The libertarian disconnect!!

It doesn't, which is why governments have legislatures and executives chosen by the people to oversee them and correct them when they make poor decisions. Democratic governments are a reflection of the people. If the populace is full of self serving individuals looking out only for themselves the government's employees and elected officials will be no different. it baffles me that people think the government can somehow uphold ideals that they do not uphold in their own daily lives, like expecting the government to operate in the public interest while they skirt the law and disparage its enforcement.

When did they do that?
And more importantly, how?

 

Doesn't matter who they are. I resent my mom trying to boss me around, I certainly don't need you or some other stranger telling me how to live my life. If I'm not infringing on your rights, then you have no business telling me how to live and vice versa. We'll just let each other live in peace. That is the only just and rational arrangement.

That is a complete and utter fabrication. Maybe that's why they have governments in North Korea, but, here in the United States, our government is established to uphold the rights and liberties of the individual. That is what this nation was founded upon. If you don't like it, you're free to revolt or leave.

Vague and meaningless authoritarian blather that would yield numerous intellectual inconsistencies and contradictions if examined further.

More nonsense. Threats of violence and the use of intimidation to coerce others can be legitimately construed as a form of imminent danger, as they are a declaration - whether explicit or implicit - of intent. If someone tells me they're going to assault me, or steps menacingly into my personal space, then they have declared their intent to infringe upon my rights, which means I am free to preempt them, with violence if necessary. Of course, the lines can be blurred as to what exactly constitutes "imminent danger", but that's why we have local and state justice systems, to adjudicate such things in a dispassionate and impartial manner. Through the processes of a common law system, rational precedents will be established which serve to define standards and delineate just actions from unjust actions. Is it perfect? No. But it's better than your arbitrary system of authoritarian collectivism that imposes blanket restrictions on acts which are deemed "irrational" or overly emotional.

What libertarianism seeks is the end to authoritarian infringements on the rights of the individual by oppressive governments, institutional elites, and violent mobs. And the wealth disparity you've highlighted only serves to condemn the system YOU support, as this disparity has occurred under the auspices of your beloved authoritarian state which you naively believe will usher in an era of equality and prosperity.

 

But preventing self-destructive behavior which doesn't affect the rights of other people isn't necessary for keeping the social peace.

Laws are necessary to prevent people from infringing on the rights of others, as I said, government exists to protect individual rights. Actions that don't impact the rights of others, no matter how self-destructive, fall outside of the reason for government and are unnecessary.

If keeping social peace is truly the reason for government, then the USSR had things right when they outlawed any speech or action contrary to their country. The secret police ensured that the peace was upheld and they were arguably the most socially peaceful country on the planet.

 

There is no constitutional authorization for many things.....that has never stopped politicians from doing them.

 

The politicians do many things that are unconstitutional, but the people no longer hold them accountable for their actions.

Too many people in the crowd of beggars and corrupt cronies would call them extremists if they insisted that the politicians follow the laws of this land.

 

Never is a long time.

It will certainly not (imo) happen until Americans FULLY wake up to the realities of the economic and political world they live in.

 

No doubt.

The problem then becomes one of deciding what exactly constitutes an infringement of rights for every possible case imaginable and forming laws to deal with them.

Since there are obvious practical limits to this, the government is obliged to have trials by judge and jury where some representative sample of the people are employed to decide the law, not just in its particular application to the case at hand, but also the appropriateness and legality of the law itself in its relationship to the public perception of justice.

One example of this is the complete inability of prosecutors to attain guilty verdicts for bootleggers in Tennessee during prohibition. The people decided that outlawing drinking was unjust and so returned not guilty verdicts regardless of the evidence.

If you wish to forward your position it will not be accomplished by just changing the law, but must include a public acceptance that what you propose is just.

 

OK, so how do we get from here to there?
I am intrigued, let's talk about your plan.

 

I can only speak for myself, so the recommendations I give are not necessarily representative of libertarianism as a whole. In fact, many "rightist" libertarians disagree vehemently with me when it comes to the nature of land ownership.

Anyway, here are the policies I believe would help lead to an era of relative peace and prosperity which is sustainable and equitable.

Abolish the Federal war on drugs; repeal legal tender laws so the government banking system no longer monopolizes money; abolish the Federal income tax, corporate income tax, and capital gains tax and replace them with a flat tax on net worth and/or land and/or assets; incrementally return the Federal government's role to its Constitutionally enumerated powers as understood by Jefferson and Madison; begin an incremental transition towards State-run entitlement programs (education, health, retirement, etc.); direct our military commanders to recommend cuts consistent with our longterm national security and implement them in a timely manner; change our mission focus in Iraq and Afghanistan from one of nation-building to one of containment and diplomacy; secure our southern border with a fence/wall appropriately manned and monitored; deal with illegal immigrants on a case-by-case basis; illegal immigrants convicted of a felony should be deported; law-abiding, hard-working immigrants should be put on a path to citizenship provided they assimilate; balanced budget Amendment.

