[Archived: Special Debates] Liberals vs. Libertarians - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Assorted documents and images.
By GandalfTheGrey
#374520
Liberalism Opening Statement

The liberalist position can roughly be seen as sitting somewhere between the ideology of pure libertarianism and pure socialism. While we strongly stand up for individual rights, we also believe that the government has a duty to protect the community at large. We believe in the core tenets of libertarianism – such as individual freedom and the free market, but we hold that such a pure system on its own would inevitably lead to the creation of a dominant minority that would exploit and abuse the majority. For liberals, the tendency for the powerful to continually strive towards exploiting the weak is an inevitable part of a capitalist system. Therefore, to prevent exploitation and abuse of the underprivileged, we believe the government must implement controls and regulations on powerful individuals and businesses. On the other hand, the government also has a duty to help the underprivileged get a kick start in society and maximise their opportunities. This benefits both the individual being helped and society as a whole.

Our ideology is best explained in three core areas:


Economics

·We believe in the free market system but reject the laissez faire school of thought; capitalism is benificial to humanity, but can also lead to exploitation. The government acts as a safety net against said exploitation.

·We believe in fair trade, not pure free trade. Countries ought to be allowed to protect their industries and workers against unfair competition from states where labour is exploited.

·We believe that the government must protect workers safety and must allow the creation of unions. This helps workers by giving them a power base in which they can protect themselves against their inevitable vulnerability to exploitation.

·We believe that the environment comes before profits, and that the government must legislate protections for the environment when corporations are obviously unwilling to clean up their act since corporations are above all, interested in profits at any cost and therefore cannot be trusted to work in the interests of society. This is an illustration of where the government intervenes against capitalism for the benefit of society, since a healthy environment is critical for the functioning of a successful society.

·We believe that monopolies are a destructive force that restricts peoples freedom to choose and that they are detrimental to the consumer and society as a whole. Thus we believe that the government should legislate against them.

·We believe debts are often a crippling burden for developing nations, and were often incurred under unfair circumstances (again, powerful businesses care about profits, not the rights of the exploited), and as such, believe serious efforts must be put towards lowering the debt burden of developing nations.

·We believe in giving developmental aid to emerging economies, as history has shown such investments promotes a higher standard of living within the country and increased trade.



Civil Issues

As champions of the individual’s right to free choice, liberals hold similar views to those of libertarians in regards to civil issues. Where we differ is in those cases where individual liberty directly threatens the rights of the community. In these cases we believe that certain controls on individual freedom are necessary for the interests of society.

·We believe people should be free to decide if and who they want to marry, opposite sex or not. We believe the decision of who they marry should be their’s and their’s alone.

·We believe the government has no right to dictate religion as a governing tool, religion is a personal belief, not law.

·We believe the government should intervene when it sees its people or their rights in danger. After all, it is the government’s duty to it's people to defend them and their rights. For example it may be necessary for the government to implement laws to protect people’s right to make such lifestyle choices as being gay.

·We believe in equal rights for all people are equal and should be given the same freedom and opportunities, regardless of race, creed or colour.

·We believe a woman should be able to make decisions about her own body, and her own health, and her own future. A woman should be able to decide when she wants to bring a baby into the world, and if she is prepared to be a mother.

·We believe in as little censoring as possible, but also prevention of material that is considered offensive or just wrong by the vast majority of the population.

-We believe the individual has the right to own a gun, but insist that the government must implement strict controls and regulations to ensure that this particular freedom of choice does not endanger society.


Foreign Policy and International Affairs

Just as we believe in the rights of the individual in society, we also believe in the rights of individual nations within the global community. However, we also believe that the actions of individual countries need to be subject to certain controls and regulations dictated by a united global body. In this, we believe in the importance of the United Nations and international law.

·Each nation should have freedom to implement its own laws and destiny

·We believe in the importance of the United Nations and multilateralism. Just as a democratic government acts as a safety net against exploitation within each nation, a united world authority acts the same way on a global scale

·We defend each nation’s right to self determination, but reserve the right for the United Nations to intervene in such cases where the international community is put at risk

·In regards to action taken by one nation against another, we strongly oppose unilateralism except in matters of self defence. Just as individuals in a society are vulnerable to exploitation, We recognise the inherent risk of poor nations being exploited by rich countries and their multinationals. Therefore a united global body such as the UN acts as a safety net against this.

·We believe in nation’s right to protectionism.
By smashthestate
#375286
NOTE: The Libertarian team would like to express their sincere apologies for not being able to partake in the debate on the first day it was scheduled. As you know, it was a very important national holiday in the United States and we simply were unable to post. Thank you for your understanding.

Libertarianism: Opening Statement

Libertarianism is based almost entirely on a single premise: the outlawing of the use of physical force and fraud. Under Libertarian laws, a person would basically be able to do anything they wanted, so long as in doing so, they don't violate the said premise. Basically, they can't commit physical force against another person, and they may not commit crime. Libertarians believe that each individual person is the sovereign "unit" of society, and that their rights are paramount to the rights of anything else (i.e. community rights, minority special privilages, etc.) Since Libertarians hold this standard in the civil arena of society, we also hold this standard in the economic arena of society. Libertarians believe in a free market economy, which brings wealth and prosperity. The government would have almost no involvement in the private transactions between individuals, except to legitimize written agreements and to prevent fraud. This policy also applies to trade with other nations. While the government in one nation can't change the laws in another country, it must not interefere in any way between the private transactions between individuals in one nation and individuals in another nation. Thus, we believe in free trade among nations.

Below are the Libertarian positions on many of today's issues:

Civil Issues:

+ Libertarians believe that each person owns their own body, and that they may do whatever they want to their own body. For this reason, we believe in the full decriminalization of all drugs. We are against any kind of prohibition.

+ Libertarians believe that every individual has the right to self-defense, and thus has the right to keep and bear arms. Having possession of something is not a crime, but if you use that possession to commit a crime, then the government may step in and serve justice.

+ Libertarians believe in a fully privately-funded educational system. Each parent should be allowed to spend their money (which would, in this case, have been taxes to support the public school system) to send their children to any type of school, that teaches any type of curriculum, that they can afford to provide. We would support a slow transition from our current form of universal tax-funded educational system to a fully privately-funded system.

+ Likewise, Libertarians also believe in a fully privately-funded healthcare system. We reject the idea that healthcare is a universal right. In order for healthcare to be a universal right, this means that some people will be forced to provide healthcare services. Libertarians reject all forms of physical coercion against non-criminal individuals or groups.

+ Libertarians believe that the government must completely stay out of the private, sexual lives of every individual. Because of this, we do not support government laws on marriage or any sort of sexually restricted laws between consenting adults.

+ Libertarians oppose all forms of censorship.

+ Libertarians believe that the separation between the church and the state, between religion and government, must be absolute. Accordingly, the government may not make any laws restricting religious activity of any kind, unless that activity violates another individual's rights.

Economic Issues:

+ Libertarians fully support the right of individuals to trade and cooperate on a fully voluntary basis. Because of this, we fully support a free market economy.

+ Libertarians oppose all forms of so-called "corporate welfare" and likewise oppose all forms of tax-funded subsidies.

+ Libertarians also respect the right of individuals from one nation to trade with individuals from another nation free from government restrictions and taxations. Thus, we believe in free trade and oppose all tariffs and trade restrictions.

+ Libertarians oppose all forms of coercive welfare, including domestic welfare and foreign aid.

+ Libertarians believe in the right of individuals to aquire private property rights in land and natural resources, as well as goods produced by labor.

+ Libertarians believe in the freedom of association. Thus, employers have the right to hire any individual for any reason and also have the right to fire any individual for any reason.

Foreign Policy Issues:

+ Libertarians believe in military isolationism. This means that the government would not get involved in any foreign conflict for any reason, except that our nation has been attacked by another. The military under a Libertarian form of government would be strictly for defense purposed only.

+ Libertarians are not opposed to multinational organizations such as the U.N., but we do oppose their ability to interefere in other nations' affairs.

+ Although Libertarians may disagree with other nations' laws, we respect their sovereignty as a nation and hold that they have the right to pass laws such as protectionism, etc.
By smashthestate
#375287
First question to the Liberals:

Why do you think it's better to force people to help the poor through taxes rather than trust them to do it voluntarily? Do you not trust the people you claim to represent?
By smashthestate
#375494
Questions:

How can champion freedom of speech, but at the same time think that a "vast majority" may censor it? Isn't that tyranny of the majority?

What are the rights of the community, and how is it possible for new rights to be created simply by grouping a large number of people together?

Is there a philsophical/moral basis for liberalism, and if so, what is it?

If you could raise taxes to a level that you think would pay for the liberal agenda, what would that level be? Is there any level of taxation that you would consider immoral? (for example: 80, 90, 100% taxation?)

Liberalism Opening Statement wrote:We believe that monopolies are a destructive force that restricts peoples freedom to choose and that they are detrimental to the consumer and society as a whole. Thus we believe that the government should legislate against them.

What if the monopolies are government-held? For example, what if they hold monopolies on healthcare and education? Are these monopolies not held to the same standards as private monopolies?
By GandalfTheGrey
#375713
Why do you think it's better to force people to help the poor through taxes rather than trust them to do it voluntarily? Do you not trust the people you claim to represent?

To be brutally honest, no we don’t. This comes down to basic human nature; people are interested in pursuing their own success, even at the expense of others. Therefore, we believe that left completely to their own devices, people are more likely to exploit and abuse the poor rather than help them. It is clear upon examining societies in which the government provides no services, such as America before the New Deal, or much of Europe until halfway through the 20th century, that apart from very few exceptions, the rich have made no voluntary effort to assist the poor, and instead have exploited them. Human rights should be guaranteed, and that means when a human right requires a service, such as unemployment assistance, those services must be guaranteed. How can they be guaranteed when there is no ensured supply of money to support them? Helping the poor is one of the most critically important things necessary for a functioning society. We believe we cannot trivialise it by entrusting privileged people to voluntarily help the poor.

