Topic: A Libertarian Defense Of Social Programs (Read 7525 times)

Crystalmonkey · « **on:** April 13, 2007, 03:36:08 PM »

I often hear it said that Libertarians hate/dislike social programs (like Welfare, etc...) and think that the ideal government wouldn't have them. I had a flash of inspiration in class today, though, while we were going over some Locke stuff. (We're reading his 2nd Treatise, good stuff.) If I have somehow misinterpreted something, please let me know. I'm breaking everything up as much as I logically can to let you folks argue it over. (Given some of the recent posts...)

Underlying Assumption: The ideal government is as small as possible but still able to ensure the protection of our rights. (Locke: Life, Liberty, Property; More Modern: Bill of Rights)

The main point of contention is that social programs are unnecessary, and just make the government bigger without reason. The government is only there to PROTECT our rights, not to enable us to achieve them. (Make sure nobody steals from us, but not to give us an iPod if we want one...)

Under this view:
NASA would not be a necessary program under this government, because it does nothing by way of protecting our rights. (Not true, I'll explain why later)

The Health Department would not be necessary, because the government's role is to protect you from people who would kill you, not from mishaps and bad luck.

Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc... would all be gone.

At least, these would all SEEM to be gone, but this is only true when taken in the context of a single government. What about a multi-government environment.

Let's pretend there are only two countries, which we'll call US and THEM. US is the ideal libertarian government, THEM is something else, let's say a monarchy.

US, if the above arguments are true, has no reason to develop space technology, or so it seems. But one day, THEM decide that it's better to try and go to the moon. If US is weaker than THEM, it will have a harder time protecting our rights from THEM, so it should logically try and either a) prevent THEM from reaching space or b) reach space first and keep improving (to keep us ahead of them)

But in order to compete with them, we need a strong economy, because a weak economy generally is a sign or cause of a weak country. Fine, but in order to achieve that it might make sense to help those that have fallen on bad times, because the more productive everyone is the better off the economy is, at least in general, so let's help them somewhat to get back on their feet. (In the interest of increasing the economy to stay stronger or become stronger than THEM in order to protect the rights of US citizens.)

But people begin to see that if they work, they may later down the line have problems when they stop working, because they've been so busy they haven't been able to set aside much, or various other reasons. As an incentive, we tell people that if they work hard they'll be able to get some money down the line to help them after they stop working. (Social Security, still in the interests of keeping the economy strong, providing an incentive, but also to make sure that our experienced workers have an incentive to stay here.)

Public education for a more educated workforce, public libraries for the same reason, perhaps both also help to prevent THEM from using propaganda and other materials.

Department of Health to prevent THEM from using chemical weapons, to help keep people working and productive, etc...

etc...

Thoughts?

Crystalmonkey · « **Reply #1 on:** April 13, 2007, 03:38:55 PM »

I'd post more up (and edit some) but I need to meet my GF for the first time in 5 or 6 weeks to see a movie, so I'll read the replies later.

milifist · « **Reply #2 on:** April 13, 2007, 04:05:49 PM »

You're idea seems to be based on the faulty premise that US needs to be militarily, technologically, and economically superior to everyone else in order to assure the protection of US's rights.

From a realist standpoint social programs are necessary because they are what the people want. When it comes right down to it, hoi polloi > constitution, ideal government, etc.

Libertarians tend to be idealists. If the Libertarian party's platform where to become law overnight in the US, government would collapse and there would be civil war.

Vespertine · « **Reply #3 on:** April 13, 2007, 04:07:21 PM »

My most immediate observation is that you're placing all of your assumptions on government at a national level. Before you can even begin to have a conversation about libertarianism (and whether "social programs" can be fit into a libertarian paradigm), you have to define what you consider to be "the federal domain" vs. what you consider to be "local domain".

Demosthenes · « **Reply #4 on:** April 13, 2007, 04:30:20 PM »

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. -- Alexander Tytler

pbsaurus · « **Reply #5 on:** April 13, 2007, 04:33:54 PM »

Living off the grid and avoiding the public becomes more and more tempting.

ivan · « **Reply #6 on:** April 13, 2007, 04:47:14 PM »

Quote from: Crystalmonkey on April 13, 2007, 03:36:08 PM

I often hear it said that Libertarians hate/dislike social programs

Ok, that's as far as I got, and I haven't looked at replies, but I have to interject that the Libertarian platform is not driven by emotion like hate or dislike, but by reason.

