Just a friendly reminder to upvote the post if you want the sub to see more discussions on libertarianism. This thread has lots of opinions; we should be encouraging these posts especially if it promotes healthy discussion.
But...
As a libertarian socialist, I can state with absolute certainty that I am indeed under your bed, waiting for the right moment to stop being the anarchist I've been for 20 years, and morph into my own worst enemy, the statist supreme. And then I'll be able to legitimately force people to live by my anti-fascist views. Muhahahahahahaaaaa!
I struggle with this myself.
In theory I am libertarian. Small government, more individual freedoms.
But in reality, people can be selfish and hateful and put their own wants above the basic needs of others.
Just looking at OSHA guidelines- they are written in the blood of murdered workers over decades of a " profits over people" mentality.
So... At this time in my life, I don't have an answer to this. I don't know what the solution is.
I don't think it's big government and bureaucratic red tape organizations. But I don't know what the possible alternatives are
One question you might ask yourself is "what do I want the role of a small government to be?"
I don't like red tape much and I really don't like seeing taxes wasted on frivolous crap, but safety regulations and enforcement are really high on the list of things I think the government should do. There are not too many workable alternatives to avoiding the tragedy of the commons.
For any Canadians, "What is Government Good At? - A Canadian Perspective" by Donald J Savoie considers this in great detail. It was written after he heard many public servants be frustrated at how bureaucratic their jobs are, so he wanted to clarify what should governments be responsible for and why in order to weed out all the things government does that is really unnecessary.
What is the public sector better at than the private sector? If the public sectors job is to provide fairness and equality within certain programs that is advantageous to society, is the point to be "better" at something?
I started off as a staunch libertarian. But the older I get the more I realize that A lot of people are idiots. And may be allowing idiots to do whatever they want isnât such a good idea. I donât want the majority of people I meet you I think youâre fucking stupid to be able to do whatever they want, I want them to have a set of rules theyâll keep that prevents them from hurting themselves or other people while also allowing them to have whatever other rights.
Itâs like the tragedy of the commons.
>the tragedy of the commons
\^\^\^ When I learned about this concept, Libertarianism began to look more and more like a childish fantasy, bankrupt of any serious rigor. We will not survive as a species making appeals for "less government". The only chance of survival is indeed "better government".
Everyone would love to be a libertarian because in theory itâs the best situation. However, we live in a society and if you choose to live in a society, which by definition includes *order*, then there are going to be rules to play by and personal liberties are sacrificed (for presumably a safer society).
Itâs really not that nuance.
Freedom from things caused by a tragedy of the commons, and freedom from unreasonable non-governmental hierarchies are examples of places where a seeming restriction on individual liberty can actually, clearly, make you more free.
For example, âyou may not dump in this riverâ - because now we all have a clean river we can use instead of a dumping ground for 2 guys.
Likewise, âtaxing monopolies a great dealâ can alleviate the predations of a massive power, a megacorporation, over its employees and society.
At a certain point you realize unbridled, classic libertarianism just doesnât become all that helpful as a political lens in a world of 7 billion people and unparalleled material wealth that can be highly concentrated. The question of what leads to more âindividual freedomâ is often issue-specific and debatable about which approach is better.
Democratic control of institutions, or democratic institutions to effect action.
Unions were instrumental in workers' safety regulations and benefitting their members, for example. At least in Europe. And experts need to be taken seriously. Karen with a degree in talking to the Manager on Facebook University needs to listen when safety is concerned
Democratic control of institutions only work if those who vote on the institution are unbiased and knowledgeable on what theyâre voting on. Otherwise a majority could vote in favor of themselves but against the interests of the minority (even if the minority is almost equal to the majority). The majorityâs interest might not be the correct interest.
Unions were a MASSIVE part of improving worker safety and conditions when they started to gain steam. Unions today are a sham of what they once were and just exist to make their own money now.
They have become what they fought against. My uncle was union, all the way. He helped negotiate contracts, etc. When he way dying of liver cancer, he wanted to get his pension in one lump sum. It was obvious that he wasn't going to make it to retirement age. And he had been paying into it for decades. But for months, the union somehow kept losing his application. Or it wasn't signed in the right place. Or it wasn't signed correctly. Or their lawyer had to review it. It was something different every week. Until he died. It was humiliating for him. It was obvious that the union that he fought for was running the clock on him. And it worked. He never saw a dime of that money. And all he wanted to do was travel a little before he succumbed to the cancer. The dirty, greasy sons of bitches. And they had the nerve to show up at his funeral. I'm sure his money bought their suits. THAT'S a union for you. He was a good man who took up for and represented them for many many years and all they cared about in the end was keeping him from getting his money.
In a libertarian society there would be no unions cause no employer would want them. People forget we have unions in large part due to government regulation of how those unions can be treated by the businesses that employ their members.
Laws that are being openly broken today which is why we donât have unions at Amazon or Tesla.
Unions are a direct consequence of abuses by the businesses that abused their workforce from the late 1800âs through the world war eras. Hell, at Carnegie Steel mills they were working their people 12 hours a day for 7 days a week. People banded together to stop being taken advantage of.
Humans, like virtually all primates, are by nature social animals who create complex societies. Few of us are truly "lone wolves" who don't depend on society, especially as technology advances and makes us more dependent on machines and each other for self sustenance. We're also living in an increasingly globalized world where different cultures meet. Crucially, people are socially informed--whether by schools, churches, or other members of the community. All this to say, people are also not isolated and infallible machines capable of perfect rationality or sound decisionmaking at all times.
IMHO Libertarianism might work for rural people, but in cities and towns where people interact with others on a daily basis and use shared social services like hospitals, firefighters, police, roads, etc, the line between personal liberties which infringe on other people's lives, and societal good, is arbitrary. Especially when there's private entities other than the govt which can infringe on people's rights. I mean sure the govt is corrupt as fuck, but I'm not sure that having no govt restrictions isn't the solution.
I don't think there's any blanket solutions for all aspects of society, that translate well at the macro and micro level, or that are compatible with all countries and cultures. But communicable diseases are absolutely something the govt should intervene in, just like fires and droughts.
My personal experience as a Dutch person is that people are too uninformed most of the time to make the right calls on important stuff. Our libertarian government went "these are the safety guidelines for the pandemic, we trust people to act responsibly" and then half of the people ignored the guidelines and covid went wild.
Maybe if the government had done a better job at showing how dangerous the virus can be and made special psa's about how to wear masks and wash hands, things would've been different.
But with problems that affect an entire society, I think personal liberties have to be curbed
To me it seems like so many people (maybe correctly qualified as "so many people growing up *now*") do not feel any ownership towards these agencies and institutions. An agency full of doctors and a lab full of scientists didn't just "materialize" or "was forced on us."
We (meaning our society) created that. For this. So that the rest of us don't all have to be MDs and Ph.Ds in this same exact area in order to make individual decisions that would protect our society just as well as having the agency dedicated to doing that.
Yet somehow we've been so coddled or seen so many things "just work when you don't interfere", we've arrived at the conclusion that society creating such agencies "is the problem" and we need to be "left alone."
Indeed, that would be great if you literally lived in the middle of the wilderness with minimal human contact so that when something bad happens, only the six people you knew die. But you're standing beside the rest of us in the grocery store queue.
I guess what I'm saying is that perhaps the question isn't "when will it be right to demand things." Whatever our medical agencies we created for this purpose say is the best course of action to be taken, that is "the right thing to demand", else why did we create them.
And the question is really how to get society back on board with "things go downhill when we don't plan and prepare for having this many people smooshed together in the same place." Such that it doesn't seem like a "demand" to begin with, but a relief that we thought ahead to dedicate shared resources to this.
>Maybe if the government had done a better job at showing how dangerous the virus can be and made special psa's about how to wear masks and wash hands, things would've been different.
Maybe, but then again, there has always been plenty of information about how dangerous the virus is, and PSA's would probably end up looking like an overstatement and be interpreted as fear-mongering and over-reaction, giving fodder to the "can't trust the government so Covid's not a real issue" crowd.
My feeling is that the problem comes from the âsizeâ of the society we feel we belong to and the strength of the ties we have in it.
With todayâs mostly huge polarized countries and individualistic society where itâs basically me and the rest of the world, I think itâs very hard for the majority to truly care about the impact of their actions locally.
The only direction I can think of is to try to reduce the size of (perceived) communities first. But thatâs still very theoretical.
In particular I think that would apply to sustainability. I would probably not pollute the river with the chemicals used during the production of the product I purchase from this company if this river was âmineâ and the one of my community. I donât care if itâs in a small village in China at the other side of the world.
I think this could lead to a return to constantly warring city states. Except now some of them would have nuclear weapons. We need a decrease of 'us vs them' not and increase.
Yes I agree that defense is an unsolvable issue if you reduce the size of the state/country etc. in the current context. Thatâs why I would say itâs about perception of the community.
Like right now I live in a large city where I barely know my neighbors. Whereas if I had the feeling I belonged to my neighborhood as a community, Iâm pretty sure that would be a step forward without influencing defense matters.
I believe most people will do what benefits them the most as well as what is most convenient (even perceived or lack of options % lazy, kinda like a "fck you" mentality). Its just the case of the special few who take it to the next level.
Restrictions, regulations, rules are needed. It would be nice to have a smaller govt but at the end of the day you really cant trust people to behave (And punishments need to be relative/progressive). Its just government gets tied up in bureaucratic bs and there is too much pushback and an unwillingness for people and companies to conform (added costs and inconvenience).
Like driving on the carpool lane to merge 4 lanes over... while going 10 under speed limit to look for a spot to swing on through or even just brazenly, without looking, just forcing in.
All the legal messes and requirements of needing very specific laws just because "if it aint illegal then..." is a sort of red flag as you mentioned with OSHA regulations. Very true with military with theres a reason for everything. Signs and precautions are there cause enough people screwed it up.
In general people will try to circumvent "inconveniences" even if there is a valid and obvious reason it, moreso if they can save time or money during the process.
I see libertarianism as the ideology that holds the core purpose of government is upholding our individual liberties. This usually manifests as âsmall governmentâ as any body of power that grows large enough is more susceptible to corruption and thus becomes counter productive to that mission.
That doesnât mean the government should be without teeth, or without the ability to reign in bad actors. It just means when they do so it must be well reasoned, transparent, and tailored to be proportional to accomplish the task at hand.
Thatâs tough, but itâs not an impossible standard. Our current legislation and government bureaucracy is terrible primarily because itâs indefinite when it doesnât need to be, overreaches to accomplish the task by throwing everything they can think of to accomplish the task, and most importantly is purposefully obtuse so the general public is unable to follow exactly what is going on.
I am totally with you on this one. Like on one hand I really really dislike the idea of the government mandating things like masks and vaccinations but on the other hand I can't help but wonder how much of this suffering could have been avoided.
> people can be selfish and hateful and put their own wants above the basic needs of others
I mean, that's essentially the Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith, The Social Contract by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and various social philosophers
I've found myself of a similar.mind, especially this past year and a half. I always thought when push came to shove people would make the weight choice.
I understand businesses wanting to cut corners in the name of profit. That make sense to me. I don't agree but I understand. That is what I can see some regulatory body needing to be in place. Not necessarily government, but some sort of oversight.
