American History Is Not Libertarian History?

/sarcasm…Pay people back as much of what they’ve had taken from them as possible. Say, “This is what happens when you trust your bodyguard to be your financial advisor.”

[quote]H factor wrote:
Why don’t you just call it freedom? Is your solution to have the government decide what is good? And control anyone who does something they deem as not feeling good?

Social libertarianism sounds like letting people make their own choices to me. Your going down the road that leads to the soda tax. Why let people make their own decisions?

FWIW Thunder I can’t read the link right now because I’m at work and it is filtered. I don’t think American History is rooted in Libertarianism anyways. It’s been a slow roll away from it since the inception of this country. [/quote]

Short answer: yes, sometimes the government, as agent of society, decides what. Government isn’t the only agent that does so - family does, too, for example - but the answer is yes.

This highlights a crucial difference in how libertarians and others (mainly conservatives) think about Liberty. Libertarians think of Liberty as an End, in and of itself. Conservatives and liberals generally believe Liberty is a Means, and Liberty that doesn’t produce a good End isn’t worth protecting. (Conservatives and liberals disagree as to what is in and what is out to some extent, but they agree on that basic concept of Liberty as Means.)

Best quote I have seen that sums it up is from James Fitzjames Stephen, in his famous attack on “On Liberty” from Mill:

To me this question whether liberty is a good or a bad thing appears as irrational as the question whether fire is a good or a bad thing. It is both good and bad according to time, place, and circumstance, and a complete answer to the question, In what cases is liberty good and in what cases is it bad? would involve not merely a universal history of mankind, but a complete solution of the problems which such a history would offer.

Liberty isn’t an unqualified good. It can be good, but it doesn’t have to be. People can use their liberty to do very stupid and destructive things that require society to clean up the mess. The social libertinism I spoke of is the perfect example of that, and since society gets stuck with the bill to clean up a number of individuals’ mistakes, society gets to make a few demands of its own.

Our society has never protected or recognized Liberty as an End, and the desire by libertarians to do so is new, untried, and not historical. Calling it “freedom” without explaining how freedom can lead to a dark and destructive place just as much as it can lead to fulfillment doesn’t resolve the problem.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Liberty isn’t an unqualified good. It can be good, but it doesn’t have to be. People can use their liberty to do very stupid and destructive things that require society to clean up the mess. The social libertinism I spoke of is the perfect example of that, and since society gets stuck with the bill to clean up a number of individuals’ mistakes, society gets to make a few demands of its own.

Our society has never protected or recognized Liberty as an End, and the desire by libertarians to do so is new, untried, and not historical. Calling it “freedom” without explaining how freedom can lead to a dark and destructive place just as much as it can lead to fulfillment doesn’t resolve the problem.[/quote]

Can you be more specific? Where did “social libertarianism” screw things up, when, and how? I’m not sure I would say it has ever even been tried. When did the state not have a large role in what you do?

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Liberty isn’t an unqualified good. It can be good, but it doesn’t have to be. People can use their liberty to do very stupid and destructive things that require society to clean up the mess. The social libertinism I spoke of is the perfect example of that, and since society gets stuck with the bill to clean up a number of individuals’ mistakes, society gets to make a few demands of its own.

Our society has never protected or recognized Liberty as an End, and the desire by libertarians to do so is new, untried, and not historical. Calling it “freedom” without explaining how freedom can lead to a dark and destructive place just as much as it can lead to fulfillment doesn’t resolve the problem.[/quote]

Of course freedom can lead to dark places. People abuse drugs, people gamble, people make poor financial choices. Freedom means being free to make your own decisions and dealing with the consequences of those decisions. If it harms the individual then that is living with the decision the individual made. If it harms other people that is up to the court system.

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Liberty isn’t an unqualified good. It can be good, but it doesn’t have to be. People can use their liberty to do very stupid and destructive things that require society to clean up the mess. The social libertinism I spoke of is the perfect example of that, and since society gets stuck with the bill to clean up a number of individuals’ mistakes, society gets to make a few demands of its own.

Our society has never protected or recognized Liberty as an End, and the desire by libertarians to do so is new, untried, and not historical. Calling it “freedom” without explaining how freedom can lead to a dark and destructive place just as much as it can lead to fulfillment doesn’t resolve the problem.[/quote]

Of course freedom can lead to dark places. People abuse drugs, people gamble, people make poor financial choices. Freedom means being free to make your own decisions and dealing with the consequences of those decisions. If it harms the individual then that is living with the decision the individual made. If it harms other people that is up to the court system. [/quote]

False, because racism.

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Liberty isn’t an unqualified good. It can be good, but it doesn’t have to be. People can use their liberty to do very stupid and destructive things that require society to clean up the mess. The social libertinism I spoke of is the perfect example of that, and since society gets stuck with the bill to clean up a number of individuals’ mistakes, society gets to make a few demands of its own.

