Libertarian question.

I have a question for our libertarian types. I see libertarians as being very suspicious of concentrated governmental power trying to take away one's liberty. I also see libertarians as being equally suspicious of governmental 'generosity', the taking of tax dollars to subsidize services for the indigent. How would you solve the conundrum of 'legal aide' "If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed...." I

Its hard to envision more concentrated governmental power aimed at your liberty, than a police force and district attorney's office working overtime to put you behind bars for the next 20 years. Its not hard to envision how many people are way too poor to ever afford the costs of an attorney, his staff and the requisite investigative hours / expert witness fees needed for a normally intensive murder trial, especially if your job is endangered by either the charge itself, or the time you are detained. Hell a lot of the accused are probably not very employable in the first place.

How do you balance these conflicting needs so that the disparity between government's well resourced efforts to collect evidence while you sit in a jail cell, and then present it all consistent with the rules of evidence and legal precedence in court, is mitigated if you do not have an advocate for the defense ensured no matter what?

 

I'm 80% conservative and 20% libertarian according to those online tests we occasionally see.

I have no probem with providing an attorney to those who can't afford it. I just don't want to find out later the indigent person has a vacation home on Maui.

 

Libertarians are against taxation that is forced by the government but voluntary taxation is ok.

One part of that is paying for legal aid if you can't afford a lawyer, paying for police and fire protection and the upkeep of our military.

Ultimately the libertarian ideology consists of basic human rights which being represented against tyranny would fall under.

 

Libertarianism, much like atheism, has neither the logic, language, or logic to support its philsophy

 

I'm not a by the book libertarian but the NAP is a fine place to anchor your ideology. I think they get it right more than they get it wrong.

 

One, it's a constitutional mandate, or at least interpreted that way. The Constitution isn't libertarian, but if the Federal government and its subsidiaries were to stick to that document, it would be much better than what is in place now.

Two, government monopolizes justice and decides who will be punished for crimes and what it considers to be crimes. Some argue that creates an entitlement to some measure of protection from government prosecutors, especially for the indigent who would have no means to protect themselves otherwise.

In a libertarian world, it wouldn't be a problem as prosecutions would be far fewer, far more fare, and assistance of counsel would not be interpreted by your rulers to mean a trained and licensed lawyer who is also an officer of the court.

 

Ok, Mr. Logic. What is the objectively legitimate source of government authority to monopolize justice and the legal use of force? There is none; you believe in the authority and obey it out of faith. Nothing more. Prove me wrong, with logic.

 

Those same arguments do not apply to those who are just moderate libertarian leaning, or libertarian tempered by more pragmatic considerations.​

 

We the People who created a Republican government gave to our Representatives the legal right to monopolize justice and the use of force.

I had a libertarian friend who believed that government should have no more power than its individual citizen possessed. Perhaps in a government of one that is true, but in a government of two or more the citizens will give up in a Republican government a certain amount of liberty for justice and protection.

Libertarianism is a society of equals in which the powerful torture the face of the poor, and in Communism the cadre torture the face of the non-cadre.

 

Of course they do, but you can your argument a go here if you want.

 

So that is only Fascism who's leaders were democratically approved.

 

Expand on this libertarian utopia a bit more. How do you avoid writing laws which will require trained and educated professionals? How do you avoid enforcing them and prosecuting and adjudicating potential criminals in a trial?

 

That's a very good question, and one in which I wish the people passing more laws would give more consideration to.

All these endless laws and regulations are fueling an army of lawyers.
It's like a parasitic drain on the economy.

 

Does it require a degree in law, a license of the state, appointing that person as an officer of the court, and requiring that person to represent - rather than assist - to qualify for the job?

"Them" what? Do you mean laws? If there's no victim, there's no crime. Let's start there. Maybe your utopia is one where all right and wrong is given to you by the winners of popularity contests. Mine sure isn't.

 

As if common law hasn't been around for 1000 years and as if people can't learn how to deal with it, even specialize in it, without years of education and a license from the state. If the law is so complicated that a citizen can't understand it, is he really obligated to adhere to it? Is it immoral to violate it?

 

As you may have been able to tell, the Left doesn't care much about morality.

 

Atheism isn’t a philosophy. It’s the lack of belief in a god or gods.

 

Maybe its not the law that's the problem but the fact that some people understand a lot more than others. Sounds like stupid people are the winners here and smart ones are losers - or more accurately people who are good at convincing others they are too stupid to be held accountable for understanding laws.

 

You don't understand the terms then.

 

It's only called "Fascism" when it's the Right that's being pushed on people.

 

On the contrary, they care a great deal. They just have a different set of values to force other people to conform to.

 

I asked for logic, since you claimed libertarians are illogical. What I get is rhetoric, and not very good rhetoric, at that.

Maybe this will help: http://www.sanityquestpublishing.com/essays/args.html

Still not logic.

Now you're just descending into hyperbolic sophistry. Seriously, if you are going to attack libertarians for the supposed lack of logic, you ought to at least display some capability toward logic or even understanding how to construct a logical argument.

 

You mean, politicians?

 

That is the most hypocritical post I've seen here in a long long long time.
Good god.

 

those that support tRUMP, those arguments apply. They would all be hypocrites.
There is no pragmatism among them.