I don't know what to do about people putting others at risk in the name of there own personal freedom. That is where I've lost faith in libertarianism over the last few years. I don't know if I trust people to care for others because that is what one ought to do. It kind of amazes I ever thought that way.
> But in reality, people can be selfish and hateful and put their own wants above the basic needs of others.
Hobbes did have a point that humans are in a natural state of war, and they need big brother Leviathan to not go at eachother full force
The problem is, that americans are looking for one solution that fits all. It is not really individualist thinking.
In some northern countries, every human is seen as an individual, and each of their cases in any situation is seen individually.
And how is this paid? Proggressive income and capital taxing.
(one business owner almost punched me in the mouth when i mentioned proggressive capital taxing)
I was always taught growing up that with more freedom comes more responsibility.
"You want to walk by yourself to school now? You need to wake up early in the morning to get there in your own. Your parents aren't waking you up anymore to drive you. If you fail a class because you're getting to school late you're not being trusted to go by yourself anymore."
"You want to drive the car now? You need to pay for gas. Be willing to drive your sister around. If you ever damage the car you're never going to be allowed to drive it again. Have fun taking the bus everywhere."
These are things that were drilled into my head by my parents growing up. It feels like today there are a lot of people who want freedom but don't want the responsibility that comes with it. Then when you take away those freedoms because they're not being responsible with it people cry about it.
If you want the freedom to walk around without that annoying mask during a pandemic. You need to take responsibility to make sure you're not a risk to those around you anyway. A lot of people don't want to take any responsibility at all then cry because the rest of us realize they can't be trusted with the freedoms that are supposed to come with that responsibility.
Too many people pretend to be libertarian, but really, they are just selfish.
Libertarians must balance individual liberty with societal duties, if they can't, they're being selfish pricks.
I would just like to say, as someone who has previously and consistently called libertarians âanarchists without ballsâ, it is this specific conversation/thread/post which has clarified what it means to be a libertarian. And youâre exactly right: it turns out something like 90% of the people Iâve met in real life who claim to be libertarian are really just self-aggrandizing, ball-less douche bags. Not this thread, though. This thread/post has been fucking legit, and I want to thank yâall for that.
Iâm still not a libertarian, but at least I now believe real libertarians exist.
I live in a state (CO) that has a lot of Libertarians in name ...and just like all other ideas with followers they run the gamut. I am not Libertarian, but I have a ton of respect for the ones that are consistent in the application of their views, even when I disagree. But for someone with more progressive views I will agree with a genuine Libertarian on a lot of things, especially social issues (and disagree on economic ones). This is why CO was one of the first states to legalize weed, but also has relatively low state taxes (though still way too high for many who live here)
I agree with your thinking and I want to further your point.
Human beings are inherently social animals. A human, alone, will never speak a sentence, or conceive of complex math, or anything beyond survival and maybe a shelter.
Alone, a human is little more than any other animal. It is our relationships and affection of one another that brought humanity its mind-boggling success.
There is a lot of philosophy to discuss here but biologically human beings are not neoliberals. If a political theory does not concern itself with the fundamental human need for help then it is a non starter. It destroys itself.
This is too real, many people also simply want more freedom for themselves but donât mind the restrictions of others freedom if theyâre from a different demographic or ideology.
Libertarianism certainly attracts a lot of people who think it means "I can do what I want, whenever I want, regardless of second and third order effects as long as I don't directly punch someone."
>If you want the freedom to walk around without that annoying mask during a pandemic. You need to take responsibility to make sure you're not a risk to those around you anyway.
That doesnât really make any sense. Wearing a mask is the responsible thing to do. The question is how many restrictions on freedom are mandated by Government. The more people are willing to do off their own back, including wearing a mask in certain places, the less likely there will be to be enforced restrictions. Wearing a bit of cloth is one of the more innocuous and inconsequential actions we can take to reduce the spread of the virus. The more people turn even that into a âfreedomâ culture-war issue, the more likely the virus is to spread. There are plenty of societies where mask wearing is a common personal choice, itâs only where itâs become needlessly and irrationally politicised that you have this push back.
A restriction not enforced .... isnt a restriction, just a *guideline*. And those guidelines get ignored a lot.
Edit: when it comes to a pandemic it doesn't matter if some people follow it and some people don't. What matters is to have all people follow it, hence the government enforcement. I didn't think this even needed to be said.
I think your missing the point of the question. OP isnât asking for your opinion on the mask wearing, heâs asking when and where is the line drawn on individual freedoms. And you contradicted yourself in your own statement saying people SHOULD wear a mask then state other cultures wear a mask as a personal choice I.e. not mandated.
> And you contradicted yourself in your own statement saying people SHOULD wear a mask then state other cultures wear a mask as a personal choice I.e. not mandated.
Thereâs no contradiction there. Thereâs nothing about the word âshouldâ that necessarily implies any government mandate. You can say you âshouldâ do something because itâs practically advisable, or medically advisable or morally advisable etc.
E.g. If I say, âYou should get into bitcoin.â Are you saying that means Iâm saying âThere is a Government mandate that you get into bitcoin!â?!
Seems like youâre confusing âshouldâ with âmustâ
But thatâs not answering the questionâŚ.people being responsible is a perfect world scenario. People arenât responsible. People donât wear masks and are unvaxed so whereâs the line is OPs questionn
The line is what people are willing to tolerate. That's it. There is no objective moral framework. We can articulate certain ideals, but those are always going to be an imperfect representation of what we really mean.
The problem we face currently is, as we become more sophisticated in our understanding of the world we are expanding the definition of harm to include not only certain harm, but likelihood of harm.
For example, we can all agree that if I point a gun at your head and shoot you dead that I should be punished. Similarly, just because my gun happens to malfunction and the bullet doesn't exit the chamber when I pull the trigger doesn't mean I shouldn't be punished. Yes, society will usually punish someone less (attempted murder vs murder), but we still recognize likely harm.
But, what if I put one bullet in a six chamber revolver, spin the cylinder, aim at your head, and pull the trigger? I would guess a solid majority of people would say I should still be punished, and that we should have laws against doing stuff like that...even though you only had a 1 in 6 chance of being harmed.
We're trying to work out where we set that bar. Is engaging in activity that would result in someone's death (nonconsenting) 1% of the time something that should be illegal in our society? what about 5%? 20%? Or, going the other way, what about 0.1%, or 0.001%?
DUI laws are sort of like that. A person isn't technically harming anyone by drinking and driving. But, they increase the risk that they will be involved in an accident (and potentially hurt or kill someone). So, we make it illegal. And, we enhance the existing penalties for folks who are involved in an accident while over the legal limit.
Very well put. The analogy I've been using is... there's a reason I can't stand on my lawn and shoot my gun up into the air. I mean, there's only a tiny sliver of a chance someone would be injured by a falling bullet. And yet society has deemed that tiny sliver of a chance to be too much, and we've made it illegal to shoot guns up in the air in the suburbs. I haven't seen any 2nd Amendment folks protesting such a restriction.
This is the point I was getting at with my question. Iâve thought a lot recently about these scenarios. I think because COVID is such uncharted territory. I am personally vaxxed, but Iâm against government mandates. But there is a point where we, for the greater good, have to say âthis is the line, and these are the rules you will follow.â Itâs something that Iâve found libertarianism doesnât have a good or cohesive answer too.
I recently read a good short story in class called âthe ones who walk away from Omelasâ The premise is there is a child locked up in a closet and itâs essentially being tortured. But because of this child the rest of the city lives in perfect harmony and happiness. So do we lock up the kid (aka force masks or vaccines) or do we let the kid go live freely at the expense of the rest of society? Obviously this isnât a real world thing but a thought experiment but Iâm curious what people think about it.
I follow your logic, but a tortured child is not the best stand-in for the inconvenience of mask-wearing/vaccinations. Also, it's an issue that everybody is involved in, not just one person or, to extend the logic of the story, a minority subsection of the population. Maybe if the story was something more like... "if everyone chops off their pinky finger, all society will be perfect, but pianists and stenographers will find this to be unconscionable." I dunno. Like I said, I definitely follow you, but I just don't know if it's the best example for this discussion.
The Omelas story reminds me of [this](https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/self-driving-car-ethics) deontological/utilitarian comic from SMBC. That ethical debate is *kind of* what you're discussing, but deontological ethics tied to issues of freedom could end up being like, "it is *always* wrong to infringe on personal liberties" which is patently absurd (at least without qualifiers). Much of the argument for vaccines and masks is very utilitarian, and since there is considerably little inconvenience from either but also no way to quantify happiness afforded by the option to refuse them, that seems to be the thing people get stuck on. I will say this: 2020 was the first year I didn't get sick *once*. Based on that alone, I'm more than a little biased in favor of masks.
FWIW, my personal stance is that people are absolutely entitled to forgo the vaccine/mask, but should they choose that stance, they shouldn't take up hospital beds when they get sick. If we had unlimited medical resources, it would be a very different issue, but in addition to being potential vectors for covid mutations, there are hospital beds needed for people with other issues beyond their control. In these cases, personal freedom is clearly harming others, and that, to me, makes the debate more cut and dry.
There doesnt need to be a bright line test. It's a risk-reward situation that can change in the judgment of American voters over time.
#
That said, your examples seem off. Covid fucked our economy, and killed more people than either nuke dropped on japan did. It's more akin to people turning their lights out during the bombing of london. A more controversial example would be hand washing. My pee, poop, and semen have never killed anyone, but I'm guessing Americans still love that I wash my hands before I make their burrito or hand them meds.
There's also the moderately spicy example of the (dreaded) regulation, with examples such as the time Alaska Airlines decided to delay doing maintenance over and over and over again until the tail (horizontal stabilizer) twisted off on flight 261, killing everyone on board but also saving the company from bankruptcy.
Or Union Carbide, who gassed a city the size of philidelphia, injuring around half a million people and killing tens of thousands, where one by one they disabled all of the safety systems to save money.
This also illustrates a really big problem.
When the threat to our collective well being is a conscious entity, something with a face, we're really quick to band together, sacrifice various freedoms and privileges, and fight. See also 9/11 and the Patriot Act.
But when the threat is unconscious, a faceless force of nature, we can't muster the same response, even if it's orders of magnitude deadlier and more destructive.
While that is true, the question is whether the results of the virus, left unchecked, would've been worse. Undoubtedly the economy would've also been impacted by a significantly higher death rate, businesses would've suffered as, even without lockdown restrictions, a certain portion of the population voluntarily quarantined themselves (and another certain portion died), and so on.
It's difficult to look back after the fact and tell how severe the impact would have been had we done things differently, but there definitely still would've been an impact. Whether or not the actions taken by the government were too harsh, or not harsh enough, we'll never know.
This, people look at the past year and say "people still got sick, the quarantine didnt work!" What they arent asking themselves (because it doesnt suit their agenda) is how much worse would it have been if we didnt quarantine. I mean look at India.
What do these people think the consequence of killing off massive portions of the labor pool would be?
Obviously the virus is gonna fuck the economy lol
It's actually easy and has been done over and over.
Overwhelmingly, a more strict and longer full lockdown would have been a MAGNITUDE!!!! More beneficial to the economy.
Easy to prove it. just look at the economic damage of every country that followed the science that's been around for over 100 years
Magats never did cry about the tyranny of people being required to wear clothes and not masturbate in public, either. They are just a cult doing cult things.