Is there a philsophical/moral basis for liberalism, and if so, what is it?

Essentially, we believe that a successful society needs to merge aspects of both libertarianism and socialism.

The moral basis for liberalism is well articulated in the United Nations declaration of human rights: http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html. Importantly, we believe that many of these articles are possible only with government support. For example, Article 24: “Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.”
This is a good example where the government has to intervene to protect the rights of workers – rights which corporations have little interest in protecting since they are only interested in profits. Again, this governmental intervention makes human rights a guarantee.

Therefore, our philosophical basis is that we believe in individual rights and freedom, but that such a system on its own leads to abuse and exploitation. Therefore we advocate certain governmental checks and balances to protect against this inevitability. How much influence the government exerts depends on what is needed to guarantee basic human rights.

How can champion freedom of speech, but at the same time think that a "vast majority" may censor it? Isn't that tyranny of the majority?

The phrase “tyranny of the majority” is deliberately misleading, because by any definition, this simply means democracy. If we were talking purely about a democratic system, then the majority would be able to dictate what was and wasn’t censored. However, as you rightly point out, we are champions of free speech, and as such we are generally against censorship. In explaining our position on this issue, one should remember a basic rule of thumb of liberalism: we stand up for freedom of speech, as long as it does not adversely affect the community. The word “community” is just another way of saying a collection of individuals. Thus, protecting the rights of the community is the same as protecting the rights of individuals. Do you think the rights of one individual should override the rights of a large group of individuals? Ideally we want to protect everyone's rights, but sometimes protecting one person's rights violates another person's rights, and in such cases tough choices need to be made.

Now with regard to censorship, we must be careful to support freedom of speech on the one hand, but to protect the community on the other hand. In reality, there are very few cases where we would deem censorship as appropriate, but we must be ever vigilant to protect the rights of individuals, and cases where this may be put at risk, then censorship may have to be considered. One example might be where a group of paedophiles want to buy a child pornography movie. In this case, the makers of the movie (lets say they create and distribute the film in a country where child pornography is legal) depend on people paying to buy the movie to continue their child pornography industry. Libertarians might say that people have a right to buy that movie. However, doing so funds this child pornography industry, and ensures that more children will be abused in the making of these films. Censorship in this case will protect these children by destroying this industry (which is legal in the country/state it is being made).

What are the rights of the community, and how is it possible for new rights to be created simply by grouping a large number of people together?

We do not believe in a holistic approach to this: we don’t believe that the “community” is some mystic force that is greater than the sum of its parts. The community is quite simply a collection of individuals. There are no new rights created simply by grouping people together. The right to healthcare and an education are universal; it is just that in communities of any scale, new ways of addressing these rights are necessary. Plus, the idea of “rights of the community” is absurd. What you refer to as “rights of the community” are simply personal rights that we, as a society, have agreed to protect collectively.

Thus the rights of the community and the rights of the individual work together, not against each other.

If you could raise taxes to a level that you think would pay for the liberal agenda, what would that level be? Is there any level of taxation that you would consider immoral? (for example: 80, 90, 100% taxation?)

Well, this question is flawed because of the incomplete nature of the hypothetical. The question fails to provide what services would be provided for those levels of taxations. We believe that although taxation somewhat contradicts the notion of individual liberty, it is absolutely essential to ensure basic human rights, and is therefore unavoidable. Consistent with our position that individuals have basic human rights, we believe that government services (funded by taxes) act as a guarantee for essential services. An “immoral” level of taxation, would be one that does not adequately give individuals this guarantee for essential services, that every human has a right to. On the other hand, a taxation level that was greater than the level required to adequately provide this guarantee would also be immoral because it infringes upon individual freedom.

What if the monopolies are government-held? For example, what if they hold monopolies on healthcare and education? Are these monopolies not held to the same standards as private monopolies?

With government monopolies we are discussing issues of fundamental human rights, opposed to consumer goods which people have a choice to consume. Government held monopolies, such as education and healthcare, are OK because it is the only way to ensure total protection of all members of society.

Moreover, under our system it would be impossible to have a situation where government monopolies would be such that the individual has no recourse to try private alternatives (eg private health care). In the area of taxation, we illustrated how taxation merely creates a guarantee for essential services, and nothing more. Hence this level of government funding for such essential services as health and education would only be enough to provide this guarantee to individuals, and would not be enough to create a monopoly. Having the choice of non-government services is consistent with the liberalist position.



Questions for Libertarians

1.How can a libertarian system protect the poor and underprivileged from being exploited by the rich and powerful?

2.How can you guarantee that people will enjoy basic human rights if it is not provided through taxes?

3.How is a fair and non-partisan police and security force sustained in libertarian societies? Such institutions are required to protect property and the right of the individual. They could not be funded by taxes, since in the libertarian ideology that would mean forcing people who may not want police to support them.

4.Do you support the right of an individual to purchase nuclear warheads? If so, how do you prevent potential terrorists (who are not criminals yet) from doing so?

5.How do you stop large corporations from damaging the environment - who do so in the interests of short term profits? Do you consider a limited role for government intervention in such cases?
User avatar
By Comrade Ogilvy
#376417
GandalfTheGrey wrote:Questions for Libertarians

1.How can a libertarian system protect the poor and underprivileged from being exploited by the rich and powerful?


The term exploitation, to begin with, is highly subjective, which raises nothing but questions. What, exactly, is exploitation, and how can we identify it? Is it, as the Marxists purport, as simple as hiring people (so-called "wage slavery")? Is it, as most liberals imply, working for nothing more than a subsistence wage? The ultimate conclusion, of course, is that exploitation is simply in the eye of the beholder. Naturally, this doesn't answer your intended question, but it is none the less important to put out.

The presumed exploitation you are speaking of, of course, is the hiring of unskilled, poorly educated, and otherwise disadvantaged people at low wages. These people, in today's society, often end up with subsistence lifestyles and are burdened with debt. Liberals contend that the solution to their plight is government money. Direct capital transfers to supplement income (such as the Earned Income Credit in the United States), welfare (aka "the dole"), and price floors on labor (aka minimum wage). We disagree with this school of thought, as we know that all of these programs cause far, far more problems than they solve.

Capital transfers, for instance, eliminate the incentive to "move up the ladder". By offering a subsistence worker a higher standard of living than his skills would allow him to earn on the job market, he has no incentive to improve his skills or productivity. As such, he will stay in his low-skill position, rather than learn. It should be noted that this harms the community, that all-important organ which liberals tirelessly defend. By choosing not to improve thanks to government assistance, the community is denied of useful services which would've improved everyone's standard of living. Thus, in the name of defending the community, the community is harmed.

Welfare, of course, is far, far worse, and creates a serious moral hazard problem. Instead of supplementary income, people are given FREE INCOME. What reason is there to work if one can exist without working at all? It is often said that in capitalism, you "work or starve." We couldn't agree more. By offering people a reason not to work, you eliminate one of the most essential mechanisms that makes people work--the need to survive. Liberals often counter that welfare only provides a subsistence existence. If that is true, which it is not (according to the US Department of Health and Human Services, the average family of four on welfare receives $35,700 in all benefit forms--enough to fund a comfortable lifestyle), so what? Granted, this will deter those seeking something BETTER than a subsistence existing from living off of the dole, but what of those who are merely happy on a subsistence existence? Clearly, short of forcing them to work, there is no way you could deter them from going off the dole. It is simply not acceptable to offer people such an incentive.

In Economics 101, one of the very first lessons you learn is supply and demand--the most simple law of economics. In it, you learn that an artificial price floor will create a surplus, and an artificial price ceiling will create shortages. A price floor on labor, it follows, will create a surplus of labor--unemployment. In 1999, in an argument to increase the minimum wage, Sen. Ted Kennedy quoted the noted economist Laura D'andrea Tyson, saying that a fifteen cent increase in the minimum wage (the current in the US is $5.15) would eliminate "only" 200,000 jobs. So by pricing hundreds of thousands of people out of jobs (or millions, if wage increases touted by liberals are enforced), how does this advance the liberal cause of assisting the community? Those remaining in minimum wage jobs will benefit, whereas business, poor and unskilled workers, and consumers (by being forced to pay higher prices for goods and services), will all suffer. How will these losses be made good? The typical liberal response is that businesses can afford it and that consumers will have to "pay for the common good". Even if we assume that these two groups can afford these burdens, what of the many people now priced out of the labor market? How are they to survive? On the dole? This creates a vicious cycle, where workers priced out of the labor market are forced to live on government subsistence, denied the oppurtunity to advance. They, in turn, will pass this poverty on to their children, creating a permanent underclass (as we have today in American inner cities).

So how does a libertarian society allow those born poor to advance? Simple. We leave it to the free market. History is rife with such rags to riches stories. Andrew Carnegie. Henry Ford. Thomas Edison. George Westinghouse. Nikola Tesla. The list goes on and on. By allowing people to keep their paychecks (instead of taxing them), and by allowing them to be rewarded by saving (by ending monetary inflation), they automatically will be able to save up for a better life. The elimination of burdensome economic regulations and taxes, combined with the elimination of inflation, will lead to rapidly reduced costs of living, as happened in the latter half of the 19th century to 1914 (and as happens today in the dynamic and relatively unregulated electronics industry, despite monetary inflation). This is not fantasy, it is history.

On a related note, the property rights of the poor will be protected in a libertarian society. They may not be used without their consent, since that would be exploitation and a violation of property rights. However, Libertarians reject the idea that being used with consent is a form of exploitation. Workers who make voluntary contracts with employers are not being exploited. They sell their labor for what its worth, and there is no right to receive more than its worth just because they need it. A need is not a claim. Using the force of government to make the employer pay more than he is willing to pay is a violation of his property rights, and would actually be exploitation in itself. The poor must instead rely on the charity of others.

