Replies

"Sept. 11 ended this line of argument. It was a reminder to Americans of why government exists, and why it has to tax citizens and spend money to promote collective interests."

Wow. With this one sentence, the author proves that he has no idea of Libertarian principles as well as his abysmal ignorance of a Republican form of government.

September 11 proved exactly the opposite IMO.

I'll say it slowly, for the Constitutionally impaired. There is no such thing as 'collective interest'. There never has been, and there never will be.

There is only your interest, my interest, and the interests of that person over there.

My interests are not, and only occasionally will be the same as yours.

I never cease to be amused at the half witted attempts by those who do not and never will understand Libertarian principles pathetic attempts to critique them.

It's a lot like watching a chimpanzee attempt to understand the workings of a Swiss watch. They may be able to strap one on their wrist. They may even be able to use it for its intended purpose, but they will never, ever be able to understand how it actually functions.

I'll say it slowly, for the Constitutionally impaired. There is no such thing as 'collective interest'. There never has been, and there never will be.
There is only your interest, my interest, and the interests of that person over there.

My interests are not, and only occasionally will be the same as yours.

Bwahahahaaaa!!!! Just saying it don't make it so, though.

Perhaps you desire to tell us all about how traffic and driving laws serve no community interest?

Or perhaps you would like to quibble about the long and happy history of charitable giving and large-scale philanthropy in this country -- acts of generosity often undertaken with the community-interested view of "making this a better place to live," and with beneficial results stretching decades after the act?

And, of course, you'd have to argue against the whole idea of Duty -- to country, state, family -- upon which our nation and our freedom were founded, and continue to depend. A more "community-interested" thing than a sense of duty would be difficult to find.

And, by golly, if you're going to deny the concept of community interest, you'd even have to argue against the fact that libertarianism has a strong "community interest" at its very core. To wit, not only are libertarians expected to protect their own rights, but for a libertarian society to work, they are also required to respectthe rights of others -- both individually, and in aggregate, which is certainly an example of "community interest".

In trying to ignore the idea of "community interest" libertarians pretty much have to give up everything but the profit motive, and even that's a dodgy proposition.

Libertarians are willfully blind on the idea of community service because, as often as not, they are trying to live according to Ayn Rand's objectivist creed, which denies the existence of "community interest." (Of course, the basis for this "objective" idea is utterly subjective -- but then, Rand's ideas are rife with such contradictions.)

I'll say it slowly, for the Constitutionally impaired. There is no such thing as 'collective interest'. There never has been, and there never will be.
...

My interests are not, and only occasionally will be the same as yours.

So, in a case where our DO interests coincide, why is it unreasonable to call this circumstance a "collective interest"? You are quibbling over definitions--making a distinction without a difference.

When the British attempted to enforce their will upon the American colonies, did the colonists opposing them not have a collective interest in securing their liberty?

While the "General Welfare" clause in the preamble to the Constitution has been abused almost beyond recognition, it is not irrelevant. It is present precisely because there ARE collective interests--specifically the natural rights to which all persons are entitled. The Constitution is necessary and efficacious because of these interests. If there were no such thing as collective interests, then no social contract, no Constitution would be possible.

I think your Swiss watch is broken.

I'll say it slowly, for the Constitutionally impaired. There is no such thing as 'collective interest'. There never has been, and there never will be. Oh, boy: we are so pompous, aren't we?

You remark exemplifies what Dostoyevsky called "arrogance of ignorance."

In brief: the government, by its mandate, attempts to maximize the social welfare function; it is this function that represents "collective interests."

Granted, there are difficulties in ascertaining the exact form of this function --- but an individual has difficulties in ascertaining his preferences; the difficulties, therefore, do not preclude the existence of that function. I have no idea what gives you the right to look at yourself and you world outlook with such admiration. You certainly have not demonstrated basic literacy in your post.

Dostoyevsky wrote also of another phenomenon, on which you should reflect: ignorance of arrogance.