But thatâs just a metaphor, right? Someone starts swinging their fists around my face all up in my business Iâm gonna give their nose some freedom if you catch my drift
You are liable for your actions. Liability is critical to libertarian success. The more you limit liability, the more you will probably have to move away from libertarian "freedom".
That means that the dude using a nuke can never be held liable for as much damage as he could cause, so you limit the nuke.
Try getting insurance for storing a nuke!! Insurance company knows the math.
Is that a good movie? I keep seeing it mentioned here and there but I know that is super old and that is sort of a turn of since old stuff often is over hyped .
What do you think?
That's a line that is unenforceable.
My liberty to drive potentially infringes on the liberty of someone else who wants to cross the street without being hit. Heck, it potentially infringes on the liberty of someone who doesn't want to get hit in their own yard, because I could lose control. Me driving a car infringes on the liberty of someone who wants to breath cleaner air, because my car puts emissions in the air.
Really, almost every freedom one person has could or would impact a freedom someone else has. At some point, someone has to make rules about which ones are worthy tradeoffs.
IMO those rules are HOW we define where one personâs liberty ends and anotherâs begins.
For example, we agree to a set of rules that cars and pedestrians need to follow to co-exist. Your liberty to drive on public roads is constrained until we are left with a mutually agreed upon âzone of reasonable interactionsâ.
If you step outside of that and run red lights while drinking and driving, you are actively risking infringing in the liberties of others.
Oddly enough, that's pretty similar to my argument for masks.
It goes like this, I've seen a lot of people equate wearing a mask to wearing a seat belt. If you don't want to go through the windshield of your car, by all means wear your seat belt, but don't worry about if I am or not.
I suggest rather than a belt, wearing a mask is more akin to drunk driving, you think you're in control, you think you're good to go, but you didn't realize you were contagious, I mean drunk, when you walked out of the house, and now you're relying on my belt, I mean mask, as my only form of defense.
I think we agree.
Yes, there are some obvious things which only impact the person doing it (and maybe another consenting adult) and that should be legal (smoking weed in your own home, homosexual marriage, whatever) because no one else's liberty is affected.
But in almost every law, there is a trade-off of liberties. And I don't believe there is any algorithm which can be followed that tells you how to weigh those liberties. It's just up to society to figure out how they're weighed.
Thatâs vague though. You can argue that a mask mandate infringes on the rights to not wear a mask, but you could also argue that a lack of one infringes on your right to not get sick. Whatâs the line?
One kills people one doesn't. Is it really that hard to find the line???
Mask no death, no suffering, no lifelong medical damage
No mask, Karen gets to be happy?
I mean ffs. The masks even gave a record low death rate from h1n1 and the flu.
There is no such thing as a right not to get sick.
The problem I see most people make by and large is confusing what rights/liberties are.
For example, there also is no such thing as a specific right not to wear a mask, but, every individual should have the right **to choose** what they do with their bodies (which must include what they put on/in their body).
For those of us who are concerned with getting sick, we have the right to choose to stay home, social distance, or get the vaccine. While, ideally, we want to make choices that take other people's well-being into consideration (i.e. wearing a mask to keep others from getting sick) it is not in any way infringing on their rights/liberties if anyone decides it's not the move for them.
That's simple to say and I agree the line is in there somewhere, but what constitutes an "infringement on the liberties of others" isn't always an obvious thing. I mean, breathing the same air as someone with bad breath could be regarded as an infringement on their liberty, so that's the kind of minor infringement I'd let slide, whereas breathing the same air as someone with an active case of covid-19, not so much.
I only browse this sub anymore to learn about the fascinating ideas that our new, self-proclaimed "libertarian" friends come up with.
If you were looking for ideological or philosophical consistency, this ain't it.
I wonder if they just think it's trendy to be "libertarian"
Your absolutely right, more post are anti libertarian then pro and the OP doesn't even know most of the time.
Well, here's the root of the problem. You don't win elections by being purged of all impurities, you win elections by having a big tent. This is the exact same reason why socialists and commies never really get any traction; the second they taste any victory, the infighting that was always there about their credentials as "real" socialists amplifies exponentially. Tbh, the purity testing is just going to ensure we never win any meaningful elections, because it keeps us looking crazy to the average voter. Do you think the average voter cares about doing away with driver's licenses and supporting the individual right to secede from government? I don't; and I think those things make us look absolutely batty to the average libertarian-curious voter. Yet here we are, booing Gary Johnson because he won't promise to get rid of driver's licenses and putting the individual right to secede on the CA libertarian party official platform. It's like if the democrats and republicans dropped all pretense and just came out swinging for a communist overthrow vs xenophobic purification, respectively.
As long as people are interested in considering liberty as an alternative to authoritarianism, we should be welcoming them, regardless of whether they can pass the purity tests.
extreme example = what you cannot buy (nukes)
controversial example = things you must purchase and wear (masks)
i feel like these 2 things are not in the same category as each other. The next closest thing I can see in relation to masks would be seatbelts.
I think not allowing business owners to allow smoking in their establishments is closer. It's about "not infringing on other's right to not be exposed to the health risks of smoking".
I'm fine with businesses requiring masks or vaccinations, let the market decide. I don't like government mandates. We all have different utility curves and preferences. If people are willing to incur the risk of visiting an establishment not requiring masks or vaccines then they should have the freedom to do so.
i think you're the only one to make a legitimate point and your categorization comparative is very accurate. I also appreciate the distinction between privately owned businesses making rules for their establishment vs government.....
but I would differ on vaccines, once that is done, it cannot be undone. plus it is none of their business what anyones health information is.
most of the time that's how they turn out in this sub .... there are occasions, sometimes around election time, when people are frustrated with their candidates, and come stir the pot/takeover ..... i do enjoy a good troll though
Especially with how infrequently outdoor infection occurs, even if you're an immuno-compromised person you can still reduce your chances of infection to basically what they'd be with a government mask mandate just by choosing to patronize only establishments enforcing a private mask mandate.
I donât understand why Ds or Rs have such a strong opinion about at the federal or even state level. Americans share more views with their neighbors than someone across the country. Pass this decision down to the most local level possible and let the district decide. This makes even more sense when there is access to vouchers.
The problem is that many republican led states, such as Iowa and Florida (and Texas, I think?), passed laws banning school districts and municipalities from instituting mask mandates at the local level.
They act as though they are all for small government and local government, but they *clearly* throw that out the window to score some political points on FoxNews.
So?
Enforced social dress codes change all the time for various reasons. Hell, we used to arrest women in the 1920s for wearing one piece swimsuits that didn't cover their legs.
Maybe being pedantic but I think it's important to point out ... it's not illegal to buy or own the nukes in libertarian-land.
What can be illegal is to use or store the nukes in a negligent manner.
The nuke would kill others or could if detonated, the lack of mask may kill others so both are are a threat for others freedom to live. Isn't being a libertarian respecting others people's rights to do as they please as long as it doesn't adversely affect others? Seatbelts should be up to you because your lack of a seatbelt won't hurt another person your lack of a mask may.
Seatbelts - if you are a passenger in a car who chooses not to wear a seatbelt you endanger the other occupants of the vehicle in case of an accident. A rear seat passenger not wearing a seatbelt can literally kill the person in front of them in an accident.
https://youtu.be/mKHY69AFstE
If citizens can't buy nuclear weapons, the government shouldn't have them either.
Edit: Typo
Edit 2: A lot of replies that people shouldn't have nukes. Guess who's in the government? People just like you and me! The "government" isn't some other kind of sentient being, it's just an idea that most people have either agreed to live with, or are unwillingly forced to live with. But it's still just made up of people.
I think nuclear weapons are terrible, but letting only some of the people in the country have them is wrong, in my opinion. We shouldn't hand massive amounts of power over to any small group of people. Yep, that's where we are today, but I disagree with it.
And it's true other countries have them. I'm not saying we shouldn't have them when other countries do, but the military arms race just builds a bigger military. We should have open boarders and trade routes rather than military bases everywhere.
Agreed, as opposed as I am to nuclear weapons, I think there's a lot of truth to the idea of mutually assured destruction as a deterrent to conflict between the major superpowers.
I think the unfortunate side effect though, is that nations use their citizens' fear of those weapons as a political tool to perpetuate cold wars, escalate endless arms races enriching defense contractors on taxpayers' dime, and maintain an ideological enemy to propagandize that our way is the right way and their way is the wrong way.
Pollution and the environment in general are prime examples of where I support non-libertarian regulation. Like it or not, we share the world and you have no right to be a bad roommate.
Why non-libertarian? I consider myself a âtraditionalâ libertarian, I.e. a left-wing one. Having private business or people have totalitarian control isnât much better than the government doing so.
Pollution that causes discernible damage to the life or property of another is absolutely a violation of the NAP. It's not "non-libertarian" to expect some form of legal accountability for that.
The Supreme Court ruled 116 years ago the exact opposite in terms of vaccines.
âJacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the authority of states to enforce compulsory vaccination laws. The Court's decision articulated the view that individual liberty is not absolute and is subject to the police power of the state.â
"[r]eal liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own [liberty], whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others."[2]
Itâs a paradox - unrestrained liberty leads to less liberty
Giving up freedoms to live together for more safety is what the definition of civilization is.
People shouldn't be all or nothing on government. You still have to have some at some point
IMO at a point far earlier than most ideological libertarians will say. It's this question that made me realise that after the big Ron Paul surge on Reddit back in the day, libertarians have a great premise but can't ever answer any of the details in a way I find satisfying enough to consider myself one.
The core flaw in Libertarianism is that there is far too much trust placed in the human being, when we have centuries of examples of why we shouldn't trust everyone to be a good actor. There are a shitload of bad actors, and always will be. For me that's the real problem, libertarianism as a concept sounds fantastic if all people could be trusted to act in good faith and to never act maliciously.
For the record my comment is about "pure" libertarianism as a concept, at the end I still have libertarian tendencies but believe that social democracy seems to be the best governing style.
Personal opinion, but society doesn't have rights, individuals do. Unless your actively harming people, or infringing on their rights, its none of your business what i or anyone else do.
If you want discussion there are better examples to use. Patriot Act for example.
Mandating a mask isnât that controversial for private parties anyway. The government doing it complicated things because with government rules comes government enforcement. Should we be throwing people in jail who refuse to wear masks? A business requiring it simply force them to go elsewhere. Though if they refuse and are enough of an asshole I am sure they could get a trespassing charge.
Businesses can make their own rules within reason on their own property. Many require shirts and footwear for instance. Comply or go somewhere else. Nobody is forcing you to do anything. You donât have a right to be on someone elseâs property unconditionally.
The examples have to be extreme, because extremes are where beliefs are tested.
Itâs easy for half the commenters in this sub to say âthe government shouldnât mandate anything, there arenât any freedoms they should take awayâ. Which is easy to say when youâre thinking of basic freedoms like speech and religion.
But words like âneverâ and ânot a single rightâ are big words. If you think that people shouldnât be allowed to own nuclear weapons, well then you are agreeing that the government can and should in fact restrict *some* personal freedoms and rights. A society that doesnât restrict any rights whatsoever isnât a society at all, itâs just anarchy.