Ok, now I'll go read the next sentence.

ivan · « **Reply #7 on:** April 13, 2007, 05:48:00 PM »

CM, it's difficult to imagine what a pure Libertarian nation would be like. Think of it more as an ideal to strive for, rather than a set of hard and fast rules. Sort of like religion. You can never be exactly like Jesus or the Buddha, you will never be completely sin-free or enlightened; but nonetheless you strive for it, and try to get as close as you can.

To say that Libertarianism is against big government, or against welfare, &c., does not adress the essence of Libertarinism, which is that true freedom, true personal liberty, can only be achieved through personal responsibility. A state that administers behaviour, that takes responsibility away from the individual, by definition limits liberty.

So if liberty is your goal, then your path ought to be clear, and you can view every facet of government in that light. Uncompromising "hell in a handbasket" libertarians will extend this to mean that any action by the state that impedes personal liberty must be denied.

Reality, of course, if far more complex. But our society could use a good dose of libertarian ethic. For example, it is not entirely anti-libertarian to have a strong standing army, but it would be more libertarian to model this army along the lines of a corporation than the outdated forced servitude model. It is not entirely anti-libertarian to object to a steady influx of poor undocumented immigrants, but it would be more libertarian to legitimize their labor. It is not entirely anti-libertarian to wage a war in the Middle East for trumped up reasons.... Wait. That is, actually, entirely anti-libertarian.

There are many things that stick in libertarian craws, and many of them are the same things that stick in liberal and conservative craws. However, liberal and conservative (as we have come to understand these terms) solutions almost always involve adding more layers of whatever was ailing in the first place, like sticking new bandaids on top of old bandaids. Libertarians tend to want to strip everything away, start over and do it right. Not surprisingly, a lot of libertarians are engineers and computer programmers, and a lot are highly educated, intelligent and productive members of society. This is not a motley rag-tag bunch of disgruntled ne'er-do-wells.

One more observation: the libertarian movement is quite young, and will continue to evolve for a long time. But its core is solidly rooted in philosophies developed by the founders of this country, so it has some legs to stand on. And it is not unlike other idealistic, utopian theories. In the mid-1800s, a couple of crazy Germans envisioned (and boldly predicted the inevitability of) a society in which government shrinks to non-existance, personal liberty is unbound by necessity, personal responsibility is second nature, creativity in technology and the arts is unprecedented, the causes of crime are extinct... They called this society "communism", which, ironically, has since come to be understood as the epitome of repressive big government. But actually, we all want the same thing, and some day maybe humans will get there.

jeee · « **Reply #8 on:** April 13, 2007, 05:54:42 PM »

Since the days of HN i stay out of the political threads.But Ivan this post deserves at least a few coolio points. Wonderful reply.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #9 on:** April 13, 2007, 06:09:13 PM »

Well-said, Ivan.

Evonus · « **Reply #10 on:** April 13, 2007, 06:12:23 PM »

I was under the impression that libertarians relied on the private sector to provide what the public sector would in most other governments. Taking your example of NASA, an ideal libertarian government seems like it would rely on a research lab to begin space discovery, and then would rely on some corporation selling trips into space or whatnot, to advance the industry and technology relating to space. The same thing would apply with social security, they would rely on this like Roth IRAs and corporate retirement plans to take care of the old people. Same thing with the hurt and the sick, they'd probably rely on workman's compensation.

In all honesty I agree with the some of these types of methods, such as the NASA one. But the others, like the IRAs and workman's comp aren't nearly fool-proof enough. Not everyone has the type of financial knowledge to know to invest in a retirement plan, and often times if there is insufficient proof company's can get out of workman's comp. Therefore libertarianism isn't really plausible, but it's something that can lend helpful aspects to a mixed system.

In all honesty, I agree with Ivan here, I think that the current system could use a bit more libertarianism in its system to give a new perspective that could help solve old problems. A new direction would be nice.

pbsaurus · « **Reply #11 on:** April 13, 2007, 06:36:20 PM »

Libertarians don't rely on the private sector to take over what the government now does. A Libertarian views government as a means to secure liberty. Taking care of old people, space travel, etc. is all irrelevant. The private sector can do this if there is a market for it, a Libertarian could care less. A Libertarian would say that these programs are unnecessary to secure liberty and thus should be scrapped.

ivan · « **Reply #12 on:** April 13, 2007, 06:59:03 PM »

Yes, it's not merely outsourcing government functions to the private sector, it's redefining what functions government should have. Having a space program is not a function of a libertarian government (such programs are in fact hallmarks of totalitarian regimes!). If you think it's a good idea to go into space, then go. Government should stay out of the way. As much as I'm thrilled by human accomplishments in space, I think mainly governments benefited.

pbsaurus · « **Reply #13 on:** April 13, 2007, 07:23:02 PM »

Governments and those on the dole, i.e. defense contractors.

