[AFAIK]

I was first attracted to libertarianism because the emphasis on negative rights seemed to gel with Kant's principle of never treating someone solely as a means to an end but always as an end in themselves. After a few thought experiments I realised that these positions are not synonymous.

I'm a fan of the public goods and services that the state makes available to all as commons and I am happy to contribute through taxation. When the state taxes me it violates my negative rights and treats me as a means to an end. When it uses that money to build roads, schools and hospitals it grants me positive rights and treats me as an end in myself by granting me access to transportation, education and healthcare free at the point of use.

I am also a fan of democracy. When the state makes decisions about how to spend tax revenue it is open to input and feedback from the population. When a billionaire decides to donate money to charity s/he can do as s/he pleases without taking anyone elses opinion into consideration. Libertarians wish to live in a plutocracy where spending decisions on healthcare, education, etc. are made by wealthy without input from the many.

Also the rich would have made little money if they had no access to the goods and services provided by the state as well as the positive externalities.

[Beren]

Is this an epidemic?

[mikema63]

Stage 1 complete.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

Well, good for you. How does it feel to not support feudalism any longer?

[SecretSquirrel]

When the State provides you with services, it is not treating you as an end. It is still treating you as the means to its own ends. The ends are to remain in power over the population and increase their dependence on the State. The means is appeasing the masses with bread, circuses, and scapegoats

[The Clockwork Rat]

Yehh... the state is a singular entity with no competing internal components. Hurr hurr hurr. Every civil servant is a statist.

I never get dragged into these arguments, but SS, do you not ever get tired of the taste of your own bullshit? I mean, you regurgitate it at every opportunity; does it not just get ... boring? Stale? What about adding a bit of meat so it resembles something with a bit of substance when it comes up again?

[Kaiserschmarrn]

I was first attracted to libertarianism because the emphasis on negative rights seemed to gel with Kant's principle of never treating someone solely as a means to an end but always as an end in themselves. After a few thought experiments I realised that these positions are not synonymous.

I'm a fan of the public goods and services that the state makes available to all as commons and I am happy to contribute through taxation. When the state taxes me it violates my negative rights and treats me as a means to an end. When it uses that money to build roads, schools and hospitals it grants me positive rights and treats me as an end in myself by granting me access to transportation, education and healthcare free at the point of use.

I am also a fan of democracy. When the state makes decisions about how to spend tax revenue it is open to input and feedback from the population. When a billionaire decides to donate money to charity s/he can do as s/he pleases without taking anyone elses opinion into consideration. Libertarians wish to live in a plutocracy where spending decisions on healthcare, education, etc. are made by wealthy without input from the many.

Also the rich would have made little money if they had no access to the goods and services provided by the state as well as the positive externalities.

You may be confusing (right) anarchism for libertarianism, AFAIK. The classical liberals did not, in principle, oppose the provision of public services and taxation. What you are referring to above is an extreme version of libertarianism and it's one that I have never come across in real life, but only on this website (where it seems to dominate).

[SecretSquirrel]

--Rambling insults--

Don't you have a gulag to supervise, commie? What would the Party think of your wasting precious hours and bandwidth on the People's Internet on trading childish insults with capitalist oppressors?

[lucky]

You may be confusing (right) anarchism for libertarianism, AFAIK. The classical liberals did not, in principle, oppose the provision of public services and taxation.

Right. Hayek clearly wrote about taxes and public services. So did Friedman. Both are self-described libertarians and some of the first names people will recall when asked for libertarian authors.

Also: libertarianism is opposed to democracy? No, just no. Read "The Road to Serfdom". It talks a lot about democracy.

What you are referring to above is an extreme version of libertarianism and it's one that I have never come across in real life, but only on this website (where it seems to dominate).

+1. I was going to say the same thing.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Just noticed your edit, lucky, so my point is moot.

[SecretSquirrel]

Don't worry yourselves, assorted statists. I and others like myself don't write for the sakes of attempting to change your minds. Barring some radical paradigm shifts, yours is a lost cause.

It's for the sake of undecided people and those just now waking up to the realisation that maybe, just maybe, the state is too evil to tolerate, for all the so-called good that it may do. And it's also for the sake of others who think likewise but feel hopeless and outnumbered, so that they can maintain some hope for a better future.

Believe it or not, PoFo posts come out VERY frequently on internet search results for political topics. And if I can convince even one random person who stumbles upon my post that the government bureaucracy that "provides" his "benefits" views him not as an end in himself but merely as a building brick for its monument to itself, then I have done some good.

[Heisenberg]

Maybe you'd have more chance of persuading people of your views if you used less hyperbole and silly personal attacks. You know, like describing public libraries as "evil" and assuming everyone who disagrees with you is brainwashed, psychopathic, or both.

Fortunately for us "assorted statists" though, your views are based on the self-defeating NAP, which means that you will forever remain irrelevant.

[AFAIK]

You may be confusing (right) anarchism for libertarianism, AFAIK. The classical liberals did not, in principle, oppose the provision of public services and taxation. What you are referring to above is an extreme version of libertarianism and it's one that I have never come across in real life, but only on this website (where it seems to dominate).

Right. Hayek clearly wrote about taxes and public services. So did Friedman. Both are self-described libertarians and some of the first names people will recall when asked for libertarian authors.

Also: libertarianism is opposed to democracy? No, just no. Read "The Road to Serfdom". It talks a lot about democracy.

I'll check out those moderate opinions. I am somewhat ambivalent towards the state. My attitude varies depending on the policy.

[mikema63]

Right libertarianism still advocates things like cutting, partly or completely, welfare programs. Replacing the progressive income tax with a flat tax, or worse, a regressive sales tax. Breaking labor unions. ending the minimum wage. etc. etc.

[SecretSquirrel]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with labor unions from a libertarian perspective, and in my opinion right-to-work laws are antilibertarian. Libertarians are split on that issue

[Technology]

This thread made me realize I'm not just fringe, but the fringe of a fringe of a fringe.

[mikema63]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with labor unions from a libertarian perspective, and in my opinion right-to-work laws are antilibertarian. Libertarians are split on that issue

You would get rid of all the protections that labor unions were able to achieve as well, right?

[lucky]

You would get rid of all the protections that labor unions were able to achieve as well, right?

He "would" if ... what? If he got in power that he doesn't want to be in?

[mikema63]

Wow, you can dodge a point matrix style!

[AFAIK]

You would advocate geting rid of all the protections that labor unions were able to achieve as well, right?

Fixed for the pedantic.