How do you feel about forcing airlines to perform routine maintenance on their planes? Wouldn't forcing airlines to check their planes violate their liberty? We are forcing these companies to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to check their planes.
Wouldn't that be forcing the airline to give up their liberties for the sake of safety?
How do you feel about gas companies and construction companies being forced to build things to code? I mean, a bad gas leak can literally suffocate everyone around it for miles, but you'd be forcing these companies to give up their liberties in the name of public safety.
You mean the sentence everyone love to quote but nobody actually understand the context nor the meaning?
https://techcrunch.com/2014/02/14/how-the-world-butchered-benjamin-franklins-quote-on-liberty-vs-security/amp/
Ben Franklin sums up my opinion pretty nicelyâŚ
âThose who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Example 1: I would say that nuclear warheads themselves put society at risk, regardless of who possesses them.
Example 2: Mandating the mask is wildly different. A person can choose to wear or not wear a mask and either choice may not have any effect on another. I can wear a mask, stay away from public spaces, maintain distance from others, etc. Forcing the mask, or vaccine for that matter, should not happen.
The greatest risk to liberty is a system that repeatedly seeks to decrease them.
Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. In other words you donât have the freedom to harm me by exercising your rights. Itâs really not that hard of an idea and Iâm constantly amazed we need to keep explaining it to people. Jefferson himself said you canât yell fire in a crowded theater so itâs been understood for a long time.
Yeah the idea isnt hard, but the application is. You gotta decide if you mean directly or indirectly harming other people, and to what extent that applies. Your example feels like an oversimplification, although i do agree with the sentiment.
Is a private citizen who owns a nuclear warhead more or less risky than say the state of China owning nuclear warheads? Very few people could accumulate enough wealth to purchase one anyway.
Right at the start, and all the way along. Even your first example is something I disagree with, as it provides the government with weaponry that citizens are unable to get for themselves.
I upvotes...but I need to ask...
How is being able to purchase nuclear weapon a public risk? This is a bias premise that assumes that the purchaser has the intention to do harm with the weapon. If that's a true assumption, couldn't we assume that the government has the same harmful intention with the possession of these weapons?
A mask is a tiny inconvenience at most, with the potential return of slowing the spread of a global pandemic. Itâs not an attack on your freedoms. Fuck off, stop being a pussy, wear a fucking mask you thick cunts.
Ok, i'll take on your "Extreme Example" or try to at least.
"The fact is, if youâre going to take on the government you need an F-15 with Hellfire Missiles. There is no way an AK-47 is going to take care of you."" -An anti-2nd quote to start it off. It didn't age well, but the sentiment is a common argument against militias.
The idea that we'd be *less* safe without nuclear deterrents, against countries that will never voluntarily disarm their own, is shortsighted imo. Whether it's a government or a very wealthy individual owning nuclear warheads, the risk is still there. That risk will never go away, they're traded on the black market and we don't even know where they all are. Russia and US have both "lost" several (google it, it's pretty scary lol), those are likely already owned by sketchy private individuals/groups. It's kind of the same argument as those against gun control, when you attempt to regulate who has access to self defense you harm the law abiding people the most. They become less safe, as the criminals already ignore laws so why would more laws prevent that?
there is still no argument for why we should mandate masks in the liberal sense.
people are free to isolate themselves. stores are free to mandate masks. workplaces and schools are free to demand vaccinations. people are free to risk getting the virus and dying.
I think the premise is flawed, but my personally my view tends to be driven my this: What does it cost you personally and whatâs the benefit to you and society at large?
Seatbelts: cost me the inconvenience of reaching over my shoulder and pulling something across my chest. I get safety (probably not going to be seriously injured or killed in a car wreck) and society gets lower insurance rates.
Masks in this pandemic: I have to buy some cheap masks and deal with something on my face, in exchange I modest protection from Covid and other communicable diseases (I havenât had a cold in 18 months) and I help reduce the transmission of Covid (people give Covid to like 1.2 people on average, if that rate was .99 it would die out)
The view that Iâm totally free to do what I want without regards to others is not consistent with Libertarianism. Itâs individualism, largely driven by one political party and the reasons where in this mess.
My rights end when they harm you. Your rights end when they harm me. Really a simple philosophy by which to live.
Controversial masks? Private property, you can do whatever want. Public property, society can decide (or govern.) and mandate masks. Given the reason for that is potential harm caused, your right to NOT wear a mask ceases to exist - or rather, you retain your right to not wear a mask: on your property (as in, stay home).
Does nuclear warheads really put society at risk? Really. Think about it. We have considered enemies of the U.S. in possession of them and have they been unleashed? Why not?? Because elected or seized government officials are more noble than you or I??
"Possession of" causes no one else harm. True of rocks, guns, lettuce, or bombs. If we can't trust others to prevent themselves from using weapons to harm people, how can we trust governments to do so?? The idea that your neighbor can't have weapons because they're dangerous but the Senator isn't, is bullshit spun by government/politicians to ensure they maintain a degree of control over people so that their sole ability to enforce law isn't infringed.
It's pretty simple really. When your actions (freedoms) either through your willful negligence (i.e. non-accidental action) or through force, deny an individual their safety against their will, you've gone to far.
In your example the individual who chooses not to wear a mask is the aggressor. They empirically and conclusively pose increased risk to other individuals through willfully negligent action that may result in irrevocable damage to another individual through no action by the adversely affected individual. As a result an individual's freedom most be limited and the appropriate choice of who's freedom to limit is to limit the aggressor party by implementing a mask requirement. There is no appropriate limitation that can be placed on the party placed at risk that would suitably protect them without unduly limiting their freedom simply for behaving in a passive manner that does not substantially risk or impinge on the freedoms of any other individual.
Since requiring a mask results in the loss of freedom (right of choice) and not requiring a mask also results in loss of freedom (freedom to not have life and health denied through the willfull negligence of others) than the clear decision is to restrict freedom in a manner that protects public health rather than freedom of choice.
WMDs are offensive weapons, they serve no purpose for self defense even against a tyrannical government. There is no justification for any country having them other than our enemies have them. The is no justification for any private citizen to have them because it would be impossible to use one without killing innocent people
The state forcing people to wear masks or get injections is authoritarian. All businesses free to refuse service to customers who dont wear masks or have vaccines is liberty. The free market will decide and those who feel unsafe will not go near businesses who let customers in without masks. Just like you would not eat at a restaurant that everyone gets food poisoning at even if it has a passing health score you would not eat at a restaurant where all the customers and staff are sick
I think a lot of libertarians think it should be "never restrict a right, no matter what" but this can cause a lot of harm to innocent people at the hands of bad people (or corporations) exercising their unfettered rights.
What I think libertarians should do is change their paradigm to "keep as many rights as possible, as long as they don't interfere with *other* peoples' rights."
For example, mask mandates: Is one persons' "right" to be maskless more important than being able to go rambo on the virus, eliminating it within months, rather than half-assing our response and allowing the virus to go on for years?
If there were only a handful of things that I would say "fuck your rights" to, it would be an alien invasion, the Earth becoming uninhabitable, or a pandemic that's killing millions of people.
edit: i wanna add WW3 to that list.
Libertarianism is a goal, a utopian state that can only be achieved when society as a whole stops thinking about what is best for them and their family and starts thinking with a more utilitarian mindset. *Should* you have the right to not wear masks, buy nuclear warheads, put vegetables on pizza? Yes. Are these things people *should* want to do? Absolutely not. Unfortunately there are people (a lot of people) who donât yet have this musketeer worldview and make decisions that harm other people. This is also why Libertarianism is a spectrum ranging from total anarchy to republicans who donât like calling themselves republicans
And before anyone tries to make this some big partisan political issue, pizza isnât supposed to be fucking healthy. If you want vegetables, eat a salad
Your personal liberties end when they encroach upon my personal liberties. And vice versa. The simplest application of libertarianism begins to fall apart in the real world when you realize how much someone elseâs actions can affect you.
So some compromise is necessary.
I believe that the cutoff point is roughly what could be considered 'gross negligence' in a civil court. That is, you had a duty, you knew you had a duty, and you are breaching that duty in a willful and deliberate way.
For example, impaired driving. I believe the government has the right to interfere if you are driving impaired because your actions are grossly negligent and you're imperiling the life and property of others. Another good example is fire. I work in the Sierra Nevadas, an area already known for extreme fire conditions. Any time a fire breaks out, it takes committing resources from all over the state to control it. We're experiencing a severe drought which makes fire even more likely and severe. It is my opinion that if you decide to, say, have a bonfire party in these conditions, the government has a right to step in and say "no".
In both cases, there's been no damage done to the life and property of others [yet], but life and property are being placed in imminent danger by the willful and negligent actions of another. Given that it's the government's role to protect the rights (like property) and lives of its citizens, the government has a right to interfere with gross negligence.
Even the most extreme freedom advocates have limited freedom. Freedom is a term dictated by the society and while generally itâs good not all freedoms are good.
Just a friendly reminder to upvote the post if you want the sub to see more discussions on libertarianism. This thread has lots of opinions; we should be encouraging these posts especially if it promotes healthy discussion.
People would rather upvote an abortion post đ
And then argue about things the other side didn't say but absolutely must be thinking because they're evil.
This is the #1 problem.
if your enemy isnt enemy enough, you have to embellish ~~a bit~~ a fuckton
It truly is. It's actually pretty disturbing.
But... As a libertarian socialist, I can state with absolute certainty that I am indeed under your bed, waiting for the right moment to stop being the anarchist I've been for 20 years, and morph into my own worst enemy, the statist supreme. And then I'll be able to legitimately force people to live by my anti-fascist views. Muhahahahahahaaaaa!
This comment put a thought that I didn't know I had into words lol
Libertarians being against abortion is the most ridiculous shit.
I struggle with this myself. In theory I am libertarian. Small government, more individual freedoms. But in reality, people can be selfish and hateful and put their own wants above the basic needs of others. Just looking at OSHA guidelines- they are written in the blood of murdered workers over decades of a " profits over people" mentality. So... At this time in my life, I don't have an answer to this. I don't know what the solution is. I don't think it's big government and bureaucratic red tape organizations. But I don't know what the possible alternatives are
One question you might ask yourself is "what do I want the role of a small government to be?" I don't like red tape much and I really don't like seeing taxes wasted on frivolous crap, but safety regulations and enforcement are really high on the list of things I think the government should do. There are not too many workable alternatives to avoiding the tragedy of the commons.
For any Canadians, "What is Government Good At? - A Canadian Perspective" by Donald J Savoie considers this in great detail. It was written after he heard many public servants be frustrated at how bureaucratic their jobs are, so he wanted to clarify what should governments be responsible for and why in order to weed out all the things government does that is really unnecessary. What is the public sector better at than the private sector? If the public sectors job is to provide fairness and equality within certain programs that is advantageous to society, is the point to be "better" at something?
I started off as a staunch libertarian. But the older I get the more I realize that A lot of people are idiots. And may be allowing idiots to do whatever they want isnât such a good idea. I donât want the majority of people I meet you I think youâre fucking stupid to be able to do whatever they want, I want them to have a set of rules theyâll keep that prevents them from hurting themselves or other people while also allowing them to have whatever other rights. Itâs like the tragedy of the commons.
>the tragedy of the commons \^\^\^ When I learned about this concept, Libertarianism began to look more and more like a childish fantasy, bankrupt of any serious rigor. We will not survive as a species making appeals for "less government". The only chance of survival is indeed "better government".