Libertarians are very opposed to exploitation in the form of fraud. Everyone, including the poor, has the right to not be defrauded. That is because fraud is implicit theft, and therefore a violation of property rights.

GandalfTheGrey wrote:2.How can you guarantee that people will enjoy basic human rights if it is not provided through taxes?

This argument derives from the ill-conceived notions that there are such rights as healthcare, a reasonable standard of living, etc. Do not be so easily swayed by the mantras of false prophets. For if such things are rights, then they are also, as Edmund Burke argued, duties. None of those can exist without a group of people being forced to provide them. This constitutes a form of involuntary servitude. Perhaps we're being old-fashioned, but we feel that slavery is wrong. The only real rights are the sacred and undeniable rights that all men and women are born with--life, liberty, and property. These, in turn derive from the right to property. One's life and person are one's own property, so one has the right and freedom to do whatever on wishes with one's own body and property, so long as others are not harmed or affected. This includes, of course, both material property (ie, capital) and intrinsic, immaterial property (ie, speech). These rights do not compel anyone to provide anything against his will. Rather, they merely oblige people to let others alone and to respect the golden rule.

GandalfTheGrey wrote:
3.How is a fair and non-partisan police and security force sustained in libertarian societies? Such institutions are required to protect property and the right of the individual. They could not be funded by taxes, since in the libertarian ideology that would mean forcing people who may not want police to support them.

Such forces will be regulated by the government, but funded voluntarily. To those that counter that people will never fund government services voluntarily, this is completely bogus. An excellent historical example is when the Ottoman government sought to have two battleships built by British shipyards, but did not have the funds available in revenue, and had no credit to borrow with. It resorted to asking the people for money, and this they received. Over six million Anatolian peasants, feeling that this was important, donated (along with number of wealthy donors), and the battleships were purchased (unfortunately for the Turks, when World War I broke out, the Royal Navy seized these ships for their own use, but elected not to refund the Turks--this was before the Porte chose to enter the conflict).

If people choose to not voluntarily pay for law enforcement or a military, then there is no guarantee that their property rights would be protected. Anarchy would ensue. However, that exactly why they will voluntarily pay for those services. It is in their self-interest to do so. In fact, they can even take part in the provision of these services on their own. Militias can assist in providing for the common defense. Bounty hunters, private detectives, and ordinary citizens can assist in suppressing crime.

Naturally, one would worry about significant donors unduly influencing security forces, but this could be easily solved by a "blind" funding system. Donors could pay into an escrow service, which would then channel the money--anonymously--to the targeted beneficiary. Other solutions, such as anonymous wire transfers, also exist. Whatever the method of funding, it must be anonymous.

GandalfTheGrey wrote:4.Do you support the right of an individual to purchase nuclear warheads? If so, how do you prevent potential terrorists (who are not criminals yet) from doing so?


No. A person has a right to own a gun, but he doesn’t have the right to point it at you with harmful intentions. That would constitute a “clear and present” threat to your rights, and you are justified in taking any measures necessary to defend yourself. Any possession of a nuclear warhead must be viewed as a “clear and present” threat to the rights of the individuals in its blast radius. It must be assumed that the the atomic weapon owner has harmful intentions, since a nuclear weapon has literally no other purpose--it cannot even be used for self-defense, as the user, the target, and countless others will be destroyed. Even when used only in remote regions, such as Novaya Zemlaya, where the USSR tested many of its nuclear weapons, the radioactive fallout will impact others thousands of miles away. And he is in effect pointing it at you, since you are in danger simply by being near him. Thus, action to defend the rights of those individuals threatened with the nuclear weapon is justified. Action to prevent people from acquiring these weapons is also justified.

GandalfTheGrey wrote:5.How do you stop large corporations from damaging the environment - who do so in the interests of short term profits? Do you consider a limited role for government intervention in such cases?


The largest source of environmental destruction is government itself. Many environmentalists decry the Exxon-Valdez oil spill, when 11.3 million gallons of oil were spilled into the Pacific Ocean. Recently, the City of Milwaukee, through a poorly designed sewage tunnel, spewed 4.3 billion gallons of untreated sewage into Lake Michigan. Thanks to sovereign immunity and Westley's Law (government grows on low expectations), no one has been charged or even fired. The City basically shrugged its shoulders and said "woops".

Of course, both of these cases do illustrate one thing that is noteworthy--the vast majority of environmental destruction occurs on public property. Private property is typically left in good condition. The reason why, of course, is the old maxim, "No one washes a rental car." Private property owners have a vested interest in preserving the value of their property. This includes, by the way, operations which generate profits via exploiting natural resources. Environmental quality is a natural good, and people desire it. As such, lands in environmentally good or pristine condition have higher valuations than those in poor condition. As someone who has worked as a lumberjack and owns a 40 acre parcel of forest, I can attest to this firsthand. The most common reason for environmental destruction such as vast clear cuts, strip mining, etc. is not just desire for short term profits, but also property taxation. By destroying the environmental quality of land, property taxes drop measurably. Without such taxation, even when the only current desire is short-term profits, a very compelling reason to maintain the land exists. Good land can be sold for high prices, raising cash. Good land has collateral value, allowing the owner to borrow more money. Good land is valuable in and of itself, in that ecotourism, hunting, and fishing can take place on good land.

The solution here is privatizing all publicly-held land. In the United States, all levels of government own 40% of the land, which is unacceptable. This needs to be sold as soon as possible. Public lands are routinely harmed by logging companies which lease them, ranchers that lease them, and careless campers. Private lands rarely have such problems.

There is, however, one role for government: in protecting the quality of property that cannot be owned. Air, large bodies of water, and connected water systems are examples of this, and we have no fundamental disagreement with liberals on this, though we advocate solutions that are as efficient as possible, by expressing regulations in terms of results rather than mandates (such as America's pollution trading market, which is effective and efficient), as this will allow the market to find the appropriate solution, rather than state bureaucrats.

Questions for Liberals

6. If each nation has the "freedom to implement its own laws and destiny", and if each nation has a right to self-determination, how can the right of the UN to intervene when "necessary" exist? Aren't such goals inherently contradictory and opposed?"

7. What examples of successful developmental foreign aid, if any, can you cite?

8. Since you believe that all nations have a right to self-determination, does it follow that all inviduals have a right to self-determination? If not, why? Is the collective inherently more important than the individual, ipso facto?

9. You claim to believe in free markets, but reject laissez faire. Thus, by definition, you do not believe in free markets. What do you believe in?

10. Do liberals believe in sacrificing economic growth in the name of, as Senator Hillary Clinton terms it, "the common good"? Isn't the common good, ultimately, more harmed by economic stagnation than it can be helped by leveling schemes?

NOTE: The edit was to change the numbering on questions, in case you're wondering.
By GandalfTheGrey
#377905
[Sorry this took so long, hope its alright :)]
6. If each nation has the "freedom to implement its own laws and destiny", and if each nation has a right to self-determination, how can the right of the UN to intervene when "necessary" exist? Aren't such goals inherently contradictory and opposed?"

We admit that it is difficult to uphold the principle of sovereignty when at the same time also defending the right of the UN to intervene when necessary. Obviously, as liberals we very strongly believe that the role of the UN should not be to interfere with a nation’s right to implement its own laws and destiny. However, it is still necessary to ensure the rights of individuals within each nation are protected, and it is therefore necessary to have a bi-partisan, global authority that can protect human rights. It is quite consistent with our model within a nation: while the government acts as a safety net to protect basic human rights on a national level, so too the UN acts as the same safety net on a global level.

We ask you to consider the alternative, especially in today’s world of genocide, ethnic cleansing and refugees; for those who’s human rights have been violated by their own government, who are they to turn to when there is no “global safety net” as the UN, or a similar global organisation? I turn your attention to the horrific genocide in Rwanda in 1994. The leader of the UN contingent, Lt General Dallaire, claimed that had he been granted a mere 2000 more troops, he could have prevented the genocide. As it was, his force was cut back to 500, yet he was still able to save an estimated 30 000 people. Do you agree with the US position that it wasn’t worth saving people’s lives because it wasn’t in their national interests? Here we have a very clear example of how a properly functioning global body could have intervened and saved hundreds of thousands of lives. The UN has proved invaluable for literally millions of underprivileged around the world, who’s own government has betrayed them.

The obvious counter argument to intervention is of course that it was intervention that started the problems in the first place. This is at least partly true, and a good example is European colonialism. However we are talking about the realities of today’s world: people are suffering, people’s basic human rights are being violated, and will continue to be violated. If there own government won’t protect these rights, then there must be a backup so to speak. How can you say its wrong saving someone’s life just because you want to maintain the principle of complete isolationism? This is the intervention we are talking about; serious human rights issues and we reject your implication that our intention, through defending the rights of UN intervention, is to destroy nation’s right to self determination.

7. What examples of successful developmental foreign aid, if any, can you cite?

It is not difficult to think of such examples, the most obvious is the Marshall Plan – the massive US aid given to several European countries after WWII. Ditto for the US rebuilding of Japan in the same period.

I find this question most curious. For one thing, define “successful”: successful for who? The nation receiving the aid, or the nation giving the aid? (after all they wouldn’t be giving aid unless they hoped to “succeed” in some way). Moreover, how does one measure success? Is it purely in economic terms? In the case of the Marshall plan, few would disagree that it was an outstanding economic success in the short term. However foreign aid is a very complicated issue, and there are so many other factors to consider apart from the short term economic result.

