[Rei Murasame]

This topic is not intended to be a discussion on what anyone thinks libertarians is in practice, or what it becomes in practice.

This topic is for the purpose of asking libertarians this question:

What is the purpose of being a libertarian in your view? Are the non-aggression principle and private property an end in themselves, or are they just a means to some other end that you haven't mentioned?

[Schnid]

I don't think libertarians have a specific end in mind. Rather, the means are the ends, namely the elimination of the initiation of force in society.

With that guiding principle put into practice everything else will fall into place.

[Beal]

This topic is not intended to be a discussion on what anyone thinks libertarians is in practice, or what it becomes in practice.

This topic is for the purpose of asking libertarians this question:

What is the purpose of being a libertarian in your view? Are the non-aggression principle and private property an end in themselves, or are they just a means to some other end that you haven't mentioned?

I consider myself libertarian leaning, but I generally believe in a small government for two reasons:

Liberty: I don't like being told what to eat, how to build my house, how to manage my property, what I can buy, who I can hire, who I can fire, that I have to wear a seatbelt, that I have to wear a helmet, that I can't try an experimental drug, that I have to join a union, that I have to subsidize corn growers...

Prosperity: Minimal economic intervention yields stronger economic growth, better innovation, and a wealthier society.

[Sithsaber]

So communists want to "revert" to a idealized pre classed based society where everything is automated and everyone lives in leisure (ignores space)

fascists eventually want to embrace a secret aryan cult involving the master race erasing all personality and diversity and merging into the universal hive mind (weird REI)

while libertarians want to ignore that there is more to society than a "government" and laissez faire their way to delusional prosperity while the rest can go fuck themselves (Galt land)

[lucky]

Beal nailed it. I could have written the same thing.

[Sithsaber]

You guys do know this idea has been dead since at least the 1930s right?

[lucky]

You guys do know this idea has been dead since at least the 1930s right?

On the contrary, the world is much closer to my ideals today than it was in 1930s.

[Sithsaber]

Dystopic cyberpunk isn't that great of an ideal. And where it counts the system is in full control.

[Rei Murasame]

Okay, well, seeing the answers that I've received so far, what is the appeal of all this? Of course no one is against accumulating more wealth, but why do that? Does libertarianism have anything to say on why to even bother?

There isn't really an English word to properly convey what I'm asking here, which is why I had to use the term 'ultimate goal', but what I'm trying to ask about is the reason that lies behind everything. What makes a person become a libertarian, other than the promise of brighter days and better wines?

[Decky]

There isn't really an English word to properly convey what I'm asking here, which is why I had to use the term 'ultimate goal'

There is a Greek loan word we use (mainly in Philosophy).

Telos

A telos (from the Greek τέλος for "end", "purpose", or "goal") is an end or purpose, in a fairly constrained sense used by philosophers such as Aristotle. It is the root of the term "teleology," roughly the study of purposiveness, or the study of objects with a view to their aims, purposes, or intentions. Teleology figures centrally in Aristotle's biology and in his theory of causes. It is central to nearly all philosophical theories of history, such as those of Hegel and Marx. One running debate in contemporary philosophy of biology is to what extent teleological language (as in the "purposes" of various organs or life-processes) is unavoidable, or is simply a shorthand for ideas that can ultimately be spelled out nonteleologically. Philosophy of action also makes essential use of teleological vocabulary: on Davidson's account, an action is just something an agent does with an intention--that is, looking forward to some end to be achieved by the action.

[Rei Murasame]

Ah, yes, Telos will do. I wonder what kind of responses they'll give.

[lucky]

Are you asking for the meaning of life?

I'm still trying to figure that one out. I'm mostly going by short-term goals.

What does that have to do with the economy?

Of course no one is against accumulating more wealth, but why do that?

Why not do that?? Whatever one's purpose, having a well-functioning economy seems to better support most endeavors.

Note that "wealthy society", "prosperity" is a broad concept, perhaps you're interpreting it more narrowly. A wealthy society is one with high consumption. Consumption can be many different things: it could be fast cars, it could be long life, it could be health, it could be travel, it could be watching movies, it could be leisure, it could be space tourism... It is whatever people desire.

Questioning that prosperity is a good thing to aim for seems weird, it's almost a self-contradiction. What about you, Rei? What is your purpose?

[Rei Murasame]

I'm not saying that I have a problem with prosperity, I'm just asking why libertarians want that. Is that part of a means to an end, or is it an end in itself?