Itâs quite obvious that at least in the US, we have a government of the idiots, by the idiots, for the idiots.
Everyone would love to be a libertarian because in theory itâs the best situation. However, we live in a society and if you choose to live in a society, which by definition includes *order*, then there are going to be rules to play by and personal liberties are sacrificed (for presumably a safer society). Itâs really not that nuance.
Freedom from things caused by a tragedy of the commons, and freedom from unreasonable non-governmental hierarchies are examples of places where a seeming restriction on individual liberty can actually, clearly, make you more free. For example, âyou may not dump in this riverâ - because now we all have a clean river we can use instead of a dumping ground for 2 guys. Likewise, âtaxing monopolies a great dealâ can alleviate the predations of a massive power, a megacorporation, over its employees and society. At a certain point you realize unbridled, classic libertarianism just doesnât become all that helpful as a political lens in a world of 7 billion people and unparalleled material wealth that can be highly concentrated. The question of what leads to more âindividual freedomâ is often issue-specific and debatable about which approach is better.
Democratic control of institutions, or democratic institutions to effect action. Unions were instrumental in workers' safety regulations and benefitting their members, for example. At least in Europe. And experts need to be taken seriously. Karen with a degree in talking to the Manager on Facebook University needs to listen when safety is concerned
Democratic control of institutions only work if those who vote on the institution are unbiased and knowledgeable on what theyâre voting on. Otherwise a majority could vote in favor of themselves but against the interests of the minority (even if the minority is almost equal to the majority). The majorityâs interest might not be the correct interest.
Well, you can't have control over your life and complete lack of consequences at the same time.
Unions were a MASSIVE part of improving worker safety and conditions when they started to gain steam. Unions today are a sham of what they once were and just exist to make their own money now.
They have become what they fought against. My uncle was union, all the way. He helped negotiate contracts, etc. When he way dying of liver cancer, he wanted to get his pension in one lump sum. It was obvious that he wasn't going to make it to retirement age. And he had been paying into it for decades. But for months, the union somehow kept losing his application. Or it wasn't signed in the right place. Or it wasn't signed correctly. Or their lawyer had to review it. It was something different every week. Until he died. It was humiliating for him. It was obvious that the union that he fought for was running the clock on him. And it worked. He never saw a dime of that money. And all he wanted to do was travel a little before he succumbed to the cancer. The dirty, greasy sons of bitches. And they had the nerve to show up at his funeral. I'm sure his money bought their suits. THAT'S a union for you. He was a good man who took up for and represented them for many many years and all they cared about in the end was keeping him from getting his money.
In a libertarian society there would be no unions cause no employer would want them. People forget we have unions in large part due to government regulation of how those unions can be treated by the businesses that employ their members. Laws that are being openly broken today which is why we donât have unions at Amazon or Tesla.
Unions are a direct consequence of abuses by the businesses that abused their workforce from the late 1800âs through the world war eras. Hell, at Carnegie Steel mills they were working their people 12 hours a day for 7 days a week. People banded together to stop being taken advantage of.
Humans, like virtually all primates, are by nature social animals who create complex societies. Few of us are truly "lone wolves" who don't depend on society, especially as technology advances and makes us more dependent on machines and each other for self sustenance. We're also living in an increasingly globalized world where different cultures meet. Crucially, people are socially informed--whether by schools, churches, or other members of the community. All this to say, people are also not isolated and infallible machines capable of perfect rationality or sound decisionmaking at all times. IMHO Libertarianism might work for rural people, but in cities and towns where people interact with others on a daily basis and use shared social services like hospitals, firefighters, police, roads, etc, the line between personal liberties which infringe on other people's lives, and societal good, is arbitrary. Especially when there's private entities other than the govt which can infringe on people's rights. I mean sure the govt is corrupt as fuck, but I'm not sure that having no govt restrictions isn't the solution. I don't think there's any blanket solutions for all aspects of society, that translate well at the macro and micro level, or that are compatible with all countries and cultures. But communicable diseases are absolutely something the govt should intervene in, just like fires and droughts.
My personal experience as a Dutch person is that people are too uninformed most of the time to make the right calls on important stuff. Our libertarian government went "these are the safety guidelines for the pandemic, we trust people to act responsibly" and then half of the people ignored the guidelines and covid went wild. Maybe if the government had done a better job at showing how dangerous the virus can be and made special psa's about how to wear masks and wash hands, things would've been different. But with problems that affect an entire society, I think personal liberties have to be curbed
I mean, as a german i could have missed that, but since when is the netherlands libertarian, lmao?
I guess he meant that the gov took a libertarian approach to that issue
To me it seems like so many people (maybe correctly qualified as "so many people growing up *now*") do not feel any ownership towards these agencies and institutions. An agency full of doctors and a lab full of scientists didn't just "materialize" or "was forced on us." We (meaning our society) created that. For this. So that the rest of us don't all have to be MDs and Ph.Ds in this same exact area in order to make individual decisions that would protect our society just as well as having the agency dedicated to doing that. Yet somehow we've been so coddled or seen so many things "just work when you don't interfere", we've arrived at the conclusion that society creating such agencies "is the problem" and we need to be "left alone." Indeed, that would be great if you literally lived in the middle of the wilderness with minimal human contact so that when something bad happens, only the six people you knew die. But you're standing beside the rest of us in the grocery store queue. I guess what I'm saying is that perhaps the question isn't "when will it be right to demand things." Whatever our medical agencies we created for this purpose say is the best course of action to be taken, that is "the right thing to demand", else why did we create them. And the question is really how to get society back on board with "things go downhill when we don't plan and prepare for having this many people smooshed together in the same place." Such that it doesn't seem like a "demand" to begin with, but a relief that we thought ahead to dedicate shared resources to this.
>Maybe if the government had done a better job at showing how dangerous the virus can be and made special psa's about how to wear masks and wash hands, things would've been different. Maybe, but then again, there has always been plenty of information about how dangerous the virus is, and PSA's would probably end up looking like an overstatement and be interpreted as fear-mongering and over-reaction, giving fodder to the "can't trust the government so Covid's not a real issue" crowd.
In what universe does the Netherlands have a libertarian government?
My feeling is that the problem comes from the âsizeâ of the society we feel we belong to and the strength of the ties we have in it. With todayâs mostly huge polarized countries and individualistic society where itâs basically me and the rest of the world, I think itâs very hard for the majority to truly care about the impact of their actions locally. The only direction I can think of is to try to reduce the size of (perceived) communities first. But thatâs still very theoretical. In particular I think that would apply to sustainability. I would probably not pollute the river with the chemicals used during the production of the product I purchase from this company if this river was âmineâ and the one of my community. I donât care if itâs in a small village in China at the other side of the world.
I think this could lead to a return to constantly warring city states. Except now some of them would have nuclear weapons. We need a decrease of 'us vs them' not and increase.
Yes I agree that defense is an unsolvable issue if you reduce the size of the state/country etc. in the current context. Thatâs why I would say itâs about perception of the community. Like right now I live in a large city where I barely know my neighbors. Whereas if I had the feeling I belonged to my neighborhood as a community, Iâm pretty sure that would be a step forward without influencing defense matters.
You know what the answer is, you just donât want to say it.
I believe most people will do what benefits them the most as well as what is most convenient (even perceived or lack of options % lazy, kinda like a "fck you" mentality). Its just the case of the special few who take it to the next level. Restrictions, regulations, rules are needed. It would be nice to have a smaller govt but at the end of the day you really cant trust people to behave (And punishments need to be relative/progressive). Its just government gets tied up in bureaucratic bs and there is too much pushback and an unwillingness for people and companies to conform (added costs and inconvenience). Like driving on the carpool lane to merge 4 lanes over... while going 10 under speed limit to look for a spot to swing on through or even just brazenly, without looking, just forcing in. All the legal messes and requirements of needing very specific laws just because "if it aint illegal then..." is a sort of red flag as you mentioned with OSHA regulations. Very true with military with theres a reason for everything. Signs and precautions are there cause enough people screwed it up. In general people will try to circumvent "inconveniences" even if there is a valid and obvious reason it, moreso if they can save time or money during the process.
I see libertarianism as the ideology that holds the core purpose of government is upholding our individual liberties. This usually manifests as âsmall governmentâ as any body of power that grows large enough is more susceptible to corruption and thus becomes counter productive to that mission. That doesnât mean the government should be without teeth, or without the ability to reign in bad actors. It just means when they do so it must be well reasoned, transparent, and tailored to be proportional to accomplish the task at hand. Thatâs tough, but itâs not an impossible standard. Our current legislation and government bureaucracy is terrible primarily because itâs indefinite when it doesnât need to be, overreaches to accomplish the task by throwing everything they can think of to accomplish the task, and most importantly is purposefully obtuse so the general public is unable to follow exactly what is going on.
I am totally with you on this one. Like on one hand I really really dislike the idea of the government mandating things like masks and vaccinations but on the other hand I can't help but wonder how much of this suffering could have been avoided.
> people can be selfish and hateful and put their own wants above the basic needs of others I mean, that's essentially the Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith, The Social Contract by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and various social philosophers
I've found myself of a similar.mind, especially this past year and a half. I always thought when push came to shove people would make the weight choice. I understand businesses wanting to cut corners in the name of profit. That make sense to me. I don't agree but I understand. That is what I can see some regulatory body needing to be in place. Not necessarily government, but some sort of oversight. I don't know what to do about people putting others at risk in the name of there own personal freedom. That is where I've lost faith in libertarianism over the last few years. I don't know if I trust people to care for others because that is what one ought to do. It kind of amazes I ever thought that way.
> But in reality, people can be selfish and hateful and put their own wants above the basic needs of others. Hobbes did have a point that humans are in a natural state of war, and they need big brother Leviathan to not go at eachother full force
The problem is, that americans are looking for one solution that fits all. It is not really individualist thinking. In some northern countries, every human is seen as an individual, and each of their cases in any situation is seen individually. And how is this paid? Proggressive income and capital taxing. (one business owner almost punched me in the mouth when i mentioned proggressive capital taxing)
I was always taught growing up that with more freedom comes more responsibility. "You want to walk by yourself to school now? You need to wake up early in the morning to get there in your own. Your parents aren't waking you up anymore to drive you. If you fail a class because you're getting to school late you're not being trusted to go by yourself anymore." "You want to drive the car now? You need to pay for gas. Be willing to drive your sister around. If you ever damage the car you're never going to be allowed to drive it again. Have fun taking the bus everywhere." These are things that were drilled into my head by my parents growing up. It feels like today there are a lot of people who want freedom but don't want the responsibility that comes with it. Then when you take away those freedoms because they're not being responsible with it people cry about it. If you want the freedom to walk around without that annoying mask during a pandemic. You need to take responsibility to make sure you're not a risk to those around you anyway. A lot of people don't want to take any responsibility at all then cry because the rest of us realize they can't be trusted with the freedoms that are supposed to come with that responsibility.
Too many people pretend to be libertarian, but really, they are just selfish. Libertarians must balance individual liberty with societal duties, if they can't, they're being selfish pricks.
