[Joe Liberty]

People can call themselves anything. Here in the US those who claim the mantle of libertarian range widely, from Bill Maher (in reality, quite the leftist) to Neal Boortz (who supported the Iraq invasion and rattles sabres when it comes to radical Islam). And of course many Republicans, but only when they're campaigning.

[Kman]

Libertarianism does seem to be correlated with the software industry. This is rational as software development is a show case for economic liberty.

So you are saying there are many libertarians in the software industry? If what you say is true it does not surprise me since I think programming and understanding correct economics uses the same part of the brain.

[mikema63]

It is more likely to do with personality, being more systematic and literal seems to correlate to many libertarians in research. Following strict cause and effect rules and such, I have also oticed that many communists are similar on that point so am not so surprised about the switches.

[iakobos]

Fellow forum libertarians, how many of you come from privileged background?

I certainly didn't come from a life of privilege. My father was a ranch manager (not owner) and we worked hard from sun up to sundown year round. We had very little but were thankful for everything we had. I now run a small carpentry business. No life of privilege here.

The reason I am a Libertarian is very simple. I simply want to be left alone. I am a Christian. Therefore I am obligated to follow the Golden Rule, Do unto others etc. So therefore, I seek to leave everyone else alone. From a political perspective I don't like the government telling me what to do. Therefore, I don't use the government to tell everyone else what to do. The only legitimate role I see for government is to execute justice against those who would commit unlawful acts of violence.

[Eran]

Welcome, iakobos.

The right to be left alone does, in my opinion too, stand at the heart of libertarianism. It is at the core of the broader ethical rule that people's peaceful projects ought not be physically interfered with, a rule more conventionally expresses as the Non Aggression Principle which logically leads to property rights and the rest of the libertarian lore.

At some point I would love an opportunity to try and convert you even further to the "dark side" of complete libertarian anarchism, rather than middle-of-the-road libertarian minarchy you seem to advocate.

[iakobos]

Eran, I have taken an interest in several of your posts over the last few months. I generally find them informative and thought provoking. You are correct in suspecting I am a minarchist. I think it would be very hard to bring me all the way over to the dark side. But I'm not above being tempted by it. In fact, if I had to straight up choose between what we have now vs anarchy, I'd choose the anarchy. I'm still somewhat of a novice to all the philosophical libertarian arguments but I catch on quickly. For example, I haven't quite finished For a New Liberty but I have found it to be some of the best and most thought provoking reading in years and have thoroughly enjoyed it. I've also been listening to various lectures and debates by Walter Block and thoroughly enjoyed listening to and reading his material. Lewrockwell.com is one of my daily staples.

I only recently changed my facebook political position from conservative to libertarian. But in many ways, somewhat by default of my personality, I have always tended towards libertarianism. Probably, the thing that hindered me from investigating Libertarianism much sooner, say 20 years ago, was on the subject of abortion. I was informed then that to be a Libertarian automatically meant one was pro-abortion. This is an area that is non-negotiable for me. Unless the mother's life is in danger I believe abortion is murder. Since then I have found there is not uniform agreement among Libertarians on the subject and there are pro-life Libertarians.

Thus, I am a Christian. I believe the Bible is the word of God. That is the origin of my presuppositions. To the extent that you can bring me in line with libertarianism without conflicting the Bible, I'm willing to go there. One of my mental exercises the last few months has been to reexamine the Bible through libertarian philosophy and I have found them to be much more in harmony than one might initially expect. I realize you may not agree with my Biblical presuppositions but to the extent that I might be used to bring other Christians towards a more libertarian perspective, the better off we will all be.

[Eran]

iakobos,
You and I are destined to disagree on the topic of abortion. Since you mentioned him, please look up Walter Block's position. He is pro-choice (nobody is "pro-abortion" per-se), but his reasoning bypasses the question of whether the unborn baby is human or not.