What confuses me most is how this is relevant to liberalism and this debate. Your wording suggests that liberals inherently and consistently support this concept of developmental foreign aid. Actually, there is nothing in our opening statement, nor our subsequent arguments to suggest this. Developmental foreign aid, as it is understood in today’s world is actually a concept that liberals disagree with for two main reasons: Firstly, economic aid necessarily comes from individual nations acting independently, or unilaterally. As we pointed out very clearly in the opening statement, liberals are opposed to unilateralism except in matters of self defence. Foreign intervention is something that should be restricted to a united world body such as the United Nations which provides checks and balances against abuse and exploitation. Secondly, as I explained in detail in the first question, liberals are only in favour of foreign intervention in such extreme cases as when human rights are at risk. It is a stretch to argue that developmental foreign aid protects human rights, as it is simply an attempt by one nation’s government to prop up the economy of another nation for their own interests.

8. Since you believe that all nations have a right to self-determination, does it follow that all inviduals have a right to self-determination? If not, why? Is the collective inherently more important than the individual, ipso facto?

All individuals have a right to self-determination; this is entirely consistent with our position that all nations have a right to self-determination. Governments, which represents the people, have a duty to guarantee ALL individuals in the society that they will have basic human rights. The government can be thought of as a safety net: basic human rights are guaranteed through taxes, and they provide the underprivileged with protection against exploitation and abuse – an ever present threat in a capitalist system. Therefore, the role of governments ensures that all individuals in society will always have basic freedom and liberty – a goal that surely libertarians are striving to achieve. While the libertarian ideology provides ultimate individual liberty on paper, we believe that in reality, this would inevitably lead to the creation of an elite privileged class who would exploit and abuse the poor majority.

Once again you describe the “collective” as something distinct and opposed to the individual. They are not. The “collective” or “society” is simply a collection of individuals, and therefore protecting the rights of the individual and the rights of society are one and the same. What we do recognise however is that very often protecting the rights of one individual necessarily violates the rights of one or more other individuals. So for example when you ask “Is the collective inherently more important than the individual?” I don’t answer that by considering the “collective” as some mysterious force that is inherently opposed to the individual, I see the “collective” simply as a large group of individuals. And so I find myself asking once again: should the rights of one individual override the rights of one or more other individuals? You must surely recognise that different individuals will inevitably have conflicts of interest, opposing rights, and that without the government safety net, the rich and the powerful will ultimately come out on top.

9. You claim to believe in free markets, but reject laissez faire. Thus, by definition, you do not believe in free markets. What do you believe in?

Incorrect. If we did not believe in free markets, then by definition we would be communists.

If you insist on labelling, then you can think of our system as a “regulated free market” – that is a free market system with checks and balances put in place by the government to protect against abuse and exploitation. It is still a free market system, because it retains all the features of a free market, but with the addition of that safety net in the form of government regulation.


10. Do liberals believe in sacrificing economic growth in the name of, as Senator Hillary Clinton terms it, "the common good"? Isn't the common good, ultimately, more harmed by economic stagnation than it can be helped by leveling schemes?

This question is virtually impossible to answer because of its vagueness: you need to properly define “the common good”. But as liberals, we would consider “the common good” as the guarantee that all individuals in society enjoy basic human rights. Lets look at this question another way: does so called “economic growth” on its own ensure that all individuals enjoy basic human rights? Of course it doesn’t. Economic growth in capitalist nations benefits the wealthy the most, while very often those at the bottom of the pile are no better off. In fact, we believe that economic growth in libertarian societies will simply help the rich minority get richer, and will make the poor more and more vulnerable to abuse and exploitation.

Liberals are not inherently opposed to economic growth – we are after all in favour of capitalism, albeit in a more controlled form. So to answer the first part of the question – no we are don’t believe in sacrificing economic growth. As for “the common good”, we would suggest that economic growth that does not benefit all individuals, or which leads to greater disparity between the rich and poor, and makes the poor more vulnerable to exploitation and abuse, is in fact not real economic growth. Thus economic growth, as we would define it, is not economic growth unless it helps all individuals in society – and therefore contributing to “the common good”. So saying something like “sacrificing economic growth in the name of the common good” is in fact a paradox, since economic growth necessarily involves helping “the common good”.

What you term as “levelling schemes” is an essential safety net in the form of government support/regulation to protect against exploitation and abuse. We duly note your concerns regarding welfare dependence and disincentives to “move up” when you are receiving government handouts. The system is not perfect, and there is room for improvement. We would not advocate welfare dependence to the extent that it gives the recipients a luxury lifestyle. This is wrong: government assistance should only be to guarantee basic human rights to all individuals. We don’t believe there is any alternative to this sort of government intervention that will guarantee this safety net.
By GandalfTheGrey
#379453
once again, apologies for the delay.

1. You say that a person does not have a right to own a nuclear weapon. Does this mean in a libertarian society, if one came to posses a nuclear weapon the government would use force to take it from them? Is this not a form of arms control which you expressly oppose?

2. Why would people donate to a central military force if they could create their own where they would have more influence?

3. How would a central government have enough power to stop small scale warfare between these private armies? Is it not inevitable that rivaly and hostility will build between these opposing forces?

4. Can you see a role for a voluntary humanitarian global body that will "intervene" in cases of humanitarian catastrophes such as refugee crises and genocide?

5. Presumably you support some sort of central body that enforces laws and collects voluntary funds to support a police force etc. If, as we suspect would be the case, people instead pay for their own services (eg private security), how would the "government" sustain itself if not through a minimal tax system?
User avatar
By Noumenon
#382265
1. You say that a person does not have a right to own a nuclear weapon. Does this mean in a libertarian society, if one came to posses a nuclear weapon the government would use force to take it from them? Is this not a form of arms control which you expressly oppose?


This is akin to saying that preventing a premeditated murder constitutes the initiation of force. Even the Quakers agree that self-defence based upon knowledge that one is about to be attacked (such as someone pointing a gun at you, or someone holding a nuclear bomb) is legitimate and does not constitute the initiation of force. Nuke control is simply a form of self-defense, and there is nothing unlibertarian about it.

Libertarians are opposed to gun control, not nuke control. Gun control is an aggressive initiation of force against peaceful gun owners and sellers. Threatening them with punishment for not complying with government regulations is unacceptable. The government must not be allowed to use its force against people who have done no wrong.

2. Why would people donate to a central military force if they could create their own where they would have more influence?



Surely, some would indeed choose to dedicate their efforts to private militias and privateers rather than national armies and navies. However, this hardly a problem. To say people will not donate at all simply because they can create their own militias is patently absurd. Do those interested in relief work choose to form their own relief organizations instead of support the Red Cross? Do those interested in clothing and feeding the poor typically start their own rival organizations instead of supporting the Salvation Army? Usually not. And these aren't even state organizations, they're simply charities that have attained primacy. Voluntary state military would achieve much the same status. Furthermore, nothing precludes people from starting their own militias AND donating to the national military (as many people who run soup kitchens also donate to other, more recognized charities).

It should also be noted that America, prior to 1861, had a long tradition of private citizens donating to military forces, while maintaining private militias and privateer forces. A significant example of this would be during the Amero-French maritime conflict in twilight years of the 18th century, when many citizens built warships and donated them to the nascent US Navy, simply because they felt it was important. Bear in mind that at the time, no taxes whatsoever supported the Navy. In fact, the only Navy to speak of was a few small coastal vessels left over from the Revolutionary War that were voluntarily supported by coastal towns (as many submarines in the Russian Navy are today voluntarily supported by port cities). It wasn't until at least two full squadrons had been donated and crewed that a land tax was established by Congress expressly for the purpose of building warships--and the government never once called for donations, nor did it even express anything resembling gratitude.

3. How would a central government have enough power to stop small scale warfare between these private armies? Is it not inevitable that rivaly and hostility will build between these opposing forces?


This is highly unlikely, as is proven by history. Prior to the Dick Act of 1905 and the National Guard Act of 1912, the US was full of private armies. Private militias were, in fact, the backbone of the US military at all times prior to 1912 except the Civil War and the Revolutionary War (where the Continental Army outnumbered militias only by 5,000 men). In fact, the US had no professional, standing army at all until 1861, only a small professional officer corps and a few reserve regiments. There were no cases at all of private militias fighting each other, with the exception of some border skirmishes between militias from Ohio and Michigan in the 1830s, and these were official state militias, not private armies.

Secondly, the state army and police force would be significantly larger than any single private militias. Citizens would make sure of that by donating, since they would share your concern about private militias becoming too powerful. The police force, with the help of the army if necessary, would prevent the private armies from committing any aggression against innocents. And the likelihood of all private militias suddenly banding together against the state is almost zero, as history has shown.
4. Can you see a role for a voluntary humanitarian global body that will "intervene" in cases of humanitarian catastrophes such as refugee crises and genocide?


Definitely. It would be against libertarian principles to prevent people from forming such a voluntary body. Defending people's property rights from tyrants and warlords is a just and noble cause. Libertarians are only opposed to State "humanitarian" wars because A. they are not voluntary, since everyone has to pay for them in the form of taxes, B. we suspect the government's motives (especially for intervening in places like Kosovo, but not Rwanda) and C. the government is not accountable for the mass murder of innocents through aerial bombing and other indiscriminate means. A voluntary humanitarian army would not have these problems, as long as it is accountable to someone.

Such an army wouldn’t even have to be global. Since private armies are allowed, you could gather all of your liberal friends together and create your own army for such a purpose. Get about 5-10,000 soldiers and there's no question that you could do a lot of humanitarian good. However, you would have to answer to our libertarian government if you committed any war crimes.

5. Presumably you support some sort of central body that enforces laws and collects voluntary funds to support a police force etc. If, as we suspect would be the case, people instead pay for their own services (eg private security), how would the "government" sustain itself if not through a minimal tax system?