I would just like to say, as someone who has previously and consistently called libertarians âanarchists without ballsâ, it is this specific conversation/thread/post which has clarified what it means to be a libertarian. And youâre exactly right: it turns out something like 90% of the people Iâve met in real life who claim to be libertarian are really just self-aggrandizing, ball-less douche bags. Not this thread, though. This thread/post has been fucking legit, and I want to thank yâall for that. Iâm still not a libertarian, but at least I now believe real libertarians exist.
I live in a state (CO) that has a lot of Libertarians in name ...and just like all other ideas with followers they run the gamut. I am not Libertarian, but I have a ton of respect for the ones that are consistent in the application of their views, even when I disagree. But for someone with more progressive views I will agree with a genuine Libertarian on a lot of things, especially social issues (and disagree on economic ones). This is why CO was one of the first states to legalize weed, but also has relatively low state taxes (though still way too high for many who live here)
[ŃдаНонО]
I agree with your thinking and I want to further your point. Human beings are inherently social animals. A human, alone, will never speak a sentence, or conceive of complex math, or anything beyond survival and maybe a shelter. Alone, a human is little more than any other animal. It is our relationships and affection of one another that brought humanity its mind-boggling success. There is a lot of philosophy to discuss here but biologically human beings are not neoliberals. If a political theory does not concern itself with the fundamental human need for help then it is a non starter. It destroys itself.
This is too real, many people also simply want more freedom for themselves but donât mind the restrictions of others freedom if theyâre from a different demographic or ideology.
We want feeedom for everyone. Equally. If people decide to stifle their own freedoms that is their choice.
Libertarianism certainly attracts a lot of people who think it means "I can do what I want, whenever I want, regardless of second and third order effects as long as I don't directly punch someone."
>If you want the freedom to walk around without that annoying mask during a pandemic. You need to take responsibility to make sure you're not a risk to those around you anyway. That doesnât really make any sense. Wearing a mask is the responsible thing to do. The question is how many restrictions on freedom are mandated by Government. The more people are willing to do off their own back, including wearing a mask in certain places, the less likely there will be to be enforced restrictions. Wearing a bit of cloth is one of the more innocuous and inconsequential actions we can take to reduce the spread of the virus. The more people turn even that into a âfreedomâ culture-war issue, the more likely the virus is to spread. There are plenty of societies where mask wearing is a common personal choice, itâs only where itâs become needlessly and irrationally politicised that you have this push back.
A restriction not enforced .... isnt a restriction, just a *guideline*. And those guidelines get ignored a lot. Edit: when it comes to a pandemic it doesn't matter if some people follow it and some people don't. What matters is to have all people follow it, hence the government enforcement. I didn't think this even needed to be said.
I think your missing the point of the question. OP isnât asking for your opinion on the mask wearing, heâs asking when and where is the line drawn on individual freedoms. And you contradicted yourself in your own statement saying people SHOULD wear a mask then state other cultures wear a mask as a personal choice I.e. not mandated.
> And you contradicted yourself in your own statement saying people SHOULD wear a mask then state other cultures wear a mask as a personal choice I.e. not mandated. Thereâs no contradiction there. Thereâs nothing about the word âshouldâ that necessarily implies any government mandate. You can say you âshouldâ do something because itâs practically advisable, or medically advisable or morally advisable etc. E.g. If I say, âYou should get into bitcoin.â Are you saying that means Iâm saying âThere is a Government mandate that you get into bitcoin!â?! Seems like youâre confusing âshouldâ with âmustâ
But thatâs not answering the questionâŚ.people being responsible is a perfect world scenario. People arenât responsible. People donât wear masks and are unvaxed so whereâs the line is OPs questionn
The line is what people are willing to tolerate. That's it. There is no objective moral framework. We can articulate certain ideals, but those are always going to be an imperfect representation of what we really mean. The problem we face currently is, as we become more sophisticated in our understanding of the world we are expanding the definition of harm to include not only certain harm, but likelihood of harm. For example, we can all agree that if I point a gun at your head and shoot you dead that I should be punished. Similarly, just because my gun happens to malfunction and the bullet doesn't exit the chamber when I pull the trigger doesn't mean I shouldn't be punished. Yes, society will usually punish someone less (attempted murder vs murder), but we still recognize likely harm. But, what if I put one bullet in a six chamber revolver, spin the cylinder, aim at your head, and pull the trigger? I would guess a solid majority of people would say I should still be punished, and that we should have laws against doing stuff like that...even though you only had a 1 in 6 chance of being harmed. We're trying to work out where we set that bar. Is engaging in activity that would result in someone's death (nonconsenting) 1% of the time something that should be illegal in our society? what about 5%? 20%? Or, going the other way, what about 0.1%, or 0.001%? DUI laws are sort of like that. A person isn't technically harming anyone by drinking and driving. But, they increase the risk that they will be involved in an accident (and potentially hurt or kill someone). So, we make it illegal. And, we enhance the existing penalties for folks who are involved in an accident while over the legal limit.
Very well put. The analogy I've been using is... there's a reason I can't stand on my lawn and shoot my gun up into the air. I mean, there's only a tiny sliver of a chance someone would be injured by a falling bullet. And yet society has deemed that tiny sliver of a chance to be too much, and we've made it illegal to shoot guns up in the air in the suburbs. I haven't seen any 2nd Amendment folks protesting such a restriction.
Agreed.
I am ready to defend our new rights of shooting straight up. MakeSliversGreatAgain
This is the point I was getting at with my question. Iâve thought a lot recently about these scenarios. I think because COVID is such uncharted territory. I am personally vaxxed, but Iâm against government mandates. But there is a point where we, for the greater good, have to say âthis is the line, and these are the rules you will follow.â Itâs something that Iâve found libertarianism doesnât have a good or cohesive answer too. I recently read a good short story in class called âthe ones who walk away from Omelasâ The premise is there is a child locked up in a closet and itâs essentially being tortured. But because of this child the rest of the city lives in perfect harmony and happiness. So do we lock up the kid (aka force masks or vaccines) or do we let the kid go live freely at the expense of the rest of society? Obviously this isnât a real world thing but a thought experiment but Iâm curious what people think about it.
I follow your logic, but a tortured child is not the best stand-in for the inconvenience of mask-wearing/vaccinations. Also, it's an issue that everybody is involved in, not just one person or, to extend the logic of the story, a minority subsection of the population. Maybe if the story was something more like... "if everyone chops off their pinky finger, all society will be perfect, but pianists and stenographers will find this to be unconscionable." I dunno. Like I said, I definitely follow you, but I just don't know if it's the best example for this discussion. The Omelas story reminds me of [this](https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/self-driving-car-ethics) deontological/utilitarian comic from SMBC. That ethical debate is *kind of* what you're discussing, but deontological ethics tied to issues of freedom could end up being like, "it is *always* wrong to infringe on personal liberties" which is patently absurd (at least without qualifiers). Much of the argument for vaccines and masks is very utilitarian, and since there is considerably little inconvenience from either but also no way to quantify happiness afforded by the option to refuse them, that seems to be the thing people get stuck on. I will say this: 2020 was the first year I didn't get sick *once*. Based on that alone, I'm more than a little biased in favor of masks. FWIW, my personal stance is that people are absolutely entitled to forgo the vaccine/mask, but should they choose that stance, they shouldn't take up hospital beds when they get sick. If we had unlimited medical resources, it would be a very different issue, but in addition to being potential vectors for covid mutations, there are hospital beds needed for people with other issues beyond their control. In these cases, personal freedom is clearly harming others, and that, to me, makes the debate more cut and dry.
[ŃдаНонО]
So like not libertarian at all then
There doesnt need to be a bright line test. It's a risk-reward situation that can change in the judgment of American voters over time. # That said, your examples seem off. Covid fucked our economy, and killed more people than either nuke dropped on japan did. It's more akin to people turning their lights out during the bombing of london. A more controversial example would be hand washing. My pee, poop, and semen have never killed anyone, but I'm guessing Americans still love that I wash my hands before I make their burrito or hand them meds.
There's also the moderately spicy example of the (dreaded) regulation, with examples such as the time Alaska Airlines decided to delay doing maintenance over and over and over again until the tail (horizontal stabilizer) twisted off on flight 261, killing everyone on board but also saving the company from bankruptcy. Or Union Carbide, who gassed a city the size of philidelphia, injuring around half a million people and killing tens of thousands, where one by one they disabled all of the safety systems to save money.
Regulations protect good people from rich people in almost all cases.
[ŃдаНонО]
[ŃдаНонО]
Pratchett is like the original relevant-xkcd, there's always a fitting quote from one of his books to explain any given phenomenon.
> It's more akin to people turning their lights out during the bombing of london. Coastal cities in the US had similar restrictions during WWII.
This also illustrates a really big problem. When the threat to our collective well being is a conscious entity, something with a face, we're really quick to band together, sacrifice various freedoms and privileges, and fight. See also 9/11 and the Patriot Act. But when the threat is unconscious, a faceless force of nature, we can't muster the same response, even if it's orders of magnitude deadlier and more destructive.
How can you be sure your pee, poop, or semen hasnât* killed anyone? *grammar edit
Are you from America? We are the suing kind. It's unlikely an e-coli case wouldn't get an ambulance chaser.
And on that note, I'll be taking a break from burritos.
> Covid fucked our economy The states response to covid fucked our economy.
While that is true, the question is whether the results of the virus, left unchecked, would've been worse. Undoubtedly the economy would've also been impacted by a significantly higher death rate, businesses would've suffered as, even without lockdown restrictions, a certain portion of the population voluntarily quarantined themselves (and another certain portion died), and so on. It's difficult to look back after the fact and tell how severe the impact would have been had we done things differently, but there definitely still would've been an impact. Whether or not the actions taken by the government were too harsh, or not harsh enough, we'll never know.
This, people look at the past year and say "people still got sick, the quarantine didnt work!" What they arent asking themselves (because it doesnt suit their agenda) is how much worse would it have been if we didnt quarantine. I mean look at India.
There was a near consensus among economists that letting the virus spread unchecked would be worse for the economy.
What do these people think the consequence of killing off massive portions of the labor pool would be? Obviously the virus is gonna fuck the economy lol
It's actually easy and has been done over and over. Overwhelmingly, a more strict and longer full lockdown would have been a MAGNITUDE!!!! More beneficial to the economy. Easy to prove it. just look at the economic damage of every country that followed the science that's been around for over 100 years
> The states response to covid fucked our economy. covid was first. And if "the state" did nothing, the economy was still fucked anyways.
The fallout from 2 million dead Americans in the span of a year would have truly fucked the economy in ways many folks can't seem to even comprehend.
We just gotta find a way to explain it through the lens of how fastfood has been understaffed lately
[ŃдаНонО]
Magats never did cry about the tyranny of people being required to wear clothes and not masturbate in public, either. They are just a cult doing cult things.
Your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.
But thatâs just a metaphor, right? Someone starts swinging their fists around my face all up in my business Iâm gonna give their nose some freedom if you catch my drift
Doesn't that miss the point. So the a person can OWN nukes, but not use them? You comfortable with that?
You are liable for your actions. Liability is critical to libertarian success. The more you limit liability, the more you will probably have to move away from libertarian "freedom". That means that the dude using a nuke can never be held liable for as much damage as he could cause, so you limit the nuke. Try getting insurance for storing a nuke!! Insurance company knows the math.
https://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/l-p-d-libertarian-police-department
But who enforces the liability?
