Idea for revitalizing the Libertarian movement

Free State Project Forum

264413 Posts in 21116 Topics by 34808 Members / Latest Member: ErmaCloug

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 18, 2013, 06:38:05 pm

Join the FSP

POSTING GUIDELINES and ADVICE FOR NEW MEMBERS

I share Dissipate's sentiments. The bulk of the populace has the
"entitlement" mentality. And I can say that I'm not totally opposed
to the government providing certain things such as health care to the people. The problem has always been not with the intentions, but with the way in which those entitlements have been administered(mismanagement, red tape, corruption etc.).

Quote

And I can say that I'm not totally opposed
to the government providing certain things such as health care to the people.

Why am I not surprised. What other welfare garbage do you support "for the people"??

Maybe you should go to, say, France or Cuba if you want to see a shining example of national "health care". Hell, I wouldn't even mind if you STAYED there [whichever one], although I'd be careful about Cuba- El Presidente tends to kill those who express negative opinions about him.

Though regardless of our opinion of healthcare, lets look at Badnarik's approach to healthcare. During his debate with Cobb he says more than three times that "we don't have a right to healthcare".

Now, regardless of the truth of this statement, how does this statement get him votes? It doesn't, and it is a prime example of what the LP does with nearly every issue.

Cobb said he didn't have health insurance and it was because the system failed.

Quote from: rdeacon on October 08, 2004, 09:50:43 pm

I do not share Dissipate's pessimism. The LP *can* change its image and grow as a result. There are ways to propose libertarian solutions to societal problems without getting into philosophy and other turn offs that the public simply does not care about.

If the public is caught in an entitlement mindset, than that is what the LP needs to exploit. If the public thinks that they are entitled to healthcare, than a libertarian candidate needs to tell them *why* big government care doesn't work. If the public thinks that we need gun control to keep America safe, than the libertarian candidate needs to tell them *why* society is safer with limited gun restrictions.

The LP needs to realize that when a candidate runs for office, he does not run as himself. He runs as an embodiment of they desires of the people. This doesn't mean that he should be a puppet to the will of 51%, but it does mean that he needs to tailor what he has to say so that more people are willing to listen.

The following article is brief and fairly lighthearted but it gets my point across:

http://www.quiz2d.com/essays/lfa/Incrementalating102.pdf

No, my "pessimism" is simply reality. I can explain a priori why the government will never become a minarchy with the current fraud of a democracy.

Let's talk about voting patterns in the voting public. Not all voters out there seek to maximize their monetary wealth, necessarily, but they do seek to maximize their pyschic wealth (an axiom of human action). For instance, there might be an environmentalist who champions an environmental law that actually imposes a cost upon them in the form of higher gas prices. In this case they are willing to give up monetary wealth in order to achieve a net increase in their psychic wealth. They believe that the government is a means towards attaining their ends in this repsect. The ends that they can attain in their own private lives is not enough for them, and democracy provides fertile ground for them to extend their end attaining ability. Since people's desire for psychic wealth as well as monetary wealth is limitless (axiom of human action), their demand for government provided goods and services and regulation will be limitless as well. Therefore, you will have people who want maximum monetary wealth provided by the government, as well as people who want maximum psychic wealth (in some form or another). These demands eventually translate into taxation & regulation. And of course these demands which are enacted and enforced by the government impose a cost on someone somewhere. This is what makes the whole system immoral. The imposition of these costs and regulations ruins man's autonomous status, as he is no longer the master of himself, but rather his life is at the whim of what other men desire to "see" in a society. The government cannot tax men on desert islands, or impose regulations on aliens on Mars in order to attain the desired ends of voters. Therefore, in order for a politician to be successful he must maximize the gain of psychic wealth of his constituents, and at the same time maximize the amount of private property expropriation, and regulation.

You might ask, "Well if everything a politician does hurts someone somewhere, won't it balance out at the polls?" Not by a long shot, because under 1 man 1 vote, the politician must only make sure that everything he does, does not reduce the psychic wealth of more of his constituents than not. This is the source of progressive taxation, and "targeted" regulation. By expropriating more property from wealthy people (a relatively small portion of the population) and distributing it to his other constituents, the politician is able to increase the psychic wealth of many, at the expense of a relatively few, hence the buying of votes. The same goes with regulation. The politician can increase the psychic wealth of the voters in general by imposing heavy regulatory burdens on particular corporations or entities, which are a relatively small portion of the voting population, pleasing a large number of voters who desire to see that particular "faceless" corporation pay corporate taxes, or succumb to new regulations designed to force it to adhere to "moral" actions.

Since a politician is a bundle of ideas (really just a euphemism for a bundle of taxation and regulation), a politician can get a majority of voters to perceive a net gain in pyschic wealth, even while every voter at the same time has a loss of pyschic wealth in some particular area. In other words, democracy allows everyone to piss in everyone else's Cheerios, while going about their day thinking that what a particular politician is doing is "good for the community overall."

Quote

For instance, there might be an environmentalist who champions an environmental law that actually imposes a cost upon them in the form of higher gas prices. In this case they are willing to give up monetary wealth in order to achieve a net increase in their psychic wealth. They believe that the government is a means towards attaining their ends in this repsect. The ends that they can attain in their own private lives is not enough for them, and democracy provides fertile ground for them to extend their end attaining ability

actually a higher gas tax is simply a way to privately monetize the costs of what is today socially distributed - negative externalities.

has nothing to do with psychic wealth and everything to do with personal responsibility for something (pollution) individuals want to shift the costs to others on.