You liberals seem to think that government is pretty essential, do you not? If so, you all seem likely candidates to donate to the government, and we libertarians are as well. That's already a significant number of people, and that’s not even counting nearly everyone else in America who thinks government is essential. Despite what you may think, people understand the necessity of the rule of law and the protection of private property. As such, they would gladly donate at least 5-10% of their income. No, not everyone would donate, and some people would indeed be "free riders". However, that is their choice, and no one has to right to force them to do otherwise.

Questions For Liberals

11. How is it possible for liberals to simultaneously recognize the individual right to self-determination and allow the government to control people’s lives through taxes and regulations?

12. You say you are opposed to the government dictating religion because religion is a personal belief. Isn’t the belief that the government should redistribute wealth also a personal belief? Isn’t it a double standard to say religious fundamentalists can’t use the government to force people to conform to their personal beliefs, but liberals can (in the form of taxes)?

13. How can the "rights" to health care and education possibly be universal? Would I have these "rights" if I lived in the Stone Age? On a deserted island? On the moon? What if there were no doctors or teachers in my society? Would you enslave people and force them to be doctors and teachers in order to respect these “universal rights"?

14. Liberals often champion the right of "consenting adults" to engage in peaceful, voluntary activities, such as pornography, for example. Isn't it inconsistent to advocate this and not advocate the right for consenting adults to engage in peaceful, voluntary trade without being harassed by the government?

15. Does liberalism endorse moral relativism?
By GandalfTheGrey
#386517
11. How is it possible for liberals to simultaneously recognize the individual right to self-determination and allow the government to control people’s lives through taxes and regulations?
People’s self-determination, at least in a political sense, is through democracy. It is clear that democracy is not a perfect system, but it is better than any of the others that have been tried, as Winston Churchill once said. We all participate in our respective democratic systems, and through that participation we consent to the actions our governments take, as long as the democratic nature of the system remains intact. This consent means that taxes are not forced on people, as you imply, but consented to. We liberals are for taxation because we see the benefits to society from the programs it supports. Even if you do not support these programs or taxation, you are consenting to pay it by participating in the democratic system; therefore nothing is being forced upon people by the government as libertarians would have us believe. Citizens have a right to demand a zero tax rate, however as we have pointed out before, such a scenario would be detrimental to certain sections of society. This is why such a scenario will never be practical, nor will it ever be consented to.

12. You say you are opposed to the government dictating religion because religion is a personal belief. Isn’t the belief that the government should redistribute wealth also a personal belief? Isn’t it a double standard to say religious fundamentalists can’t use the government to force people to conform to their personal beliefs, but liberals can (in the form of taxes)?

As we pointed out in the previous answer, tax rates are determined through a democratic process. Of course citizens have the right to demand a zero tax rate, but how many people do you think would want this? Taxes are not forced upon people, they are in place because ultimately the people want it. Religious fundamentalists on the other hand wish to impose their beliefs upon the people as you correctly point out, which we are against.

13. How can the "rights" to health care and education possibly be universal? Would I have these "rights" if I lived in the Stone Age? On a deserted island? On the moon? What if there were no doctors or teachers in my society? Would you enslave people and force them to be doctors and teachers in order to respect these “universal rights"?

Rights are created by societies, and are not self-evident. It is entirely possible for there to be a society where the stronger could take from the weak, contrary to the basic moral underpinnings of libertarianism, and to those people participating in the society this is considered ‘moral.’ We use the word universal because we believe the right applies to all people, not because we believe they were always there. The rights exist because we, as a society, and through the processes of the democratic system, have decided to make them a right.

14. Liberals often champion the right of "consenting adults" to engage in peaceful, voluntary activities, such as pornography, for example. Isn't it inconsistent to advocate this and not advocate the right for consenting adults to engage in peaceful, voluntary trade without being harassed by the government?

See question 11. Also, this is a silly comparison because pornography would be ‘harassed’ by the government in the same way as voluntary trade, through taxes and other fees, which we showed to be consenting through our answer to question 11.

15. Does liberalism endorse moral relativism?

My answer to question thirteen obviously answers this question, but to state it clearly, yes, we endorse what could be termed ‘moral relativism.’ Morals are the product of societies. If you went back in time 300 years, you could have an argument with someone about the morality of slavery, but one would realize that to a certain extent such a debate would be futile, as a person who at that time supports slavery would have certain fundamental moral views that our different than ours, and is shaped by his society at the time. We feel no shame about endorsing moral relativism; rather, we feel it is an endorsement of positive changes that are clearly possible in societies
By GandalfTheGrey
#389382
11. Libertarians seem to reject the notion that rights come from society. If this is true, from where does the right to private property come?

12. You say nuclear weapons should be outlawed because they are not a ‘defensive weapon.’ At what point does a weapon have no defence purpose, and how was this point determined. For example, does a tank have defence purpose, or what about a jet fighter?

13. Would a property owner have the right to protest if molecules of carbon dioxide, a pollutant, created on another persons property trespass onto theirs? What about photons created by light?

14. Do you recognise the inherent contradiction in libertarianism, whereby complete freedom of rights will create conflicts of interest and will necessarily result in the subjugation of one group by another?

15. Given that in your system the government would be sustained purely through voluntarily funding, do you recognise that there is the possibility that it will not be adequately funded? Do you recognise that there could be circumstances that would cause people to stop this voluntary funding, causing the government, and society to collapse?
User avatar
By Comrade Ogilvy
#390096
GandalfTheGrey wrote:11. Libertarians seem to reject the notion that rights come from society. If this is true, from where does the right to private property come?


While the right to private property was not conceived in a vacuum, nor is it exogenous to human nature. That is, private property is not a creature of the political system, as liberals, socialists, and communists posit. Rather, property is a natural relationship which arises between man and the material world. The state did not arise to create the idea of private property, but rather, as theorists as diverse as Aristotle, Lord Kames, and Fareed Zakaria argue, to protect that right to property from the unprovoked aggression of what were essentially gangs.

To those who reject the notion of the natural right to property, I challenge you to observe the behavior of young children. When you see one child deprive another of his toy, you'll hear a loud, "That's mine!", followed by that child defending his right to property. The same is evident in any man who is, to borrow from Jean-Jacque Rousseau, "a state of nature." When man creates a tool, that tool is his. Now, turn your attention to Nick Gaetano's artwork below (used for the cover of Ayn Rand's book, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal).

Image

Look at this man, look at his magnificent creation. He grasps it firmly, and thrusts it skywards, allowing it to bask in the sunlight. He is reveling in the triumph of his creation, treasuring his work. It is in this raw, seminal image that the natural right to property is best captured.

A common counterattack to the absolute right to property comes from the Georgist school, which argues that land (and natural resources in general) are inherently different, because these are God-given, and are therefore owned in common. They argue that property can only be defined as capital, that is, a product of a man's labor, not of something that already exists. However, this theory is inherently contradictory. Georgists (and others of like mind) would consider a rock that a man had picked up, hitherto unclaimed, to be that man's property. However, is a rock too not God-given? How is this any different from a man claiming a piece of hitherto unclaimed land? For that matter, if you create something out of a God-given resource (ie, metal) under this line of thought, is it really yours? The ultimate conclusion here is that the only difference between these various classifications of property is merely one of aesthetics. While aesthetics have their place, aesthetic judgements cannot classify various modes of property as being inherently different--this introduces a factor which is exogenous to the natural system of classification.

The curious and inconsistent feature of liberals is that they violently assert the right to self-ownership. That is, liberals passionately argue that an individual should be free in his speech, in his press, in his choice of worship, and of what he imbibes in--including the right to ingest narcotics. Yet when it comes to what man has wrought with his own hands, that, despite that it has emerged from his efforts, is not truly his. It is only his at the caprice of the state, which may choose to expropriate it for the nebulous "common good". This notion contains two diametrically opposed ideas within a single continuum of politico-philosophy, and, ultimately, it cannot stand. Property is property, and liberals, who so strongly assert the right to self-ownership, ought to recognize that self-ownership cannot truly exist without an absolute right to ownership. The two are one in the same, and cannot be seperated.

GandalfTheGrey wrote:12. You say nuclear weapons should be outlawed because they are not a ‘defensive weapon.’ At what point does a weapon have no defence purpose, and how was this point determined. For example, does a tank have defence purpose, or what about a jet fighter?


This is not a difficult question, and your mysterious pressing of the issue is puzzling indeed. A nuclear weapon, by its very nature, is purely an aggressive weapon, its damage incontainable. Even while the weapon is in statis (ie, not in use), its radioactive core degrades and tends to irradiate its surroundings, even with radioactive shielding. A weapon which has no defense purpose is one which cannot have its purpose or radius of destruction restricted. A nuclear weapon fits this definition; as it creates a holocaust which destroys all within its vicinity, and many outside of it. A tank, on the other hand, can specifically repulse attacking persons, hostile vehicles, and its destruction can be carefully targeted. The same holds true for a jet fighter.

GandalfTheGrey wrote:13. Would a property owner have the right to protest if molecules of carbon dioxide, a pollutant, created on another persons property trespass onto theirs? What about photons created by light?


Yes, they could protest. However, it is unlikely that they could get the aggressor punished unless he did any damage. Libertarians endorse the concept of proportionality; the punishment must fit the crime. It the only crime was to send a few polluting molecules into someone’s property, then I can’t imagine a punishment that would be small enough to fit that crime. If on the other hand, vast quantities of carbon dioxide were sent into the victims property and much damage was done, the victim could protest and get the aggressor punished. It is no different with light photons. Shining a flashlight into someone’s yard is a crime so miniscule that it warrants no punishment. However, shining a dozen floodlights into people’s windows at night, disturbing their sleep, is a crime that should be punished.

GandalfTheGrey wrote:14. Do you recognise the inherent contradiction in libertarianism, whereby complete freedom of rights will create conflicts of interest and will necessarily result in the subjugation of one group by another?