[lucky]

I'm not saying that I have a problem with prosperity, I'm just asking why libertarians want that. Is that part of a means to an end, or is it an end in itself?

It's a weird question. It's like asking "why does happiness make you happy"? To prosper means to realize your goals, to succeed. Everybody wants to prosper by definition of the word, as long as they have any goals at all. For example, I like to travel, so if I manage to travel, that's my prosperity.

Perhaps if you provide your own answer it will clarify what you're really asking.

[mikema63]

but what I'm trying to ask about is the reason that lies behind everything. What makes a person become a libertarian, other than the promise of brighter days and better wines?

To generalize about libertarians, most are simply very individualist psychologically and generally have trouble accepting authority that is imposed on them.

The ultimate goal I suppose is a society in which you basically get what your willing to work for, generally wishing to impose a lobertarian sense of fairness onto society.

If your poor a libertarian wants it to be because your efforts were lacking and never due to some outside interference, and since it was your own fault they are naturally unwilling to help those people, viewing charity as a way to help the genuinely unfortunate and facilitate their efforts to better themselves.

By the same token libertarians want a society where a rich person really does make it through their own efforts and by improving society in some way.

The idealized libertarian capitalism is a system where when you trade something both sides are subjectively better (if you aren't familiar with that particular argument about trade I can refresh you but I imagine you've come across it already). Obviously this doesn't actually happen but I suppose the end goal is to actually make that happen.

Many of the things people hate at libertarians advocate is really policies that jump the gun, advocating policies that wouldn't really work out unless the ideal were Lready true.

[Fasces]

Rei, libertarianism is an individualistic political programme. It doesn't have a goal, because it attempts to enable individuals to complete freedom to attain their own - whatever that may be varying, of course, between individuals. You are asking for a collectivist answer from non-collectivists.

[Beal]

Rei, libertarianism is an individualistic political programme. It doesn't have a goal, because it attempts to enable individuals to complete freedom to attain their own - whatever that may be varying, of course, between individuals. You are asking for a collectivist answer from non-collectivists.

I think there might be some degree of truth to this. My personal liberty is very important to me. I believe that unless I am infringing on the rights of others, no one should tell me how to live my life, especially not some bureaucrat who wouldn't have the first clue what is actually best for me. I'm an adult. I don't need a babysitter anymore. Unless it affects someone else, it's none of your damn business.

However it's more than just my personal preference for individual liberty. I think she wants to know why I believe a minimalist government would benefit society as a whole. I believe that government intervention on the behalf of society is generally counterproductive. I believe that wealth redistribution doesn't work. I believe that capitalism improves our lives.

[Andalublue]

The goal of many right libertarians appears to be to achieve a minarchist/minimalist government. I'm always struck by how little expansion on that theme one reads. I'd be very interested to find out the extent of government rls believe would be acceptable. When they do go further (but not much) we tend to hear that a minarchist government would concern itself with defence and law and order. What else might it cover?

How about:
*Environmental health - any regulation of food or pharmaceutical production? Any rules or penalties for companies poisoning the population?
*Welfare safety net - would there be one? For whom? And how to deal with the criminality likely to result from unrelieved poverty?
*Infrastructure and research - not all transport, arts, pure science research, or medical research (geriatrics/psychiatrics, for example) can be made profitable. Will these depend on charitable donations in their entirety?
*International aid and cooperation - that's a no, right?
*Environmental protection - any role for regulations on pollution, endangered species protection or climate change?
*Education - any system for national or international assessment? Could that all be left to private institutions?
*Labour - any protection of employees rights? Do they actually have any in a right-libertarian state?

Just some thoughts. Anyone care to bite?

[Joe Liberty]

The short answer: I believe most minarchist libertarians would say that none of those things (with the exception of "international cooperation") are appropriate at the federal level. Some would likely be okay with those being done at the state level, or a more local level, and others would not. I suppose that depends on exactly how minarchist they are.

[Andalublue]

The short answer: I believe most minarchist libertarians would say that none of those things (with the exception of "international cooperation") are appropriate at the federal level. Some would likely be okay with those being done at the state level, or a more local level, and others would not. I suppose that depends on exactly how minarchist they are.

You see, that's often my impression in discussions involving US-based right-libertarians. Many seem to see the aim as being limited to the shrinking of the federal government, not the state-level government and no idea that coercive social forces might be exerted by private corporations. Not living in a US-style federal state I'm more interested in looking at state (in the wider sense) functions. What functions do rls believe any government has a role in creating or operating?