His logic is that even if we granted that the unborn baby was fully human, that baby would still have no right to live as a parasite within the mother's womb. The mother, his argument goes, is the full, unconditional owner of her own body (at least a-priori). As such, she has a right to "evict" the unwanted baby.

To be clear, if the baby is viable, it is her responsibility to ensure that early birth rather than terminating abortion is undertaken. Anything else would be murder.


Having said that, a combination of prior-commitment by the mother and social pressure may well diminish the frequency of abortions. This may be as good as it can get, given that even strict outlawing is unlikely to completely prevent some abortions from taking place.


Several people have done work on linking libertarianism with the Bible. Most comprehensive is probably Gary North's An Economic Commentary on the Bible: Genesis to Revelation, a massive volume which I have not read.

My favourite biblical quote, in this context, is, of course, 1 Samuel 8:10-22

10 So Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking for a king from him. 11 He said, “These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen and to run before his chariots. 12 And he will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and some to plow his ground and to reap his harvest, and to make his implements of war and the equipment of his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive orchards and give them to his servants. 15 He will take the tenth of your grain and of your vineyards and give it to his officers and to his servants. 16 He will take your male servants and female servants and the best of your young men[a] and your donkeys, and put them to his work. 17 He will take the tenth of your flocks, and you shall be his slaves. 18 And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.”

Finally, on the issue of minarchy vs. anarchy. Being a libertarian, you are probably already sceptical of government's ability to efficiently and effectively deliver services. If government isn't great at providing health-care and education, why assume it will be the best solution for police protection or even national defence?

I know of two main objections to full anarchy from otherwise libertarian thinkers.
First, most commonly coming from Objectivists, there is concern over whether the law emerging from an undirected market would be the "objectively-correct" law.

More commonly, however, are concerns over whether an anarchy is realisable as a stable, peaceful and flourishing modern society.

I'll be happy to focus my arguments if you tell me where your primary concerns with anarchy lie.

[iakobos]

Eran,
I'd like to continue our discussion tonight. But rather than hijack Red_Bull's thread I suggest we start a new thread. We might call it "Eran and iakobos discuss libertarianism" or something like that. And for the benefit of others, we could post up what we've discussed thus far.

[Eran]

Sounds good, although topic drift is the norm rather than the exception here.

[iakobos]

Eran, I have the thread posted up here.

[PennVoorhees]

Growing up in white privileged America,

Stopped paying attention after that.

Seriously, you need to give up this "white privilege" tourettes.

[AFAIK]

I tick all the boxes. White, male, British, trust fund. It's like playing a game on the "very easy" setting.

[mikema63]

Trust fund?

You dirty punk!

[Coyote]

This is what makes libertarians so ironic. They preach the same "We earned it" rhetoric you hear from conservatives while at the same time doing nothing but being born to the right family at the right time. Every libertarian I've ever come across has started as a white privileged youth. Their philosophy is nothing but an empty ideology built to protect their unearned property. They're basically pseudo-anarchist because they're too afraid to take the plunge and abolish the state in fear of losing all their cool toys.

What I can never understand, when people complain about others who come from a "privileged" background, is why those people don't end the trend of "underprivilege" within their own family tree. All it takes is for one generation to save, and the trend is reversed forever.

I don't come from money. But my children will have more than I did, and I imagine my grandchildren will graduate into the privileged class that you speak of. I certainly hope so. I love my grandchildren, though they aren't even born yet, and I am working today to give them a better life, thirty years from now. That is my choice. I choose to work 60 hours a week. Who I give it to is also my choice.

I always come across is this gripe about "unearned" money. My money is earned. If I give it to my kids, it is still "earned" money.

Wealth tends to grow, in the hands of those who are worthy of it. Those who are unworthy tend to squander wealth.

Because in the end, it isn't about money. It's about attitude. Values.

[Coyote]

The whole privileged thing is simple: people with more money have more time to learn critical thinking skills and think about alternative gov't possibilities.

The vast majority of all politically active people come from more privileged backgrounds.

I don't know about that. The clear evidential trend over the last 35 years or so shows that wealthy people have less time on their hands, while poor people have more.