There is no "inherent contradiction" in libertarianism. Additionally, your question is a poor one, as it presupposes an inherently unbalanced ideology without pointing out WHY it is so, but simultaneously demanding an explanation from us.

I assume that what you are referring to is the "danger" of unrestricted competition, free enterprise, and individual liberty. Allowing these forces to interplay with one another with serve only to maximize liberty, prosperity, and peace. Economic competition certainly involves numerous conflicts of interests, but no subjugation can occur unless one market player chooses to violently attack another, which constitutes, as we have repeatedly stated, an initiation of force--which violates the principles of libertarianism and the laws of a libertarian society.

Furthermore, your contention that freedom, "will necessarily result in the subjugation of one group by another," assumes that society contains certain static classes. I had thought that liberalism had evolved beyond its Marxist origins of class struggle, but apparently I was mistaken. Classes are not static in a free society. People move into higher income and asset brackets, others move into lower ones. Furthermore, wealthy people do not conspire with eachother to harm the poor, nor are the poor in cahoots to destroy the wealthy. To do so, in fact, would be disadvantageous to any individual involved in such conspiracy would be unable to compete against others in his "class", thereby depriving him of the oppurtunity for material advancement.

GandalfTheGrey wrote:15. Given that in your system the government would be sustained purely through voluntarily funding, do you recognise that there is the possibility that it will not be adequately funded? Do you recognise that there could be circumstances that would cause people to stop this voluntary funding, causing the government, and society to collapse?


Of course this is a possibility, much as it is a possibility that individuals will choose to stop eating. However, much as the failure to eat will cause starvation, the failure to maintain the state will cause anarchy. In each case, powerful self-interest maintains the system. If people en masse cease contributing to the government, the rule of law may collapse, which would be injurious to society. The people are not as dumb as they appear, and so the funding would continue. A lull in funding, furthermore, would make the necessity of law and order quickly apparent. Ergo, the continuing financial donations to the state would be unlikely to suffer serious interruption.
User avatar
By Noumenon
#392730
To be brutally honest, no we don’t. This comes down to basic human nature; people are interested in pursuing their own success, even at the expense of others. Therefore, we believe that left completely to their own devices, people are more likely to exploit and abuse the poor rather than help them. It is clear upon examining societies in which the government provides no services, such as America before the New Deal, or much of Europe until halfway through the 20th century, that apart from very few exceptions, the rich have made no voluntary effort to assist the poor, and instead have exploited them. Human rights should be guaranteed, and that means when a human right requires a service, such as unemployment assistance, those services must be guaranteed. How can they be guaranteed when there is no ensured supply of money to support them? Helping the poor is one of the most critically important things necessary for a functioning society. We believe we cannot trivialise it by entrusting privileged people to voluntarily help the poor.


Americans gave $241 billion to charity in 2003. According to a 1999 Belden, Russonello, and Stewart poll, 79% of Americans had given to charity in the past year. You make a great mistake in thinking that only privelaged people give to charity. By saying you do not trust people to help the poor, you are not just saying you don’t trust rich people, you are saying you don’t trust middle class people either. Who do liberals trust then? Only themselves? Is liberalism that elitist?

People would give much more if there were no taxes. They figure that there is no need to if government is already taking care of it. Also, things have changed much since the 19th and early 20th centuries. People’s attitudes are more progressive, and their real income is much greater. While saying people were not willing or able to give to the poor in earlier times may be true, it is not necessarily true now.

Even if you don’t trust most people, surely you would trust your fellow liberals to give to the poor? There are approximately 56 million self-identified liberals in the U.S. alone (according to poll data). Even if everyone else were heartless bastards (which they aren’t), if you made a dedicated effort, you could get enough liberals to help the poor that their “human rights” would be guaranteed (even without taxes). Or do you not even trust yourselves to be able to do that?
User avatar
By STA
#393887
Noumenon wrote:Americans gave $241 billion to charity in 2003. According to a 1999 Belden, Russonello, and Stewart poll, 79% of Americans had given to charity in the past year. You make a great mistake in thinking that only privelaged people give to charity. By saying you do not trust people to help the poor, you are not just saying you don’t trust rich people, you are saying you don’t trust middle class people either. Who do liberals trust then? Only themselves? Is liberalism that elitist?

Liberalism elitist? Yes, that is why we are working so hard for welfare so the poorest of the poor do not starve to death.

What would you rather do, spend money on yourself, or give it to other people? It is common sense to spend your money on yourself, some people will give a amount to charity, but we do not know where it goes, it could go to Africa, it could go to south Asia, it could go anywhere.

It is not that we are saying we do not trust them, we are saying we expect them to be human, and going to want to keep all their money.
People would give much more if there were no taxes. They figure that there is no need to if government is already taking care of it. Also, things have changed much since the 19th and early 20th centuries. People’s attitudes are more progressive, and their real income is much greater. While saying people were not willing or able to give to the poor in earlier times may be true, it is not necessarily true now.

Really? Can you prove this?

This is all theory, you do not know this will all work, which gives you an advantage, you do not have a record, the only thing you have is an idea, and without testing, an idea could not be proved wrong.

Even if you don’t trust most people, surely you would trust your fellow liberals to give to the poor? There are approximately 56 million self-identified liberals in the U.S. alone (according to poll data). Even if everyone else were heartless bastards (which they aren’t), if you made a dedicated effort, you could get enough liberals to help the poor that their “human rights” would be guaranteed (even without taxes). Or do you not even trust yourselves to be able to do that?

So you are saying that everybody who is not willing to give their money to people for free is a heartless bastard? No, we do not agree with you, we think just because you do not give to charity you can be a good and loving person.

Just because you are generous does not mean you are going to give lots of money to charity, if someone does not have enough money to put food on the table they are not going to pay for food for someone else.

Welfare is designed to be a safety net, for people who fall through the cracks, and we all know what happens if there is no safety net when someone falls.

Why do you libertarians believe in no gun control? Are you pro-columbine?
By Spin
#393931
By saying you do not trust people to help the poor, you are not just saying you don’t trust rich people, you are saying you don’t trust middle class people either


It is not so much wether they give the money its where the money is going to be put. A government is mucch more likely to put the money where it is needed since they will be giving more and are therefor more likely to decide what needs it the most. How many times when you give to charity do you think it is likely to go?



You argue that nuclear weapons should be out lawed yet the knowledge still exists of how to create them and nuclear weapons cannot be unmade. And you can never be completly sure that another side does not have them.

When the US had the bomb they used it twice on Japan. Yet when the USSR started building nukes there was a fear to use them. The USSrs nuclear arsenal stopped the US trying to expand the Korean War and made MacAthurs plan to drop bombs on 26 cities unpopular.

Either no one must have nuclear bombs ore they all must have them. The fear of them makes men much more likely to make peace.



Of course this is a possibility, much as it is a possibility that individuals will choose to stop eating. However, much as the failure to eat will cause starvation, the failure to maintain the state will cause anarchy. In each case, powerful self-interest maintains the system. If people en masse cease contributing to the government, the rule of law may collapse, which would be injurious to society.



Yes but the small people might stop contributing in their ones or twos. Eventually you will find that it is the richer who go on contributing and the corporations. They will control the purse strings of the government and thus have a lot of power.

Look at political parties. They do not tax the people. They require voluntary funds. And you start to notice that it is the big businesses and the rich who are contributing more to them and you notice that the parties seem to edge closer to the rich who keep them going.
User avatar
By Noumenon
#394162
Liberalism elitist? Yes, that is why we are working so hard for welfare so the poorest of the poor do not starve to death.


For one thing, it’s the taxpayers doing the hard work, not the liberals. This very statement exposes liberals' elitism. They think that they know the best way to spend your money, not you. They think that the government, with liberals in power, can run your life better than you can. That is elitism. Libertarianism leaves you free to spend your money how you choose, because we trust you to do the right thing with it.

What would you rather do, spend money on yourself, or give it to other people? It is common sense to spend your money on yourself, some people will give a amount to charity, but we do not know where it goes, it could go to Africa, it could go to south Asia, it could go anywhere.


Most people spend most of their money on themselves, and give some to others. This is a good thing. Spending money on yourself does not hurt other people; in fact, it helps them. When you buy a sandwich for yourself, you are helping the sandwich maker by supporting his job. You support poor people every day by buying things for yourself, since many of the jobs required to provide the things you want are occupied by low-income people. If people stopped caring for themselves first, our economy would surely be in shambles, and the poor would be worse off. Of course, some charity is needed as supplementary income for those in low-paying jobs or unemployment. The current amount people give to charity is sufficient for this purpose.

It is not that we are saying we do not trust them, we are saying we expect them to be human, and going to want to keep all their money.


So you admit it is "their" money? If money people earn rightly belongs to them, how is taking it not theft?

That aside, this may be a cause for concern in a libertarian society. No doubt, many, many other people would share your concern. What I suggest is addressing this concern through peaceful means, rather than theft. An organized campaign to get people to donate to charity could be rather effective, much in the same way liberal "get out the vote" campaigns have been. When there is a greater chance of dying on the way to the voting booth than having your vote make an actual difference, it’s a wonder people vote at all. Yet somehow, we got more than 100 million people to vote in the 2000 US elections. The power of ideas is strong. You can do a lot to influence the way people act through peaceful means.

Really? Can you prove this?


http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/ie1.html

People incomes are increasing steadily, and have been the last 30 years. It is obvious that people in the United States at least are generally better off and have more disposable income than they ever had in the 19th century. The sheer number of leftists and progressives is evidence for the fact that multitudes of people care about the poor (even if they're going about it in the wrong way).

This is all theory, you do not know this will all work, which gives you an advantage, you do not have a record, the only thing you have is an idea, and without testing, an idea could not be proved wrong.