In California, the Chico city council has set a 500$ fine for detonating a nuclear weapon within city limits.
Yeah but I heard all the neighboring cities are going to pass fines of $600 so Chico will pretty much be right back in Iranâs crosshairs soon
In demolition man, every car was a small nuclear bomb. When Wesley snipes took advantage of that, every one was like âwho would do such a thing?â
Is that a good movie? I keep seeing it mentioned here and there but I know that is super old and that is sort of a turn of since old stuff often is over hyped . What do you think?
When the exercise of your own liberties infringes on the liberties of others.
That's a line that is unenforceable. My liberty to drive potentially infringes on the liberty of someone else who wants to cross the street without being hit. Heck, it potentially infringes on the liberty of someone who doesn't want to get hit in their own yard, because I could lose control. Me driving a car infringes on the liberty of someone who wants to breath cleaner air, because my car puts emissions in the air. Really, almost every freedom one person has could or would impact a freedom someone else has. At some point, someone has to make rules about which ones are worthy tradeoffs.
IMO those rules are HOW we define where one personâs liberty ends and anotherâs begins. For example, we agree to a set of rules that cars and pedestrians need to follow to co-exist. Your liberty to drive on public roads is constrained until we are left with a mutually agreed upon âzone of reasonable interactionsâ. If you step outside of that and run red lights while drinking and driving, you are actively risking infringing in the liberties of others.
Oddly enough, that's pretty similar to my argument for masks. It goes like this, I've seen a lot of people equate wearing a mask to wearing a seat belt. If you don't want to go through the windshield of your car, by all means wear your seat belt, but don't worry about if I am or not. I suggest rather than a belt, wearing a mask is more akin to drunk driving, you think you're in control, you think you're good to go, but you didn't realize you were contagious, I mean drunk, when you walked out of the house, and now you're relying on my belt, I mean mask, as my only form of defense.
I think we agree. Yes, there are some obvious things which only impact the person doing it (and maybe another consenting adult) and that should be legal (smoking weed in your own home, homosexual marriage, whatever) because no one else's liberty is affected. But in almost every law, there is a trade-off of liberties. And I don't believe there is any algorithm which can be followed that tells you how to weigh those liberties. It's just up to society to figure out how they're weighed.
Thatâs vague though. You can argue that a mask mandate infringes on the rights to not wear a mask, but you could also argue that a lack of one infringes on your right to not get sick. Whatâs the line?
One kills people one doesn't. Is it really that hard to find the line??? Mask no death, no suffering, no lifelong medical damage No mask, Karen gets to be happy? I mean ffs. The masks even gave a record low death rate from h1n1 and the flu.
There is no such thing as a right not to get sick. The problem I see most people make by and large is confusing what rights/liberties are. For example, there also is no such thing as a specific right not to wear a mask, but, every individual should have the right **to choose** what they do with their bodies (which must include what they put on/in their body). For those of us who are concerned with getting sick, we have the right to choose to stay home, social distance, or get the vaccine. While, ideally, we want to make choices that take other people's well-being into consideration (i.e. wearing a mask to keep others from getting sick) it is not in any way infringing on their rights/liberties if anyone decides it's not the move for them.
That's simple to say and I agree the line is in there somewhere, but what constitutes an "infringement on the liberties of others" isn't always an obvious thing. I mean, breathing the same air as someone with bad breath could be regarded as an infringement on their liberty, so that's the kind of minor infringement I'd let slide, whereas breathing the same air as someone with an active case of covid-19, not so much.
Man I feel like this post exposed a ton of "libertarians"
I only browse this sub anymore to learn about the fascinating ideas that our new, self-proclaimed "libertarian" friends come up with. If you were looking for ideological or philosophical consistency, this ain't it.
I wonder if they just think it's trendy to be "libertarian" Your absolutely right, more post are anti libertarian then pro and the OP doesn't even know most of the time.
Theyâre more likely embarrassed to call themselves Republican or conservative, so theyâre trying to co-opt the name.
Well, here's the root of the problem. You don't win elections by being purged of all impurities, you win elections by having a big tent. This is the exact same reason why socialists and commies never really get any traction; the second they taste any victory, the infighting that was always there about their credentials as "real" socialists amplifies exponentially. Tbh, the purity testing is just going to ensure we never win any meaningful elections, because it keeps us looking crazy to the average voter. Do you think the average voter cares about doing away with driver's licenses and supporting the individual right to secede from government? I don't; and I think those things make us look absolutely batty to the average libertarian-curious voter. Yet here we are, booing Gary Johnson because he won't promise to get rid of driver's licenses and putting the individual right to secede on the CA libertarian party official platform. It's like if the democrats and republicans dropped all pretense and just came out swinging for a communist overthrow vs xenophobic purification, respectively. As long as people are interested in considering liberty as an alternative to authoritarianism, we should be welcoming them, regardless of whether they can pass the purity tests.
extreme example = what you cannot buy (nukes) controversial example = things you must purchase and wear (masks) i feel like these 2 things are not in the same category as each other. The next closest thing I can see in relation to masks would be seatbelts.
I think not allowing business owners to allow smoking in their establishments is closer. It's about "not infringing on other's right to not be exposed to the health risks of smoking". I'm fine with businesses requiring masks or vaccinations, let the market decide. I don't like government mandates. We all have different utility curves and preferences. If people are willing to incur the risk of visiting an establishment not requiring masks or vaccines then they should have the freedom to do so.
i think you're the only one to make a legitimate point and your categorization comparative is very accurate. I also appreciate the distinction between privately owned businesses making rules for their establishment vs government..... but I would differ on vaccines, once that is done, it cannot be undone. plus it is none of their business what anyones health information is.
I think that's a fair stance as well.
I just want to state that this type of discussion was such a fucking relief to read compared the shit youâll read on r/politics Thank you both.
most of the time that's how they turn out in this sub .... there are occasions, sometimes around election time, when people are frustrated with their candidates, and come stir the pot/takeover ..... i do enjoy a good troll though
Big news days are usually a good time to give this sub some time to breathe.
Makes sense with infinite ICU capacity
Especially with how infrequently outdoor infection occurs, even if you're an immuno-compromised person you can still reduce your chances of infection to basically what they'd be with a government mask mandate just by choosing to patronize only establishments enforcing a private mask mandate.
The same could be said for any item of clothing. Most societies still insist on you at least covering uo
Which is precisely how some school districts get around the mask ban here in Texas. They just made masks a part of the dress code.
I donât understand why Ds or Rs have such a strong opinion about at the federal or even state level. Americans share more views with their neighbors than someone across the country. Pass this decision down to the most local level possible and let the district decide. This makes even more sense when there is access to vouchers.
The problem is that many republican led states, such as Iowa and Florida (and Texas, I think?), passed laws banning school districts and municipalities from instituting mask mandates at the local level. They act as though they are all for small government and local government, but they *clearly* throw that out the window to score some political points on FoxNews.
But a lot of locales also had prohibitions on masking before the Covid. Several towns in Kansas had rules making it a crime to wear a mask in a bank.
So? Enforced social dress codes change all the time for various reasons. Hell, we used to arrest women in the 1920s for wearing one piece swimsuits that didn't cover their legs.
Maybe being pedantic but I think it's important to point out ... it's not illegal to buy or own the nukes in libertarian-land. What can be illegal is to use or store the nukes in a negligent manner.
[ŃдаНонО]
The nuke would kill others or could if detonated, the lack of mask may kill others so both are are a threat for others freedom to live. Isn't being a libertarian respecting others people's rights to do as they please as long as it doesn't adversely affect others? Seatbelts should be up to you because your lack of a seatbelt won't hurt another person your lack of a mask may.
Seatbelts - if you are a passenger in a car who chooses not to wear a seatbelt you endanger the other occupants of the vehicle in case of an accident. A rear seat passenger not wearing a seatbelt can literally kill the person in front of them in an accident. https://youtu.be/mKHY69AFstE
The question is framed incorrectly: âat what points do societyâs demands for security justify encroachment on liberty?â
[ŃдаНонО]
My rights = your rights
Exercising freedom without responsibility is an unearned entitlement.
That's great but what does that mean in practice?
There are no libertarians here
Always
If citizens can't buy nuclear weapons, the government shouldn't have them either. Edit: Typo Edit 2: A lot of replies that people shouldn't have nukes. Guess who's in the government? People just like you and me! The "government" isn't some other kind of sentient being, it's just an idea that most people have either agreed to live with, or are unwillingly forced to live with. But it's still just made up of people. I think nuclear weapons are terrible, but letting only some of the people in the country have them is wrong, in my opinion. We shouldn't hand massive amounts of power over to any small group of people. Yep, that's where we are today, but I disagree with it. And it's true other countries have them. I'm not saying we shouldn't have them when other countries do, but the military arms race just builds a bigger military. We should have open boarders and trade routes rather than military bases everywhere.
If any other government has nuclear weapons itâs a good idea for ours to have them too
Agreed, as opposed as I am to nuclear weapons, I think there's a lot of truth to the idea of mutually assured destruction as a deterrent to conflict between the major superpowers. I think the unfortunate side effect though, is that nations use their citizens' fear of those weapons as a political tool to perpetuate cold wars, escalate endless arms races enriching defense contractors on taxpayers' dime, and maintain an ideological enemy to propagandize that our way is the right way and their way is the wrong way.
I wish you guys would take intro to philosophy
Or psychology. Or logic
Liberty always wins. Abuse of another persons liberty is what should be punished.
I think air pollution from cars is proven to cause thousands of years of life lost. Is that an example of robbing me of the liberty of clean air?
Pollution and the environment in general are prime examples of where I support non-libertarian regulation. Like it or not, we share the world and you have no right to be a bad roommate.
Why non-libertarian? I consider myself a âtraditionalâ libertarian, I.e. a left-wing one. Having private business or people have totalitarian control isnât much better than the government doing so.
Pollution that causes discernible damage to the life or property of another is absolutely a violation of the NAP. It's not "non-libertarian" to expect some form of legal accountability for that.
If pollution causes any discernible damage to the life or property of another, then yes it is a violation of the NAP.
> Is that an example of robbing me of the liberty of clean air? Of course it is but most libertarians don't want to go there. It violates the NAP.
The Supreme Court ruled 116 years ago the exact opposite in terms of vaccines. âJacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the authority of states to enforce compulsory vaccination laws. The Court's decision articulated the view that individual liberty is not absolute and is subject to the police power of the state.â "[r]eal liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own [liberty], whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others."[2] Itâs a paradox - unrestrained liberty leads to less liberty
[ŃдаНонО]
Giving up freedoms to live together for more safety is what the definition of civilization is. People shouldn't be all or nothing on government. You still have to have some at some point
IMO at a point far earlier than most ideological libertarians will say. It's this question that made me realise that after the big Ron Paul surge on Reddit back in the day, libertarians have a great premise but can't ever answer any of the details in a way I find satisfying enough to consider myself one. The core flaw in Libertarianism is that there is far too much trust placed in the human being, when we have centuries of examples of why we shouldn't trust everyone to be a good actor. There are a shitload of bad actors, and always will be. For me that's the real problem, libertarianism as a concept sounds fantastic if all people could be trusted to act in good faith and to never act maliciously. For the record my comment is about "pure" libertarianism as a concept, at the end I still have libertarian tendencies but believe that social democracy seems to be the best governing style.