Take a look at the average hours worked by the wealthy and poor in that time period.

Anecdotally, I don't know of any poor people sitting at home and spontaneously becoming libertarians, whereas people who are busy all day and night can easily fall in line with the idea of government, and everyone else, getting the hell out of their way.

[Pants-of-dog]

What I can never understand, when people complain about others who come from a "privileged" background, is why those people don't end the trend of "underprivilege" within their own family tree. All it takes is for one generation to save, and the trend is reversed forever.

I don't come from money. But my children will have more than I did, and I imagine my grandchildren will graduate into the privileged class that you speak of. I certainly hope so. I love my grandchildren, though they aren't even born yet, and I am working today to give them a better life, thirty years from now. That is my choice. I choose to work 60 hours a week. Who I give it to is also my choice.

I always come across is this gripe about "unearned" money. My money is earned. If I give it to my kids, it is still "earned" money.

Wealth tends to grow, in the hands of those who are worthy of it. Those who are unworthy tend to squander wealth.

Because in the end, it isn't about money. It's about attitude. Values.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24553611

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... ation-2013

The nature of poverty has changed. Today child poverty is overwhelmingly a problem facing working families, not the workless or the work-shy. Two-thirds of Britain’s poor children are now in households where an adult works. In three-quarters of those households someone already works full-time. The problem is that those working parents simply do not earn enough to escape poverty.

In other words, you are objectively incorrect when you claim that endemic poverty can be solved by simply having one generation work a little harder and save some money.

I don't know about that. The clear evidential trend over the last 35 years or so shows that wealthy people have less time on their hands, while poor people have more.

Take a look at the average hours worked by the wealthy and poor in that time period.

Anecdotally, I don't know of any poor people sitting at home and spontaneously becoming libertarians, whereas people who are busy all day and night can easily fall in line with the idea of government, and everyone else, getting the hell out of their way.

Seeing as how the evidence contradicted your previous claim, I am not certain that the evidence supports this claim.

[AFAIK]

Privilege isn't only about access to money. I grew up with a full time mother who had received a university level education. My parents are friends with other university graduates. As a white and a male I face few negative prejudices when interacting with others.

[Coyote]

I can't speak for Britain, but in the USA the trendline is that the poor are working fewer and fewer hours.

There was a study a few years ago that showed that the average American family in poverty worked around 11 or 12 hours per week.

That is insanity, to me. Between my wife and I, this family puts in an absolute minimum of 90 hours per week, and at times we're up around 120 hours in a week.

[Coyote]

Two-thirds of Britain’s poor children are now in households where an adult works. In three-quarters of those households someone already works full-time.

Let's analyze this.

In 66% of households, one adult works. In 75% of that 66%, they work fulltime.

That comes out to 49%!

So, in 49% of poor households, one adult works fulltime. And in 51% of households there is no adult working fulltime! And you wonder why they are poor?!?

I am objectively CORRECT.

[Pants-of-dog]

I can't speak for Britain, but in the USA the trendline is that the poor are working fewer and fewer hours.

There was a study a few years ago that showed that the average American family in poverty worked around 11 or 12 hours per week.

That is insanity, to me. Between my wife and I, this family puts in an absolute minimum of 90 hours per week, and at times we're up around 120 hours in a week.

I work 40 hours a week and can keep y family afloat. I guess I am simply more efficient than Calvinists.

Anyways, without any evidence that poor people only work 11 hours a week, I am not going to believe that.

Two-thirds of Britain’s poor children are now in households where an adult works. In three-quarters of those households someone already works full-time.

Let's analyze this.

In 66% of households, one adult works. In 75% of that 66%, they work fulltime.

That comes out to 49%!

So, in 49% of poor households, one adult works fulltime. And in 51% of households there is no adult working fulltime! And you wonder why they are poor?!?

I am objectively CORRECT.

No. If you were, those 49% would be able to get out of poverty. They cannot, thus you are wrong.