But the idea logically makes sense. And it’s obvious that the current liberal ideas are not working and have never worked. Every time they raise the minimum wage, they cause massive unemployment. Despite their efforts to help the poor through government, the poverty rate is unaffected.

http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~sjblatt/ap ... intro.html

It is time to try something new. Communism has been tried, and it failed. Liberalism is sustainable at least, but it has failed to achieve its goals. Instead of heading further down the road to socialism, compounding our problems, we need to try something a little risky: a truly free market.

So you are saying that everybody who is not willing to give their money to people for free is a heartless bastard? No, we do not agree with you, we think just because you do not give to charity you can be a good and loving person.


My mistake. Even if you don't give anything to charity, you are still helping others through mutually beneficial trade. I was just illustrating the point that even if everyone besides liberals did not give anything, liberals exist in enough numbers to donate a significant amount to charity by themselves.

Welfare is designed to be a safety net, for people who fall through the cracks, and we all know what happens if there is no safety net when someone falls.


Despite this safety net, poverty still exists in large numbers. As my link above shows, more welfare is not the solution. In fact, more welfare is the problem. The more welfare you give to people, the less incentive there is for them to work. And without work, they will not get experience. And lack of experience makes it harder for you to get a job. This traps people in a cycle of poverty and life on the dole which it is hard to escape from.

Why do you libertarians believe in no gun control? Are you pro-columbine?


The Columbine shooters broke 17 gun control laws. Criminals, by definition, do not obey the laws. Gun control only disarms the victims. If the a few teachers were allowed to have guns, less people might have been killed, or maybe none at all (maybe it would have made the killers think twice before doing their deed). But who/what’s really at fault here (besides the two killers of course) are the parents and the public school system. The parents of the killers could have easily stopped the situation before it began simply by being good parents. But the public school system, which is inherently incapable of meeting individual students' unique needs, is also at fault. Why do you think there are so many alienated teenagers these days? Could it be that public schools resemble prisons more than educational centers? The public school system failed to address the problem of alienated kids who might just decide to pick up a gun and kill somebody.

It is not so much wether they give the money its where the money is going to be put. A government is mucch more likely to put the money where it is needed since they will be giving more and are therefor more likely to decide what needs it the most. How many times when you give to charity do you think it is likely to go?


With a charity, I know my money is going where I want it to go. The government takes my money and spends it how it sees fit. The only input I have a worthless vote between people who want to spend my money in different ways. And the government does not know how to spend my money best. Or how do you explain its failure to significantly reduce poverty despite vast increases in welfare spending in the last 30 years?

You argue that nuclear weapons should be out lawed yet the knowledge still exists of how to create them and nuclear weapons cannot be unmade. And you can never be completly sure that another side does not have them.


Thus the necessity of missile defense programs. Since government has been such a failure in implementing one (it is more concerned with fighting wars than defending the nation, I suspect), I would advocate a government reward to the first private company to come up with a workable missile defense. This reward could be financed either through selling unnecessary government assets or through voluntary donations. Clearly, such a missile defense is not impossible. If we can land people on the moon we can shoot down nuclear missiles.

Either no one must have nuclear bombs ore they all must have them. The fear of them makes men much more likely to make peace.


That is a false dilemma. Even if we have no nukes while other people outside our country do, a missile defense could protect us.

Yes but the small people might stop contributing in their ones or twos. Eventually you will find that it is the richer who go on contributing and the corporations. They will control the purse strings of the government and thus have a lot of power.


The donations are anonymous, so this would not happen.
User avatar
By Vivisekt
#394520
Alright, gentlemen. I had contacted both team captains a couple of days ago about the duration of this debate to ascertain whether or not they wanted it continued, and if so, as to what the time frame should be. Neither captain has bothered to respond, despite having read the PMs.

Therefore, this debate is officially concluded.

The first new panel of judges has been recently elected by the membership of the boards. They will now be reviewing the argument in this thread and composing their decision statements. When they have finished, I will attach that information to this post and declare the winning team.

I'd like to congratulate both teams on their presentations - I have seen some good argument over the course of this debate.


edit: Verdicts

Der Freiheitsucher: Liberals
Der Freiheitsucher wrote:I’ll explain my verdict starting by the liberals and going onto the libertarians, because that’s in the order I read the debate.

The very first line of the liberal essay already has a flaw from my point of view. “The liberalist position can roughly be seen as sitting somewhere between the ideology of pure libertarianism and pure socialism” already attempts at defining an ideology which cannot be defined in one line, but also fails to explain to someone why it’s between these two ideologies. This very same paragraph also seems to argue that libertarianism leads inevitably to the creation of an exploiting class – a bold claim which lacks any substance.

When reading the Economics points of the liberals I found myself reading a lot of harsh and bold statements such as “We believe that monopolies are a destructive force that restricts peoples freedom […]” lacking any type of significant evidence to prove this. The very point of the debate was to show how these characteristics were “bad” and thus “wrong” – If the debate was just to point out each other’s disagreements we’d have 20 pages of one liners.

One point in this essay was especially of interest to me: “We defend each nation’s right to self determination, but reserve the right for the United Nations to intervene in such cases where the international community is put at risk”. I found this clause to be dangerously vague. So vague it could be contradictory in certain cases. When the liberals say that they reserve the right to intervene in such cases that the international community is put at risk, they are therefore obliged to explain which these cases are, otherwise this statement seems as open for interpretation and terribly dangerous.

Now, the libertarian essay attempted a slightly more precise definition of their ideology, although again a bit vague and perhaps too concise. This is again the case when they say that “Libertarians believe in a free market economy, which brings wealth and prosperity.” – Without even trying to explain why. It seems this part of the Libertarian essay is really nice to read, but it doesn’t hold any grasp of the introduction or adaptation of their ideology onto the modern world. The libertarians seem to have fallen under the same mistake as the liberals, writing nice lines and ideal concepts with no type of substance. This goes for the libertarian principle of “outlawing fraud”. It troubles me to think that any ideology would want to legalize crime.

I found several contradictions in the Civil points the libertarians made. They are basically saying that:

1. The use of physical force is forbidden and the government will not intervene.
2. Tools for physical force are a right and the government might intervene.

Yet again they fail to specify scenarios or even rules for these delicate issues, leaving them openly dangerous.

I went on to read the Libertarian questions, and found one fatal characteristic. The libertarians were not asking the liberals based on their essay, but on their own knowledge and interpretation of liberalism. This problem existed because the “liberals” were not specifically in any group (i.e. Manchester Liberals, American Liberals, Classic Liberals, etc.) – and therefore meant that the libertarians could be asking questions not even relevant to the specific ideology.

Although I found the first answer of the libertarians to be straight forward and clear, I found their second answer when trying to explain the “moral and philosophical basis” of their ideology to be mostly waffling and off-topic rhetoric. Unfortunately, I found most of their answers to be in this same category. I also believe the liberal grasp on economics to be puny.

The liberal questions were random questions which would inevitably lead to rhetorical responses from the libertarians. When the liberals ask “How can a libertarian system protect the poor and underprivileged from being exploited by the rich and powerful?” I find myself asking why the liberals are using such a tortured leftist cliché with no type of real substance behind it. Now the liberal questions seem to be a set of questions which you could easily ask ANY other ideology. “Do you support the right of an individual to purchase nuclear warheads? If so, how do you prevent potential terrorists (who are not criminals yet) from doing so?” is a perfect example of a question that has no real answer. The libertarians could either search in fbi.gov for their manual against terrorists, or simply come across with a “if we knew how to stop terrorism, we’d email it to our presidents”. This question had nothing whatsoever to do with the debate, but it seemed more of a chip on the liberal shoulder. I expected the libertarians to have real concise answers for these extremely general questions…

… Boy was I wrong. The libertarians started to make this an “I bet I can write more than 5 pages” debate. The liberal set of questions could’ve, in my opinion, been perfectly answered in three clean paragraphs, which is evidently not what the libertarians did. Their answers were mostly complaining about some faulty systems and based on meaningless de facto figures and numbers.

The libertarian set of questions I liked much more, as well as the liberal answers. The libertarian questions tackled issues that were directly treated in this debate earlier by the liberals, and the liberals did also answer these questions in a punctual matter [on their majority].

Okay so the liberals asked their questions and the debate shaped much more. Now the liberals were having a bigger grasp on the actual debate and asking questions directly relevant to their opponents, making reasonable points in regard to what the libertarians had already said. The libertarian answers I didn’t like. As I had expressed earlier in this verdict, they libertarians made a series of claims that seemed a bit contradictory and dangerous, but opposed to what the liberals did recognizing some of these probable contradictions and their respective solutions, the libertarians attempted to make their principles even a bit vaguer: “Libertarians are opposed to gun control, not nuke control. Gun control is an aggressive initiation of force against peaceful gun owners and sellers. Threatening them with punishment for not complying with government regulations is unacceptable. The government must not be allowed to use its force against people who have done no wrong.” The libertarians again made it seem as they were saying “nuh uh” to the other team - talking too much and saying too little.

Fortunately the libertarian set of questions were more punctual this time. They tackled debate issues and seemed [though a bit too cynical] more relevant. This fortunately gave way for more precise answer for the liberals, and incidentally, made my job of reading this pile of crap a bit easier.

Now I kept liking the questions even more and more. They were more relevant to the debate than the earlier batch. I thought this was a good opportunity of the libertarians to answer this concisely, and instead, what did I find? A picture. A picture of a man holding some type of cog with the description “Look at this man, look at his magnificent creation. He grasps it firmly, and thrusts it skywards, allowing it to bask in the sunlight. He is reveling in the triumph of his creation, treasuring his work. It is in this raw, seminal image that the natural right to property is best captured”. This was an absolute waste of space. A formal debate has no place for these subjective art expressions, let alone considering this a real response.

