Replies

Let’s recap and summarize before continuing the discussion:

We agree (correct me if I am misstating your position, please) on the following:

A. The function of any, and all, governments is the maintenance of social order…

B. Pure libertarians hold that government should be minimized and that government should have only that power necessary to prevent an individual or group of individuals from coercively imposing their will on other individuals or groups …

C. Even pure libertarians agree that some type of government must be called upon to coercively balance individual rights based upon certain principles.

D. [T]he pure libertarian… can only support a constitutionally limited, democratically-elected, republican form of government with certain individual rights immutably and irrevocably enshrined in that constitution…

E. [A] pure libertarian could never support any economic system except capitalism since all others arbitrarily limit the individual’s freedom to engage any commercial enterprise of choice.

Where we disagree (again, correct me if I am misstating your position, please) is the following:

1. Exactly what constitutes an individual or group of individuals coercively imposing their will on other individuals or groups.

It is my position that it is possible for another individual, or group of individuals, to coercively impose their will on other individuals or groups through nominally legal, economic means (as opposed to fraud or force) such as monopolistic practices (or other means such as abusive, expensive litigation as a mere “cost of doing business”).

Based upon the above position, I further maintain that some government proactive, market regulatory actions (although not necessarily those currently existent) are appropriate to prevent such coercive manipulation.

2. Exactly what government actions and principles are appropriate to coercively balance individual rights when they are in conflict.

It is my position that it is appropriate for government to prophylactically establish very limited, procedural safeguards to forestall, as much as possible, the necessity for post coercion, government intervention via judicial dispute resolution. Small businesses cannot easily afford expensive, drawn out litigation and, thus, can be forced by larger competitors who can afford the legal expense (a mere “cost of doing business”) into not pursuing a remedy for a coercive restriction of individual rights.

3. Another area (directly germane to the economic vein) not yet discussed where you may disagree with me is related to the government’s responsibility to provide for the common defense.

It is my position that in order to maintain a strong and diverse industrial base in military equipment essential to national defense, that government may actively interfere in the economy to ensure that essential defensive capabilities are available in time of need. However, it is further my position that the most appropriate means of government intervention is not as a regulatory agent, but as a “customer,” i.e., by contracting with a variety of firms to provide the requisite equipment even at the expense of not necessarily, always choosing the “lowest bidder.”

4. Yet another area (indirectly germane to the economic vein) where some other posters (and possibly you) have disagreed with a position of mine is that government must actively discourage hallucinogenic and narcotic drugs.

I hold that a certain, significant percentage of the population must, of necessity, be economically “productive” or the entire population, figuratively, or perhaps, literally, “starves” and the “society” collapses or becomes too weak to resist active take-over by a competing, non-libertarian society. In the interest of justice and common sense, it is inappropriate for the government to intentionally not act in this area until a certain, critical percentage of the population has become non-productive. There are two reasons for this position. First, addiction once it occurs is difficult if not impossible to reverse for a large number of citizens. Thus the productivity problem is not solved. Second, it is intuitively unjust to let some people engage in such activity, but when the percentage becomes too high, to arbitrarily out law the activity. Therefore, for the sake of common sense, it must discouraged consistently.

5. Another area (not directly germane to the economic vein) where some other posters (and possibly you) have disagreed with a position of mine is that government must proactively prevent nominally libertarian activities which threaten to dissolve the society which, otherwise, supports a libertarian system.

It is my position that government must actively discourage gay marriage (nominally an individual liberty choice) because the practice weakens the heterosexual family unit and thus, potentially causes the collapse of the “society” in which the libertarian would exist.

I don't even agree with your recap. It allows repetition of discussion points already discussed and dismissed while bringing up new topics that I don't consider germane to the original discussion...however I'll play for the moment.

A. The function of any, and all, governments is the maintenance of social order…
The function of our Government is what is being discussed and its functions are spelled out clearly in the constitution.

B. Pure libertarians hold that government should be minimized and that government should have only that power necessary to prevent an individual or group of individuals from coercively imposing their will on other individuals or groups …
I'm not a libertarian, however I think that the majority holds that the government should be restrained to it's constitutionally mandated powers.

C. Even pure libertarians agree that some type of government must be called upon to coercively balance individual rights based upon certain principles.
Uh-huh

D. [T]he pure libertarian… can only support a constitutionally limited, democratically-elected, republican form of government with certain individual rights immutably and irrevocably enshrined in that constitution…
Again I'm not a libertarian...and I won't speculate on what forms of government they can or can not support.

[A] pure libertarian could never support any economic system except capitalism since all others arbitrarily limit the individual’s freedom to engage any commercial enterprise of choice.
That makes sense to me.

Yet another area (indirectly germane to the economic vein) where some other posters (and possibly you) have disagreed with a position of mine is that government must actively discourage hallucinogenic and narcotic drugs.
Where is that power listed in the Constitution

I hold that a certain, significant percentage of the population must, of necessity, be economically “productive” or the entire population, figuratively, or perhaps, literally, “starves” and the “society” collapses or becomes too weak to resist active take-over by a competing, non-libertarian society. In the interest of justice and common sense, it is inappropriate for the government to intentionally not act in this area until a certain, critical percentage of the population has become non-productive. There are two reasons for this position. First, addiction once it occurs is difficult if not impossible to reverse for a large number of citizens. Thus the productivity problem is not solved. Second, it is intuitively unjust to let some people engage in such activity, but when the percentage becomes too high, to arbitrarily out law the activity. Therefore, for the sake of common sense, it must discouraged consistently.
Where is that power listed in the constitution?

Another area (not directly germane to the economic vein) where some other posters (and possibly you) have disagreed with a position of mine is that government must proactively prevent nominally libertarian activities which threaten to dissolve the society which, otherwise, supports a libertarian system.
Where is that power listed in the constitution?

It is my position that government must actively discourage gay marriage (nominally an individual liberty choice) because the practice weakens the heterosexual family unit and thus, potentially causes the collapse of the “society” in which the libertarian would exist.
Where is that power listed in the constitution?