12AX7 · « **Reply #14 on:** April 13, 2007, 08:00:36 PM »

I could almost guarantee a civillian space program would find a way to glue some fucking tiles on dependably.

BizB · « **Reply #15 on:** April 13, 2007, 09:05:20 PM »

And they wouldn't spend millions of dollars to develop a writing utensil that works in zero gravity - the pencil works just fine.

Crystalmonkey · « **Reply #16 on:** April 13, 2007, 09:11:25 PM »

The government will sometimes back research that is overall unprofitable but fruitful. (And sometimes out of the range of the private sector.) That does not mean EVERYTHING the government does is useful or useless.

But that's beyond the point. I'm basically making three base claims.

1) The purpose of a government is to protect the rights of it's citizens. (Nothing More, Nothing Less)

Edit: To Address V, I'm talking about the overall goal of government in general. These are just broad ideas, no implementation yet.

Edit: To Address Ivan, I'm asking what the purpose of government is. If you think it is to not exist, that is one thing, but at least tell me. I can understand not wanting to limit people's freedom/liberty, but the very existence of laws/government is limitting, and the overall idea is that we need to have SOME limits in order to achieve more, where as in a completely "free" things would be total chaos and we'd have to worry about our lives all the time, etc...

2) In order to protect those rights, the government must be stronger than those that would try to violate those rights. (Whether it be stronger than the guy on the street or the government next door)

3) Government is affected by how strong the economy of the country is. (Because it derives it's power from taxation...)

Does anyone disagree with any of these, before I go on?

Agent_Tachyon · « **Reply #17 on:** April 13, 2007, 09:21:28 PM »

Quote from: BizB on April 13, 2007, 09:05:20 PM

And they wouldn't spend millions of dollars to develop a writing utensil that works in zero gravity - the pencil works just fine.

The mechanical pencil (I think that's what you're talking about) wasn't actually invented by NASA, that's a myth.

Crystalmonkey · « **Reply #18 on:** April 13, 2007, 09:33:02 PM »

Quote from: Agent_Tachyon on April 13, 2007, 09:21:28 PM

The mechanical pencil (I think that's what you're talking about) wasn't actually invented by NASA, that's a myth.

Nah, I saw one at the Museum of Science, could write upside-down and such. I don't think it was a mechanical pencil.

12AX7 · « **Reply #19 on:** April 13, 2007, 09:44:52 PM »

...
I guess they needed something to write goodbye letters with; since they didn't have a chance if a tile was missing/damaged - whether they knew about it or not.
sorry...
<TOPIC>

BizB · « **Reply #20 on:** April 13, 2007, 09:47:35 PM »

Quote from: Crystalmonkey on April 13, 2007, 09:33:02 PM

Nah, I saw one at the Museum of Science, could write upside-down and such. I don't think it was a mechanical pencil.

The $12 Million pen from NASA is a myth. I was just doing my part to spread the myth.

12AX7 · « **Reply #21 on:** April 13, 2007, 09:53:55 PM »

As far as number one; it's purpose - you mean a democratic government, right? There are models that have nothing to do with peoples' rights, etc.
With number two; - Or appear crazier. (ie., North Korea, Iran) These examples also apply to number one.
And with number three; again; which type of government (ie., North Korea = virtually non-existant economy)

anybody know a keyboard mod to swap commas and semi-colon keys?

milifist · « **Reply #22 on:** April 13, 2007, 10:02:52 PM »

The role of government is to carry out the mandates of the people whom control it.

Let's get more basic:
The foundation of civilization is the restriction of freedoms in exchange for collective security. For example, you agree not to molest your neighbor's children, your neighbor agrees not to molest your children, and you both agree to try to keep anyone else from molesting any of the children. Government is the system for implementing the restriction of freedoms. It is a very elaborate and complex system, but the basic premise is the same. Discussions over civil rights are about the degree to which freedoms are restricted. The effectiveness of any government at ensuring security depends ultimately on the will of the civilization.

BizB · « **Reply #23 on:** April 13, 2007, 10:18:07 PM »

But, Evonus says that government grants you your rights. Or, I'm sure he would if he thought through his basic arguments and the foundation there-of. HaHa! I kill me! Evonus thinking through things? Having a foundation? LOL!

I think that's part of the problem, these days. Too many people think that governments' purpose is to grant you your rights. They don't realize that governments' primary effect is limitations on your rights.

12AX7 · « **Reply #24 on:** April 13, 2007, 10:26:00 PM »

I know, roight...

Limitations.

News:

Recent Forum Posts

Shout Box

Author Topic: A Libertarian Defense Of Social Programs (Read 7525 times)

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7