The libertarian answers were horrible. Dreadful. I found them to be mostly assumptions and subjective waffling. This was seen clearly in their answer regarding nuclear control: “A nuclear weapon, by its very nature, is purely an aggressive weapon, its damage incontainable.” This was exactly the issue they were supposed to address, how does a man determine what weapons are “by nature” aggressive.

The debate took a spin from here, and became mediocre, from both parts. What I saw onwards from here were [useless] extremely long replies and hair-splitting, added to pasting of some other articles which held no clear relevance to the points discussed. The liberals did a horrible job at answering questions with taunting and 3rd grade rhetoric: “Really? Can you prove this?”

All in all, I found this particular debate to be mediocre or barely satisfactory. While a great deal wasn’t at all relevant, the outmost simple points were given a five page response of nonsense, and other issues which could have used more attention got little of it. I hope that the next debates will be of better quality; after all, this was the first try. If it wasn't apparent in my whole judgement, I would rule in favour of the liberals, not because they were better, but because they weren't as bad.





Maxim Litvinov: Libertarians
Maxim Litvinov wrote:Adjudication
Okay – although I’d normally steer clear of ‘points’ decisions, I think that is the best way for me to adjudicate this debate. So, I am ‘marking’ each of the 15 questions out of 5, the opening statement out of 10, and the concluding free exchange of questions out of 15, giving a total of 100.

Liberalism
I thought it was interesting you believed in protectionism, but don’t hold that against you. It was good that you set the agenda for the debate – namely that you basically respected libertarianism, but saw several key areas where the market couldn’t be trusted to work on its own – companies’ search for profit over environmental protection, the lack of opportunities for the underprivileged to ‘get ahead’ and the need to stop monopolies and protect against governments taking out ‘bad loans’ (or is this a case of wanting deregulation). I would have liked a statement of your ‘core principles’, rather than simply how they reflected in areas of social policy – eg. why you believe that a woman’s right is more important than a child’s right to life – but that’s OK. Overall, 8 out of 10.

Libertarianism
You will know that I think ‘physical force’ and fraud are difficult concepts, but I don’t hold that against you. You do a good job of outlining the fundamental basis of your belief – the sovereignty of the individual – upon which your other sub-beliefs rely. I thought some interesting problems that might arise from your opening statement might be the right of individuals to impose their collective will, to form governments and the status of democracy under Libertarianism. But, 9 out of 10.

Liberals’ Answers
First set – I thought the explanation that the poor could not depend simply on the ‘charity’ of the rich was well made. The answer to the question on censorship was alright. You then put forward the belief in human rights, which was at least useful knowledge. Although I thought your answer to the question on an appropriate level of taxation was valid, I do wish that you’d outlined exactly what you thought essential services were. And indeed, are essentially services some ‘absolute’, as might be suggested by human rights laws? Or are they relative to the community? I thought the answer on monopolies was a bit weak – you should have perhaps pointed to the difference between a commercial enterprise and a government as to why a government monopoly is fundamentally different to a commercial one. Overall: 5, 3, 3, 2, 2: 15
Second set – The answer to the UN question was concise and well made. The answer on developmental foreign aid was a bit confusing: you support the UN sending troops, but not sending aid? You trust home governments to implement natural disaster relief, but not foreign governments? I think the distinction was made badly. The next answer was okay. Free markets answer clarified some things. The final answer was a bit confusing, and getting into semantics, but fine. Overall: 4, 2, 3, 3, 3: 15.
Third set – Your answer on taxation was solid, if concise, and presented the first clear argument as to why you rejected the idea that ‘taxation is theft’. The religion answer exposed a weak point: why, for instance, is the government’s support of Sharia law wrong if it is democratic, while taxation isn’t? Surely there is a double-standard here? I also was non-plussed by your answer on where human rights ‘come from’. Surely, you had previously argued that they arise irrespective of society: because other nations should have the right to protect others’ human rights, because they aren’t society-dependent? I thought 14 was a silly question, but you didn’t gain any brownie points through your answer. Finally, I didn’t quite understand how you could support moral relativism AND universal human rights. Are you saying the UHRs are universal, but not temporally so? Overall: 3, 2, 2, 3, 2: 12.

SUB-TOTAL (Answers): 42.

Libertarians’ Answers
First set – I thought your answer on the means by which Libertarians prevented exploitation was annoyingly simplistic. It seemed to suggest that any amount of welfare, for instance, was a disincentive to do any work. It suggested that any setting of a minimum wage or welfare assistance removed ALL incentive to ‘move up the ladder’. This just seemed patently wrong to me, but I awaited the Liberals’ response. Your answer on human rights was much stronger. ‘Charitable’ community funding of government was an interesting point, and I waited to see what the response would be. I thought the answer to the nuclear question was also flawed. Only two nuclear warheads have ever been detonated, militarily. The other thousands have been used as a deterrent – or a form, therefore, of self-defence. It was a strange distinction, which Gandalf did well to point out. The answer on the environment question was comprehensive, although I would have liked more on what “expressing regulations in terms of results” meant. Overall: 1, 4, 3, 2, 4: 14
Second set – I again didn’t understand your gun control point. How is owning a nuclear weapon inherently ‘doing wrong’? Perhaps you would have been better off pointing to the absurdity of discussing individuals with nuclear weapons or something. Your point on militias, however, was very well made, and it was nice to have historical examples. Your next answer on the same question seemed satisfying, and yet I thought it a bit Americo-centric. After all, many countries like Afghanistan have simply seen a succession of private militias that are stronger than any government body. Is this simply because they aren’t ‘capitalist’ enough? I didn’t quite understand your answer to the question on a voluntary humanitarian body. You seemed to advocate such a body irrespective of the fact that (i) it might not have any government’s support and (ii) it wouldn’t really be accountable. The last answer was fine, although I was left with a nagging doubt as to how laws would be enforced – which you didn’t really deal with. Overall: 2, 4, 2, 2, 3: 13
Third set – I thought you were getting a bit too relativist and ‘nebulous’ in your answer to the private property point. Nevertheless, the answer was expansive. Again, your nuclear answer I thought was poor. Obviously, deterrence is a ‘defence purpose’. Indeed, nuclear weapons seem to be used ‘defensively’ more than weapons like tanks and jet fighters. Your answer to the molecules of carbon dioxide question was good, although I again had a nagging question about how justice would work in a libertarian society. Your contradiction clarification was nice and solid. The final answer was okay, but I had a sense that many countries have failed because they no longer have popular support. Perhaps you should have suggested that if a country can’t earn the voluntary donations of its citizens, then it isn’t worthwhile anyway? Overall: 3, 2, 4, 4, 3: 16

SUB-TOTAL (Answers): 43.

My problems that arose so far were:
• What is the real libertarian definition of self-defence and/or force?
• Are human rights to the liberal really universal, or relative to each society?
• Why is it okay for a democracy to be based on high taxation, but not on religion, according to the liberal?
• How likely is it that a libertarian society would be sustainable, given that paying the government money is voluntary? Would this require other aspects of society – such as a strong sense of community or rule of law to succeed?
• What is a ‘basic human right’ exactly for a liberal? And what sort of taxation do you need to enforce it?
• What does a libertarian society do if a vast majority of people want to implement non-libertarian laws?

Free Questions
The first point – that more would be given to charity, and more available for workers – without taxation, was well made by the Libertarians. I didn’t find simply the asking for “proof” of this to be as impressive. “Are you Pro-Columbine?” was a bit off-topic. I thought the Liberals’ statement on the rich contributing to government more (and thus having an unreasonable influence on government) was quite interesting, although perhaps worked against them in a way – only a high-taxing Liberal-style government would really have that much power to use effectively. The sandwich-maker point was well enough made.

Overall: Liberals: 8, Libertarians: 11.

In summary, you will see my scores add up to 63 for the Libertarians and 58 for the Liberals. Overall, I must say I found the debate a bit boring – or at least it didn’t progress where I would have liked it. But I thought that while the Liberals made ground on small issues, they didn’t make any significant inroads on the big issues (like the sustainability of libertarianism, or the dilemma of having democracy and judicial systems with libertarianism). In contrast, on a couple of major points (eg: the conflicts over what rights are universal, what rights governments have and what they don’t), the Libertarians raised questions of the Liberals. Overall, I personally thought that the Liberals should have gone a bit more for the jugular on the economic side of things too.

So, in a close debate, in which I found it very hard to give a decision until careful deliberation, at the end I give my vote to the Libertarians.





Al-'Alim: Libertarians
Al-'Alim wrote:Liberals vs. Libertarians:

I feel that this debate was closely matched pretty much all the way through. And may I congratulate both teams on performing a stunning debate that has been more closely tied than any I have participated in myself.

Both oppening statements provided enough juicy information to ready the reader for the debate and they provided some nice background information on each ideology.

However it was clear from almost the very start who was the stronger team, although I must stress that it was still very close. Daovonnaex answered his questions superbly. He asked some either well thought out or lucky questions (I persobally believe the former) and GandalftheGrey made the mistake of admitting there was some difficulty with his Ideologys ideals. I saw no real decent attempt to counter this threat, rather he just gave examples of times when the UN had intervened successfully.

It seemed to me later on that the Liberals began picking at nits as this example shows:

GandalftheGrey wrote:13. Would a property owner have the right to protest if molecules of carbon dioxide, a pollutant, created on another persons property trespass onto theirs? What about photons created by light?


After this point I feel that the arguments swong neither to the Liberal or Libertarian side and so in conclusion my vote goes towards the Libertarians.

Well Done to both teams.




Note: Two out of the Five elected judges were unable to vote on this debate. As such, the verdict must be decided by the Three judges that did vote. The final score is therefore [ Liberals: 1 ] :: [ Libertarians: 2 ].

The Libertarian Team takes this debate! Congratulations.
Israel-Palestinian War 2023

It is implausible that the IDF could not or would […]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]

@JohnRawls What if your assumption is wrong??? […]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]