Our society has never protected or recognized Liberty as an End, and the desire by libertarians to do so is new, untried, and not historical. Calling it “freedom” without explaining how freedom can lead to a dark and destructive place just as much as it can lead to fulfillment doesn’t resolve the problem.[/quote]

Of course freedom can lead to dark places. People abuse drugs, people gamble, people make poor financial choices. Freedom means being free to make your own decisions and dealing with the consequences of those decisions. If it harms the individual then that is living with the decision the individual made. If it harms other people that is up to the court system. [/quote]

But the harmful effects rarely stay quarantined with the individual. They hurt the person’s family, and can hurt the community, amd if big enough, can hurt the country at large. We have never lived in a society where this didn’t happen or believed otherwise.

You mentioned a soda tax before. I am not sold on that as a fix, but there clearly is a problem. People exercise their liberty to eat whatever they want and get obese. As they do so, the experience bad health. What occurs as a result? Insurance premiums go up on healthy people, for one. Doctors’ offices get overoccupied dealing with these health problems - long waits, rising prices. Opportunity costs of the doctor providing some other medical service. Strains on the health care system generally. And so on.

Again, I am not saying a soda tax is the right solution - just using obesity (a result of individual liberty to enjoy gluttony) as an example to show that the harmful effects of individual choices isn’t always limited to the individual who makes them.

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Liberty isn’t an unqualified good. It can be good, but it doesn’t have to be. People can use their liberty to do very stupid and destructive things that require society to clean up the mess. The social libertinism I spoke of is the perfect example of that, and since society gets stuck with the bill to clean up a number of individuals’ mistakes, society gets to make a few demands of its own.

Our society has never protected or recognized Liberty as an End, and the desire by libertarians to do so is new, untried, and not historical. Calling it “freedom” without explaining how freedom can lead to a dark and destructive place just as much as it can lead to fulfillment doesn’t resolve the problem.[/quote]

Of course freedom can lead to dark places. People abuse drugs, people gamble, people make poor financial choices. Freedom means being free to make your own decisions and dealing with the consequences of those decisions. If it harms the individual then that is living with the decision the individual made. If it harms other people that is up to the court system. [/quote]

But when “freedom” creates a systemic cycle of poverty on certain people who are born into the economic and social conditions that arose from said "freedom’ then what does that even mean? Does a black man who lives in the Ghetto have the same ability to pursue happiness or financial success etc as a WASP born into a rich family who has private tuition and goes to an Ivy league college?

Sure there are some anomalies but the reality is some people have non-existent bootstraps and some peoples bootstraps go all the way up to the presidency. I don’t understand how some people can be so one sided, libertarians on one side, socialists on the extreme other. It seems too neat and lazy to believe in either extreme.

[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:

But when “freedom” creates a systemic cycle of poverty on certain people who are born into the economic and social conditions that arose from said "freedom’ then what does that even mean? Does a black man who lives in the Ghetto have the same ability to pursue happiness or financial success etc as a WASP born into a rich family who has private tuition and goes to an Ivy league college?

Sure there are some anomalies but the reality is some people have non-existent bootstraps and some peoples bootstraps go all the way up to the presidency. I don’t understand how some people can be so one sided, libertarians on one side, socialists on the extreme other. It seems too neat and lazy to believe in either extreme.
[/quote]

Freedom created poverty? In your opinion has government increasing its role made things better for the man in the ghetto? How so? And you’re sure none of those movements aren’t actually restricting him from rising in the first place?

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
But the harmful effects rarely stay quarantined with the individual. They hurt the person’s family, and can hurt the community, amd if big enough, can hurt the country at large. We have never lived in a society where this didn’t happen or believed otherwise.

You mentioned a soda tax before. I am not sold on that as a fix, but there clearly is a problem. People exercise their liberty to eat whatever they want and get obese. As they do so, the experience bad health. What occurs as a result? Insurance premiums go up on healthy people, for one. Doctors’ offices get overoccupied dealing with these health problems - long waits, rising prices. Opportunity costs of the doctor providing some other medical service. Strains on the health care system generally. And so on.

Again, I am not saying a soda tax is the right solution - just using obesity (a result of individual liberty to enjoy gluttony) as an example to show that the harmful effects of individual choices isn’t always limited to the individual who makes them.
[/quote]

Trade-offs will be made. Freedom isn’t perfect or leads to utopian existence. No one would ever say it does. Does increased government actions produce better outcomes? If so what is the evidence? And if restricting some freedom is good for “better” outcomes why not restrict more?

Why not ban Chick Fil A or McDonald’s or a casino? After all these could “hurt” someone’s family. Do we really want to live in a society where government officials determine what we can and cannot do in order to protect ourselves from the potential harm that we MAY do to ourselves?

You really want to live in that type of bubble? Look at the parents who are afraid to have their kids go play because something bad might happen. Is this level of fear increasing our quality of life?

[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:
But when “freedom” creates a systemic cycle of poverty on certain people who are born into the economic and social conditions that arose from said "freedom’ then what does that even mean? Does a black man who lives in the Ghetto have the same ability to pursue happiness or financial success etc as a WASP born into a rich family who has private tuition and goes to an Ivy league college?
[/quote]
In a hypothetical free society? Abso-fucking-lutely. “The same ability to pursue”=/=“The same ability to achieve.”

