Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Man With Beard]

The reason that libertarians would retain a public police force, by the way, is that they believe that a police force is necessary to enforce the laws that libertarians retain, and they think that a private police force wouldn't be feasible because it would too easily be corrupted, so that it's not actually upholding the laws--it would only be enforcing what its owners want it to enforce.

However, libertarians do not believe that those who cannot afford policing services should get policing services - so even a "public" libertarian police force is not all that public.

[Terrapin Station]

The reason that libertarians would retain a public police force, by the way, is that they believe that a police force is necessary to enforce the laws that libertarians retain, and they think that a private police force wouldn't be feasible because it would too easily be corrupted, so that it's not actually upholding the laws--it would only be enforcing what its owners want it to enforce.

However, libertarians do not believe that those who cannot afford policing services should get policing services - so even a "public" libertarian police force is not all that public.

That's not true (at least not overall). Where are you getting that from?

[Arjen]

=====================================
Chapter 2
=====================================

I think that we should redefine the political field in this way:
1) Moderation on one side, where some laws exist to protect individual rights and create possibilities for everyone to enterprise and supply equality under the law.
2) Totalitarianism on the other side; be it by the state to suppress individual freedoms to protect the masses against the individual, or be it by enterprises, created by individuals in order to exploit the masses. Because both kinds have the same effect: every individual loses human rights, while being exploited by large enterprises, ruled over by some form of elite.

===========================================

What do all of you think?

[h_k_s]

So are you impressed yet? Or do I need to throw more verbiage at you?

At any rate, Plato and Aristotle are our primary philosophical sources. Herodotus also summaries the pro's and con's of democracy versus monarchy in comparing the Athenians with the Persians.

I like your description. It is quite good in many ways. But, I am looking for an answer in my quest :) (see the above post).

Thanks in advance!

There is no one answer. There is only a long history of debate about it.

You have stumbled on a question that has no cut and dried answer.

There are several of these in philosophy, such as is there One God, Many Gods, or no gods. Aristotle determined that were around 45 or so Gods. It is a philosophical question due to the philosophical issues of First Cause, Prime Mover, etc.

But your question specifically has a plethora of proposals such as unlimited and limited direct democracy, unlimited and limited republican democracy, dictatorship, monarchy, etc.

You read Plato's "Republic" right? That's his answer: a philosophical republic.

[Arjen]

h_k_s I did read politeia. You might want to read Zizek's "Did somebody say totalitarianism?" I think he defines the differences between a totalitarian and open/free society nicely.

How do you like my 2nd chapter question: a seperation betwern moderate and totalitarian governments (above)?

[Man With Beard]

However, libertarians do not believe that those who cannot afford policing services should get policing services - so even a "public" libertarian police force is not all that public.

That's not true (at least not overall). Where are you getting that from?

From libertarians, including a libertarian philosophy professor. It certainly logically follows from the premises - it would be wrong to make someone pay taxes to provide police services to someone else.

I realize that there is a huge variety of specific libertarian beliefs, but they all seem to be against providing public services to those who cannot pay for them.

[Man With Beard]

That's not true (at least not overall). Where are you getting that from?

From libertarians, including a libertarian philosophy professor. It certainly logically follows from the premises - it would be wrong to make someone pay taxes to provide police services to someone else.

I realize that there is a huge variety of specific libertarian beliefs, but they all seem to be against providing public services to those who cannot pay for them - or they mix libertarianism with other ideologies.

[Arjen]

Which is why identity politics is so destructive. Following the libertarian identity, a person would tend to go along with this idea (opening the way to repression by thugs). No one would agree to this if just thinking: "what will I do when a burglar points a gun at me"?

[Terrapin Station]

That's not true (at least not overall). Where are you getting that from?

From libertarians, including a libertarian philosophy professor. It certainly logically follows from the premises - it would be wrong to make someone pay taxes to provide police services to someone else.

I realize that there is a huge variety of specific libertarian beliefs, but they all seem to be against providing public services to those who cannot pay for them - or they mix libertarianism with other ideologies.

So basically from two-three people you've talked to online.

Again, this is not at all the standard libertarian view. I've interacted with literally hundreds of libertarians and again I was involved with the US Libertarian party on a few different levels. I never ran into a single libertarian in that who felt that policing should hinge on being able to pay for it. The vast majority of Libertarians are in favor of a general fund (not necessarily achieved via taxes--alternatives include things like lotteries or other government business ventures, where a portion of the proceeds creates a general public fund) that pays for things like police, fire departments, court systems, emergency health care, etc., where access to those services is not at all dependent on being able to directly pay for them.

The standard libertarian view has jack$h|t to do with "following logically" from some overarching principle, as if we're worshipping a principle. It has to do with wanting much smaller government, much more personal freedom, in a practical manner.

[Arjen]

I like that. In the end, politics is a way to make living together acceotible and doable for everyone. And yes, tbe more freedom, the better. But when needed, an extra law should be created. Practical.

[Steve3007]

...but they all seem to be against providing public services to those who cannot pay for them - or they mix libertarianism with other ideologies.

I think you're lumping different things together and calling them "public services" in a way that Libertarians would disagree with.

My understanding of Libertarianism, in general, is that it regards it as wrong to impose restrictions on people's freedoms unless it is to stop them from directly causing physical harm to others against their will, to protect property rights, to uphold freely entered contractual agreements and to protect and maintain commons. General principle: to stop people from using their freedom to infringe on the freedom of others. Taxation (the lawful, non-consensual confiscation of another person's lawfully acquired wealth) is one such imposition. Policing and judicial services are part of the system for enforcing those things. Therefore it's regarded as morally permissible to use taxation to fund them. Things like healthcare and education are not regarded as part of that system so it's not regarded as morally permissible to use taxation (or any other non-consensual confiscation of wealth or property) to fund them.

My own objections to Libertarianism have generally centred on the limited extent to which it recognizes various things as commons and its oversimplification of causal relationships between the things people are/aren't legally allowed to do and the wider, often long term and/or indirect, consequences for society as a whole. The notion that society, as a whole, is not a thing in itself but is a collective term for a bunch of individuals is often discussed in that context.

[Steve3007]

Error in the first sentence: "in a way that Libertarians would disagree with" - should read "wouldn't".

[Steve3007]

Jeez I'm make a real mess of this post. If anyone's interested, please ignore the above correction. The first post was actually correct.

[Terrapin Station]

Yeah, the reason that I left behind being a "party line Libertarian" is simply because I came to realize that a lot of people are in bad situations/dire straits/etc. for very complex reasons, where it's not a simple matter of wanting to get out of that situation and then they can get out of it, AND via feeling that it's not morally right for those people to be stuck in those bad situations/dire straits/etc. indefinitely, losing years of their life to that, just because we think they should be able to turn that around.

So while I'm still Libertarian in many respects, I'm no longer Libertarian in terms of broader economic/social structure issues.

But definitely very few Libertarians think that some people shouldn't have the benefit of police protection, fire departments, public court systems, etc.

[Steve3007]

Yeah, the reason that I left behind being a "party line Libertarian" is simply because I came to realize that a lot of people are in bad situations/dire straits/etc...

Have you ever discussed Libertarianism with GE Morton? I know you've discussed and disagreed on some other things but I don't remember seeing you discuss that. I ask because he seems to be what you describe as a "party line" Libertarian and has defended that brand of strict Libertarianism here several times.