Replies

A good article.

I would add, however, that the libertarians are at least as marginalized by their take on social issues. To put it bluntly, normal people know far too many self-interested assholes to buy in to the libertarian dogma concerning self-interest. The society called for by libertarians does not seem to differ materially from the lifestyles practiced by Hollywood stars -- and the comparison is not flattering.

Whether people can put their finger on it or not, the unease about self-interest has real roots. We can see all around us where untrammeled self-interest causes problems for others. (Consider, for example, the sexualization of our society -- and see how it has affected little girls, most of all.)

Limited government relies on the expectation and requirement that the exercise of self-interest be accompanied by the exercise of self-restraint. When self-restraint is not forthcoming, then the society at large has a right (and responsibility) to restrain those who do not play by the rules.

There is also a fundamental assumption that one man's pursuit of self-interest is not harmful to others -- which is not true.

The problems you've noted are based on libertarians' fundamental (and wrong) assumption that most people agree with and play by the same set of rules. Open borders or isolationist foreign policies are all fine if the folks outside our borders are willing to play by our rules. Similarly, the existence of limited government assumes that people are, by and large, self-policing on "the basics."

The question is: how does one institute the sort of self-limiting impulses in a society that does not practice it already? This is the libertarian dilemma.

The society called for by libertarians does not seem to differ materially from the lifestyles practiced by Hollywood stars -- and the comparison is not flattering.

The society called for by libertarians, is one in which the rights of individuals are respected in absolute terms, and the power of state is limited ONLY to the restraint of those actions which violate rights.

What individuals do peacefully and privately (without violating rights) is not a matter for state to determine.

Certainly I would prefer to see a nation in which individuals behave responsibly, morally, and reasonably, but I am unwilling to advocate state gunpoint demands for same upon my neighbors. You may not engage in immoral action on the part of state, to compel morality.

You stated:

When self-restraint is not forthcoming, then the society at large has a right (and responsibility) to restrain those who do not play by the rules.

I would agree completely... provided you recognize the ONLY rules state enforces, as those defined by the rights of individuals. The moment you try to enforce subjective wishes of the majority, you get a hodgepodge of nonsensical laws and government growth unchecked.

Take a look around you.

The question is: how does one institute the sort of self-limiting impulses in a society that does not practice it already?

My belief is that self-restraint is never developed if there are never consequences for one's actions. Good parents learn this early on ::smile::.

What we've done in this society in many instances is to continually bail people out of the results of their bad decisions. This means they will never have any incentive to develop a sense of personal responsibility or self-restraint because their actions don't have negative consequences.

I'll use helmet/seatbelt laws as an example since it's easiest to describe: Fr'instance, I think helmet laws are bogus - if someone wants to risk cracking their head open and becoming an organ donor that's their business. But if we continue to use public and/or insurance funds to patch up idiots who crashed into a tree without a motorcycle helmet, then lack of helmet laws negatively impacts the rest of society because we all have to pay to glue their heads back together.

Most people use this as an argument to implement helmet laws. The alternative is to not make helmet laws, but instead not publicly pay to treat no-helmet head-trauma cases, and let the insurance companies deny coverage to those who ride without one.

Then if the head meets the tree without a helmet, it's the riders choice, their head, and they pay for the results on their dime. Or they don't get treatment and they die. This would be a deterrent to most, and those that wouldn't be deterred may Darwinize themselves out of the gene pool, by their own volition.

This isn't a perfect example, but I hope it makes my point.

The problem is society has to stop it's handwringing and treating everyone as "victims" even if their own stupidity got them into that situation. There are a lot of bleeding hearts who would fight this tooth and nail, but the idea of saying "Tough Noogies" shouldn't be discarded.

And this type of "actions have consequences" shouldve been introduced during childhood, as well, but a lot of kids don't get that when they should.

LQ, who always wears her seatbelt and helmet, law or no law ::grin:::

You understand the primary fallacy of Libertarianism. A society with few laws can exist. But unless this society has a strong moral base, typically filled by religion, it will be a society in which the strong and aggressive rule over the weak and passive. At it’s worst, life in such a society will, for most people, be “nasty, brutish and short.”

The reason why Libertarianism appeals to people who are not necessarily druggies or worse is that we live on the left-over moral capital of a largely Christian nation. That is changing, but slowly, and the result is that Libertarians are surrounded by a sea of people whose restraints are the inculcation of an old time morality rooted in Christianity.

If that were to disappear and the majority of people were to become Libertarians – that is to rely on their own moral code, re-invented for each of us and based on our own, atomistic moral standards - we had better hope we have the biggest guns and the best trained gang around us.