[quote]H factor wrote:
Does increased government actions produce better outcomes? If so what is the evidence? [/quote]

Various labor laws, like child labor laws, are a good example.

Because it isn’t an all or nothing situation. We just have to find a balance between the individual and the collective.

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Does increased government actions produce better outcomes? If so what is the evidence? [/quote]

Various labor laws, like child labor laws, are a good example.

Because it isn’t an all or nothing situation. We just have to find a balance between the individual and the collective. [/quote]

That is impossible. No one agrees where the line should be drawn. Your asking government officials to all come to the same conclusion about how much government is the minimum amount we need?

Has that resulted in more or less government intervention throughout history?

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
But the harmful effects rarely stay quarantined with the individual. They hurt the person’s family, and can hurt the community, amd if big enough, can hurt the country at large. We have never lived in a society where this didn’t happen or believed otherwise.

You mentioned a soda tax before. I am not sold on that as a fix, but there clearly is a problem. People exercise their liberty to eat whatever they want and get obese. As they do so, the experience bad health. What occurs as a result? Insurance premiums go up on healthy people, for one. Doctors’ offices get overoccupied dealing with these health problems - long waits, rising prices. Opportunity costs of the doctor providing some other medical service. Strains on the health care system generally. And so on.

Again, I am not saying a soda tax is the right solution - just using obesity (a result of individual liberty to enjoy gluttony) as an example to show that the harmful effects of individual choices isn’t always limited to the individual who makes them.
[/quote]

Trade-offs will be made. Freedom isn’t perfect or leads to utopian existence. No one would ever say it does. Does increased government actions produce better outcomes? If so what is the evidence? And if restricting some freedom is good for “better” outcomes why not restrict more?

Why not ban Chick Fil A or McDonald’s or a casino? After all these could “hurt” someone’s family. Do we really want to live in a society where government officials determine what we can and cannot do in order to protect ourselves from the potential harm that we MAY do to ourselves?

You really want to live in that type of bubble? Look at the parents who are afraid to have their kids go play because something bad might happen. Is this level of fear increasing our quality of life? [/quote]

Sounds like someone needs a little of what Homer is having.

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Does increased government actions produce better outcomes? If so what is the evidence? [/quote]

Various labor laws, like child labor laws, are a good example.

Because it isn’t an all or nothing situation. We just have to find a balance between the individual and the collective. [/quote]

That is impossible. No one agrees where the line should be drawn. [/quote]

I guess we should just throw the towel in then…

It’s a moving target that needs to be continuously adjusted. That’s the reality of this species. There is no single solution that will work for all of time.

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Does increased government actions produce better outcomes? If so what is the evidence? [/quote]

Various labor laws, like child labor laws, are a good example.

Because it isn’t an all or nothing situation. We just have to find a balance between the individual and the collective. [/quote]

That is impossible. No one agrees where the line should be drawn. [/quote]

I guess we should just throw the towel in then…

It’s a moving target that needs to be continuously adjusted. That’s the reality of this species. There is no single solution that will work for all of time.
[/quote]

I edited my post, but the fact remains. What you’re saying is impossible. You post examples in the stupid thread every single day of the target moving in places it should not don’t you?

I agree on no single solution. That is because many of the issues of our day have no solutions that are going to work all the time and lead to utopia.

Freedom is typically better than the alternative in the vast majority of things we can discuss imo.

[quote]H factor wrote:
Your asking government officials to all come to the same conclusion about how much government is the minimum amount we need? [/quote]

No, I’m asking the people to compromises with each other to come to an amiable situation for each other.

[quote]
Has that resulted in more or less government intervention throughout history? [/quote]

That depends on how you look at it I would think. Does the U.S. government intervene more or less than those of the past? I’d say the answer is a resounding no.

President Obama hasn’t ordered any Americans executed for crimes against the crown ordained to him by God has he?

Has Congress declared war on X nation and used conquered slaves in the arena as entertainment? I believe not.

We are pretty darn free and there is still progress to be made.

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
Does increased government actions produce better outcomes? If so what is the evidence? [/quote]

Various labor laws, like child labor laws, are a good example.

Because it isn’t an all or nothing situation. We just have to find a balance between the individual and the collective. [/quote]

That is impossible. No one agrees where the line should be drawn. Your asking government officials to all come to the same conclusion about how much government is the minimum amount we need?

Has that resulted in more or less government intervention throughout history? [/quote]

I wonder if child labor laws would produce a “better” result without the welfare programs Republicans rail against? I wonder if child labor laws produce a better result for talented children with shit parents? na-na-na-na-na-na-leader…LEADER! I love Leader!

[quote]H factor wrote:
What you’re saying is impossible. [/quote]

So? I’d rather reach for the impossible and fall short than just throw in the towel.

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
That depends on how you look at it I would think. Does the U.S. government intervene more or less than those of the past? I’d say the answer is a resounding no.[/quote]
Freudian slip?

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
That depends on how you look at it I would think. Does the U.S. government intervene more or less than those of the past? I’d say the answer is a resounding no.[/quote]
Freudian slip?
[/quote]

I don’t follow.