Of course, this is only basic list of what would need to occur. There are numerous other things that would need to occur concurrently in order this to come to fruition.

 

Prohibition is a great example of outlawing an activity that doesn't infringe on the rights of others and falls outside the authority of government.

A lot of current laws fall into this category as well, including any laws against self-destructive behavior.

In reality you don't have to come up with laws describing every possible situation, general prohibitions and punishments are adequate in most circumstances. You don't have to have fifteen different punishments for different kinds of theft, straightforward restitution methods work no matter the type of theft. Complicated laws seem to come about either in cases where no damage actually occurs or where attempts are made to create loopholes or exceptions for protected classes.

 

The behaviors that create costs for others are the ones that have to be legally punished, not the self-destructive part.

Many laws seem to be created to prevent behaviors that may lead to harm of others, which punishes people who wouldn't actually damage others as well as the guilty. For example, drug use may lead people to theft. That is no reason to outlaw drugs, you simply need to outlaw the theft.

In other cases the costs imposed on others are caused by other behaviors the government shouldn't be engaged in either. For instance, drug use may lead people to a welfare lifestyle. That is no reason to outlaw drugs, just eliminate the welfare option.

Creating laws to outlaw behaviors that might incur cost to others is just social engineering by arrogant lawmakers who believe they know better than citizens how each person should live their lives.

 

That was already tried in the US, with less than desirable results. You can read the book "A Nation of Counterfeiters" if you want an overview of the history of private money in the US.

A wealth tax, that is an uncommon position for a libertarian to take.

Jefferson had a fantasy of a nation populated by yeoman farmers, he completely disregarded the majority of people, even in his time, who were renters. His notions of 'promoting the general welfare" were based entirely on that mistaken premise.

Even back then there was a large disconnect between the southern land owner mentality of neglect for the plight of others which they inherited from the English aristocracy and the northern merchant mentality which understood that economic prosperity was a group endeavor which did no good to disregard the well being of others so it would be better to discard the old aristocratic negligence in establishing the new nation.

There is no need for the Federal government to maintain a large standing army, all that does is goad the executive into foreign adventures. The republic survived quite well for 150 years without a large standing army, why not devolve the bulk of the military back to where it belongs, in the hands of the states as militias.

Why not just adopt trade policies that do not incite the massive eviction and impoverishment of millions of indigenous peoples so they do not need to come to the US in order to avoid starving to death?

Please continue...

 

.. Like we're not presently a nation of counterfeiters. It's just institutionalized now.

 

You are right. I should have said, it will never happen within the confines of our current system. However, if people woke up to this reality, and passed amendments making elections publicly financed, making legislating people you benefit financially from illegal, etc I think we could get to that point. However, in the system we currently have, it will never happen.

 

Isn't consensus fun!!!

 

For me, there is no disconnect...philosophically, I'm libertarian, but until there is equal opportunity for everyone, and only when the playing field is level (and I don't have the answer for how that can ever come to be unless there is some collapse of the present system and associated concentrations of wealth) do I believe markets should be free from government intervention.

 

I basically agree.

The system is a mess.

It was designed hundreds of years ago and is desperately need of replacing or MAJOR re-structuring.

 

If you think our system is even remotely similar to that of the one instituted "hundreds of years ago," then you've had your eyes close for a pretty long while.

 

Yes, the writing has changed very much so since Adam Smith's publication of The Wealth of the Nations back in 1776.

However, the same logic remains intact. Back in Smith's day, the idea of an economy was based around the concept that it could grow infinitely as long as there were resources available at hand.

Much has changed since then and we now know that we live in a world with finite resources...

So how does an economy work if we don't have the resources to keep the machine going?

 

The whole point of economics has always been deciding how to deal with scarcity (read: limited resources).

The economy keeps going by proper resource allocation and capital investment; to be the most productive we can be with the limited resources we have.

Unfortunately, our capital markets have been a mess for a while. It's a shame all those scarce resources have been (in hindsight) wasted on housing. War is also a bummer. I could keep going, but we all know these things.

 

And this is why overpopulation is, ultimately, the biggest problem we face today.

 

I am talking about the masses electing officials to do their bidding in a central government.

And no, that has not changed much in hundreds of years.

 

I don't agree with such a system, but how is it objectively worse than any other system?

 

Because of it's massive corruption.

There is no way for the people to control their representative and how they vote until the next election. So, the rep 's vote can be bought by the highest bidder (lobbyist).

We have the technology for direct voter participation in every vote in government now. The representative should only be utilized if less then a certain percentage of his/her constituents vote on a particular bill.

This would drastically limit corruption (potentially).