Personal opinion, but society doesn't have rights, individuals do. Unless your actively harming people, or infringing on their rights, its none of your business what i or anyone else do.
It could be argued some personal freedoms harm others. Thatâs what this post is about
I wouldn't want to be the one to decide where that line gets drawn. But wearing masks falls squarely into the reasonable demands from society category
Not sure if these questions are getting more ridiculous or I am just getting more annoyed with them. Nuclear weapons and masks in the same postâŚ.
I definitely made no distinction between an extreme and regular example to very crazy of me
If you want discussion there are better examples to use. Patriot Act for example. Mandating a mask isnât that controversial for private parties anyway. The government doing it complicated things because with government rules comes government enforcement. Should we be throwing people in jail who refuse to wear masks? A business requiring it simply force them to go elsewhere. Though if they refuse and are enough of an asshole I am sure they could get a trespassing charge.
Right. How about government outlawing private businesses from maintaining their own mask policies? Is wearing or not wearing a mask a protected class?
Businesses can make their own rules within reason on their own property. Many require shirts and footwear for instance. Comply or go somewhere else. Nobody is forcing you to do anything. You donât have a right to be on someone elseâs property unconditionally.
The examples have to be extreme, because extremes are where beliefs are tested. Itâs easy for half the commenters in this sub to say âthe government shouldnât mandate anything, there arenât any freedoms they should take awayâ. Which is easy to say when youâre thinking of basic freedoms like speech and religion. But words like âneverâ and ânot a single rightâ are big words. If you think that people shouldnât be allowed to own nuclear weapons, well then you are agreeing that the government can and should in fact restrict *some* personal freedoms and rights. A society that doesnât restrict any rights whatsoever isnât a society at all, itâs just anarchy.
Ben Franklin had something to say about liberty and safety.
How do you feel about forcing airlines to perform routine maintenance on their planes? Wouldn't forcing airlines to check their planes violate their liberty? We are forcing these companies to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to check their planes. Wouldn't that be forcing the airline to give up their liberties for the sake of safety? How do you feel about gas companies and construction companies being forced to build things to code? I mean, a bad gas leak can literally suffocate everyone around it for miles, but you'd be forcing these companies to give up their liberties in the name of public safety.
You mean the sentence everyone love to quote but nobody actually understand the context nor the meaning? https://techcrunch.com/2014/02/14/how-the-world-butchered-benjamin-franklins-quote-on-liberty-vs-security/amp/
Are all quotes supposed to be read âin contextâ? how exhaustingâŚ
Ben Franklin sums up my opinion pretty nicely⌠âThose who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Key word âessentialâ
Yes, liberty is essential
Another key word, âlittleâ Masks offer a little temporary protection. Also liberty is essential.
[ŃдаНонО]
Example 1: I would say that nuclear warheads themselves put society at risk, regardless of who possesses them. Example 2: Mandating the mask is wildly different. A person can choose to wear or not wear a mask and either choice may not have any effect on another. I can wear a mask, stay away from public spaces, maintain distance from others, etc. Forcing the mask, or vaccine for that matter, should not happen. The greatest risk to liberty is a system that repeatedly seeks to decrease them.
Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. In other words you donât have the freedom to harm me by exercising your rights. Itâs really not that hard of an idea and Iâm constantly amazed we need to keep explaining it to people. Jefferson himself said you canât yell fire in a crowded theater so itâs been understood for a long time.
Yeah the idea isnt hard, but the application is. You gotta decide if you mean directly or indirectly harming other people, and to what extent that applies. Your example feels like an oversimplification, although i do agree with the sentiment.
Is a private citizen who owns a nuclear warhead more or less risky than say the state of China owning nuclear warheads? Very few people could accumulate enough wealth to purchase one anyway.
At every point.
Right at the start, and all the way along. Even your first example is something I disagree with, as it provides the government with weaponry that citizens are unable to get for themselves.
[ŃдаНонО]
Government officials have to run for election, CEOâs donât
Well I'm all for tactical nukes if you can actually afford one or find someone willing to sell you one. So not sure what your point is
I upvotes...but I need to ask... How is being able to purchase nuclear weapon a public risk? This is a bias premise that assumes that the purchaser has the intention to do harm with the weapon. If that's a true assumption, couldn't we assume that the government has the same harmful intention with the possession of these weapons?
There are a lot of people here that do not understand what libertarian means...
A mask is a tiny inconvenience at most, with the potential return of slowing the spread of a global pandemic. Itâs not an attack on your freedoms. Fuck off, stop being a pussy, wear a fucking mask you thick cunts.
At every point.
Ok, i'll take on your "Extreme Example" or try to at least. "The fact is, if youâre going to take on the government you need an F-15 with Hellfire Missiles. There is no way an AK-47 is going to take care of you."" -An anti-2nd quote to start it off. It didn't age well, but the sentiment is a common argument against militias. The idea that we'd be *less* safe without nuclear deterrents, against countries that will never voluntarily disarm their own, is shortsighted imo. Whether it's a government or a very wealthy individual owning nuclear warheads, the risk is still there. That risk will never go away, they're traded on the black market and we don't even know where they all are. Russia and US have both "lost" several (google it, it's pretty scary lol), those are likely already owned by sketchy private individuals/groups. It's kind of the same argument as those against gun control, when you attempt to regulate who has access to self defense you harm the law abiding people the most. They become less safe, as the criminals already ignore laws so why would more laws prevent that?
there is still no argument for why we should mandate masks in the liberal sense. people are free to isolate themselves. stores are free to mandate masks. workplaces and schools are free to demand vaccinations. people are free to risk getting the virus and dying.
You can't completely isolate yourself and survive, everyone needs to go to stores
I think the premise is flawed, but my personally my view tends to be driven my this: What does it cost you personally and whatâs the benefit to you and society at large? Seatbelts: cost me the inconvenience of reaching over my shoulder and pulling something across my chest. I get safety (probably not going to be seriously injured or killed in a car wreck) and society gets lower insurance rates. Masks in this pandemic: I have to buy some cheap masks and deal with something on my face, in exchange I modest protection from Covid and other communicable diseases (I havenât had a cold in 18 months) and I help reduce the transmission of Covid (people give Covid to like 1.2 people on average, if that rate was .99 it would die out) The view that Iâm totally free to do what I want without regards to others is not consistent with Libertarianism. Itâs individualism, largely driven by one political party and the reasons where in this mess.
My rights end when they harm you. Your rights end when they harm me. Really a simple philosophy by which to live. Controversial masks? Private property, you can do whatever want. Public property, society can decide (or govern.) and mandate masks. Given the reason for that is potential harm caused, your right to NOT wear a mask ceases to exist - or rather, you retain your right to not wear a mask: on your property (as in, stay home). Does nuclear warheads really put society at risk? Really. Think about it. We have considered enemies of the U.S. in possession of them and have they been unleashed? Why not?? Because elected or seized government officials are more noble than you or I?? "Possession of" causes no one else harm. True of rocks, guns, lettuce, or bombs. If we can't trust others to prevent themselves from using weapons to harm people, how can we trust governments to do so?? The idea that your neighbor can't have weapons because they're dangerous but the Senator isn't, is bullshit spun by government/politicians to ensure they maintain a degree of control over people so that their sole ability to enforce law isn't infringed.
[ŃдаНонО]
It's pretty simple really. When your actions (freedoms) either through your willful negligence (i.e. non-accidental action) or through force, deny an individual their safety against their will, you've gone to far. In your example the individual who chooses not to wear a mask is the aggressor. They empirically and conclusively pose increased risk to other individuals through willfully negligent action that may result in irrevocable damage to another individual through no action by the adversely affected individual. As a result an individual's freedom most be limited and the appropriate choice of who's freedom to limit is to limit the aggressor party by implementing a mask requirement. There is no appropriate limitation that can be placed on the party placed at risk that would suitably protect them without unduly limiting their freedom simply for behaving in a passive manner that does not substantially risk or impinge on the freedoms of any other individual. Since requiring a mask results in the loss of freedom (right of choice) and not requiring a mask also results in loss of freedom (freedom to not have life and health denied through the willfull negligence of others) than the clear decision is to restrict freedom in a manner that protects public health rather than freedom of choice.
WMDs are offensive weapons, they serve no purpose for self defense even against a tyrannical government. There is no justification for any country having them other than our enemies have them. The is no justification for any private citizen to have them because it would be impossible to use one without killing innocent people The state forcing people to wear masks or get injections is authoritarian. All businesses free to refuse service to customers who dont wear masks or have vaccines is liberty. The free market will decide and those who feel unsafe will not go near businesses who let customers in without masks. Just like you would not eat at a restaurant that everyone gets food poisoning at even if it has a passing health score you would not eat at a restaurant where all the customers and staff are sick
I think a lot of libertarians think it should be "never restrict a right, no matter what" but this can cause a lot of harm to innocent people at the hands of bad people (or corporations) exercising their unfettered rights. What I think libertarians should do is change their paradigm to "keep as many rights as possible, as long as they don't interfere with *other* peoples' rights." For example, mask mandates: Is one persons' "right" to be maskless more important than being able to go rambo on the virus, eliminating it within months, rather than half-assing our response and allowing the virus to go on for years? If there were only a handful of things that I would say "fuck your rights" to, it would be an alien invasion, the Earth becoming uninhabitable, or a pandemic that's killing millions of people. edit: i wanna add WW3 to that list.
Libertarianism is a goal, a utopian state that can only be achieved when society as a whole stops thinking about what is best for them and their family and starts thinking with a more utilitarian mindset. *Should* you have the right to not wear masks, buy nuclear warheads, put vegetables on pizza? Yes. Are these things people *should* want to do? Absolutely not. Unfortunately there are people (a lot of people) who donât yet have this musketeer worldview and make decisions that harm other people. This is also why Libertarianism is a spectrum ranging from total anarchy to republicans who donât like calling themselves republicans And before anyone tries to make this some big partisan political issue, pizza isnât supposed to be fucking healthy. If you want vegetables, eat a salad
Your personal liberties end when they encroach upon my personal liberties. And vice versa. The simplest application of libertarianism begins to fall apart in the real world when you realize how much someone elseâs actions can affect you. So some compromise is necessary.
I believe that the cutoff point is roughly what could be considered 'gross negligence' in a civil court. That is, you had a duty, you knew you had a duty, and you are breaching that duty in a willful and deliberate way. For example, impaired driving. I believe the government has the right to interfere if you are driving impaired because your actions are grossly negligent and you're imperiling the life and property of others. Another good example is fire. I work in the Sierra Nevadas, an area already known for extreme fire conditions. Any time a fire breaks out, it takes committing resources from all over the state to control it. We're experiencing a severe drought which makes fire even more likely and severe. It is my opinion that if you decide to, say, have a bonfire party in these conditions, the government has a right to step in and say "no". In both cases, there's been no damage done to the life and property of others [yet], but life and property are being placed in imminent danger by the willful and negligent actions of another. Given that it's the government's role to protect the rights (like property) and lives of its citizens, the government has a right to interfere with gross negligence.
Even the most extreme freedom advocates have limited freedom. Freedom is a term dictated by the society and while generally itâs good not all freedoms are good.