claim complete dominion over all the land it does, so that no-one can even live there without suffering their regulations?

E > Should there be options available for people - not necessarily limited by pre-existing boundaries such as the American states - to withdraw from an existing government and create their own? If so, how might it be accomplished? If not, why not?

What do y'all think?

If liberals are about individual liberty, why are they always forcing others to do what they say?

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

If liberals are about individual liberty, why are they always forcing others to do what they say?

Why do advocates of "small government" seem to only want a government small enough to fit in your bedroom? All government is violence. Laws are violence. Taxes are violence. Even the highway system is violence-- ask the people whose homes were seized to build them. The only difference is that some of us want the government to use its capacity for violence to make the world better for everyone, and some people want to use the government's violence to **** all over anyone they don't like.

 

[US Conservative]

Why do advocates of "small government" seem to only want a government small enough to fit in your bedroom? All government is violence. Laws are violence. Taxes are violence. Even the highway system is violence-- ask the people whose homes were seized to build them. The only difference is that some of us want the government to use its capacity for violence to make the world better for everyone, and some people want to use the government's violence to **** all over anyone they don't like.

Im an advocate of small govt that does not want govt in the bedroom. Your problem is that you fail to see the nasty things that can lie behind "make a better world for everyone". As decided by who? Define what better is? What if its different for others, do you still support it?

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Im an advocate of small govt that does not want govt in the bedroom. Your problem is that you fail to see the nasty things that can lie behind "make a better world for everyone". As decided by who? Define what better is? What if its different for others, do you still support it?

I don't fail to see them-- I try my best to avoid them, while realizing that failure is no excuse for not trying.

I don't support every liberal/progressive policy initiative, but I support their philosophy and most of their goals.

 

[US Conservative]

I don't fail to see them-- I try my best to avoid them, while realizing that failure is no excuse for not trying.

I don't support every liberal/progressive policy initiative, but I support their philosophy and most of their goals.

Most of liberalisms worst atrocities were from trying to make the world a better place. I'd like to see the world made a better place-but the first rule is do no harm. When I look at the war on povery for example, I see much more harm than good.

 

[Mithrae]

Most of liberalisms worst atrocities were from trying to make the world a better place. I'd like to see the world made a better place-but the first rule is do no harm.

So since - for example - speed limits enforced by the police are an exercise of force curtailing individuals' freedom, and therefore obviously a form of harm, you would say that they should not exist, even though they potentially result in far more benefit than harm?

Im an advocate of small govt that does not want govt in the bedroom. Your problem is that you fail to see the nasty things that can lie behind "make a better world for everyone". As decided by who? Define what better is? What if its different for others, do you still support it?

'Harm' is decided by who? What's your definition? And what if other people have different ideas?

There are always going to be differences of opinion in any free-thinking society. There are always going to be people who believe that their government is inflicting harm on their lives or wellbeing. No ideology is going to change that fact. I started the thread wondering what might be the most ethical/practical/ideologically consistent responses to that fact, but it seems that no-one - liberal, libertarian or conservative - is particularly keen to consider such questions.

Perhaps the delusion that one has a perfect, kink-free ideology, that there needn't be any grey areas or genuine conflicts of interest to muddle through, is too powerful for many of us to resist.