Quote

Since people's desire for psychic wealth as well as monetary wealth is limitless (axiom of human action), their demand for government provided goods and services and regulation will be limitless as well. Therefore, you will have people who want maximum monetary wealth provided by the government, as well as people who want maximum psychic wealth (in some form or another). These demands eventually translate into taxation & regulation. And of course these demands which are enacted and enforced by the government impose a cost on someone somewhere. This is what makes the whole system immoral.

since we live in a closed system there are naturally imposed limits to human activity.

what is truly equally immoral is allowing government granted privilege in the form of limited liability, corporate personhood, and intellectual property laws so that some individuals can shift the costs of their own personal activities onto the backs of others in the form of higher health care costs.

The most important thing needed to revitalize the libertarian movement is for people to get off their asses, off their computers, and out in the world getting into the nitty and gritty of real life, real politics. DO something, stop yakking.

Quote from: Greenbacks on October 10, 2004, 12:50:34 pm

Quote

actually a higher gas tax is simply a way to privately monetize the costs of what is today socially distributed - negative externalities.

How is a higher gas tax a "way to privately monetize costs"? Private does not mean public, and here we are talking about environmental legislation that the public at large must adhere to. For the absurdities of the externalities doctrine, I refer you to page 96 of Capitalism. http://www.mises.org/books/capitalism.pdf

has nothing to do with psychic wealth and everything to do with personal responsibility for something (pollution) individuals want to shift the costs to others on.

Quote

since we live in a closed system there are naturally imposed limits to human activity.

I don't know what this statement relates to, or why it is significant in the context of this discussion. Please elaborate.

what is truly equally immoral is allowing government granted privilege in the form of limited liability, corporate personhood, and intellectual property laws so that some individuals can shift the costs of their own personal activities onto the backs of others in the form of higher health care costs.

I agree, and I never said that this kind of legislation wasn't the result of a morally bankrupt democratic system.

Republicans take a horrible beating to abandon their party. They are intensely loyal to their party. Democrats, on the other hand, tend to see millions of their supporters vote GOP.

Quote from: rdeacon on October 10, 2004, 10:32:49 am

Would it be better to lie about it? Maybe promise something that he doesn't intend to deliver?

I think maybe better would be to explain the rationale for the statement.

I've voted for every candidiate the party has ever run, but, given the progress that has been made, I believe the party should adopt the ideas expressed in this piece by Lew Rockwell.
Lloyd

http://www.ncc-1776.com/tle2002/libe195-20021021-02.html

Quote from: maverickthree on October 09, 2004, 12:10:52 pm

Re: "Entitlements" have any of y'all ever read this:

When the thirteen colonies were still a part of England, Professor Alexander Tyler wrote about the fall of the Athenian republic over two thousand years previous to that time:

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship.

The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage.

Alexander Tyler

Which stage do you think our nation is in? I'd say were pretty heavily into dependency -- thanks to "entitlements" like your above-mentioned healthcare. Bondage can't be too far behind -- don't know about you, but it scares the hell out of me.

Quote from: Dissipate on October 10, 2004, 11:22:25 am

No, my "pessimism" is simply reality. I can explain a priori why the government will never become a minarchy with the current fraud of a democracy.

All readers, see above for total content of his original message.

Dissipate - The problem with your reasoning is that psychic wealth need not come to one vote by denying another voter material wealth. You can have it both ways, and this is why practical libertarianism is not only viable, but an appealing approach to politics.

I agree with you that democracy is a problem, because it is a tyranny of the majority. However the mob is a simple animal, and it can be manipulated. It is not the natural course of human events to err toward bigger government, it is simply an effect of conditioning and trickery by enterprising and manipulative individuals. This can be countered in the political arena by solving societal problems while at the same time decreasing the size of the government and breaking the entitlement mindset through action, not talk.

Quote from: Blefuscu on October 11, 2004, 02:21:40 am

Would it be better to lie about it? Maybe promise something that he doesn't intend to deliver?

If Badnarik only promised what he could deliver his speeches would be very short. To answer your first question: yes. This article really sums up how I feel about this:

http://www.quiz2d.com/essays/lfa/Incrementalating102.pdf

Quote

I think maybe better would be to explain the rationale for the statement.

The problem is that Badnarik shouldn't have to spend his allotted 90 seconds (or 200 words) backpedaling from a comment like "you don't have a right to healthcare".

Quote

This can be countered in the political arena by solving societal problems while at the same time decreasing the size of the government and breaking the entitlement mindset through action, not talk.

there are overt entitlements and hidden entitlements that everyone takes for granted.

for instance, limited liability laws and intellectual property laws.

then there are subsidies to corporations which if withdrawn do not potentially physically harm anyone because a corporation is not a person.

why not start there?

NOTICE: The forum will be down for maintenance beginning at 7PM (NH time) this evening. It should be up again by 9PM. Please forgive the inconvenience and feel free to e-mail arick@freestateproject.org if you have any questions or support requests.