h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hi there, I'm slightly confused as to what libertarianism is about, perhaps you can help? It sounds, at first, like libertarianism is similar to anarchism, advocating minimal state interference. However, I suspect that libertarians would sanction government enforcement of private property rights, whereas an anarchist thinks that "property is theft". Isn't government enforcement of private property rights a very large aspect of state control, and hence, by libertarian logic, should be removed?

Also, would the libertarian party advocate a redistribution of wealth and property before removing the state (I could see the logic of this position, it would be almost anarchism), or would it proceed with the current distributions of wealth and property? If the latter, wouldn't the effect of this be to eternally confound the possibility of the poor or the children of the poor from ever escaping from poverty? In this light, what justification can there be for libertarianism?

Libertarianism advocates minimal state interference. Anarchism advocates *no* state interference. Libertarians accept the fact that government is a necessary evil. Governments have a nasty habit of exceeding their authority, and we recognize the necessity of keeping them in check. Therefore, we define certain roles that we require the government to fill, and try to keep them out of everything else.

One of those roles is the protection of private property. Therefore, government enforcement of private property rights is one of their necessary functions.

The libertarians do not advocate removing the state, so your second question is moot. We simply advocate the limiting of the state's interference in people's lives. There would be no redistribution of wealth.

As for escaping poverty, I don't follow your logic. Libertarians are firm believers in free market capitalism. In such a market, merit counts for more than breeding. As long as education is available to all, the individual has many opportunities to escape poverty. I know that there are some extra advantages afforded to those who start out with wealt, as opposed to those who start without, but the ones who start without generally have a greater motivation, and they become your real achievers. Or not. It's up to them.

Do you have a link for a detailed statement of libertarian policy? I couldn't find one on the self-gov site you mentioned in the article. For example, would the libertarian party support the UN Declaration of Human Rights? You can find the declaration at: [URL removed by moderator] (I've written the URL like that since H2G2 seem to be censoring URLs now). I'll assume, for the moment, that it would. If so, I draw your attention to article 26(1): "Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit." Also, article 25(1): "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control." This seems to suggest that state provided health, social services and security (this is mentioned in article 22), education would have to be provided (at least for those who couldn't afford it), but this seems to be in contradiction with some of the libertarian party stuff on the self-gov website. There are also articles which say that there should be limits on the number of hours people are allowed to work, free to join trade unions, right to equal pay for equal work, protection against unemployment. If you add these up and factor in the military, this adds up to almost all government spending. However, libertarians seem to advocate cutting most of the government's expenditure (they'd have to to eliminate taxes, right?) so it seems as though libertarianism is incompatible with human rights, at least as far as the UN declaration is concerned. Doesn't this give you grounds for concern?

Secondly, re free market capitalism. I would argue that for free market capitalism to be a good thing (for example, for merit to count more than breeding), some conditions have to apply. First of all, people have to be in a position where they have the bargaining power to choose a job which doesn't exploit them. This requires them to have enough capital to be able to live on, at least for a while, or for the state to provide for their needs whilst unemployed. Again, this seems to require social security spending. Also, the economic arguments for free markets don't work unless there are a sufficient number of firms producing each product that no firm can fix prices, this requires regulation to be achieved. This again seems contrary to the principles of libertarianism. Finally, I don't buy the argument that those with less will be motivated to achieve more. Is there any evidence to support this claim?

Summing up, I think that libertarianism seems to be incompatible with human rights and that a belief in free market capitalism combined with a belief in removing most government regulation is contradictory. Obviously I won't be voting for them, but I'd be interested to hear your response to the points above.

Your arguments sound like they're from a socialist perspective, but I've come to expect that on this site. I appreciate your concerns, but you're being a bit extreme.

First, on the Declaration of Human Rights: I'm American, and we never ratified that declaration. That's because we're pretty comfortable with our own rights as guaranteed in the Constitution. In fact, the evolutionary trail of the Declaration of Human Rights began there. But we feel that there are certain socialist agenda items that are contained in there that we don't feel comfortable with. For example, you mentioned unemployment. We have unemployment insurance, but we don't want it to continue indefinitely, so we put a limit on how long you can collect it. Your Declaration would force us to pay it forever, and we don't want to do that. It promotes sloth.

Libertarians would not do away with education, but would change the way it is done. The government schools have no competition, and therefore no motivation to innovate, upgrade, and excel. Although our teachers are generally well-motivated because they care about their students' futures, the administrative end bungles things horrifically. By privatising education, individual schools would compete for students, creating a technological boom in the classroom and streamlining the expenses. Under the current bureaucratic mess, rampant waste has created a situation where, in spite of the available money, arts programs are being shut down. Education would still be free, but the way that it is administered would be changed, for the better.

We're not talking about cutting loose the disabled and the elderly here. Social Security is a nightmare here, because it was badly mismanaged. So now they're talking about having their own personal retirement account, rather than depend on the government. It has the benefit of paying off for what you've worked for yourself, and it generates more interest. People know they have to plan for their retirement. If they don't, then there is no reason why they should come to the state and say "I was too stupid to save any money, please take care of me for the rest of my life."

Employee rights are not guarded by a government regulatory body. They simply pass laws about working conditions. If the working conditions are not up to code, it can be taken to litigation by the employee. A government can pass laws guaranteeing conditions, benefits, etc. without driving up the cost of government. But another thing you're missing is that employment is subject to the same market forces of supply and demand. So the more skills a worker possesses, the more he can demand in compensation.

As for free markets, your concern is with a monopoly, which is, incidentally, an enemy of a free market. The Federal Trade Commission does not make up a significant part of the federal government.

As for cutting government fat, the single largest portion of the US federal budget is the military. We would cut that down to a force that would provide for the national defense, rather than the offensive unit it is, and keep it at home and out of places where it clearly isn't wanted, anyway. The savings would be phenomenal.

Next comes the aforementioned Social Security bungle, which would be eliminated completely. More huge savings. The people who have been contributing to it and counting on it all their lives, as well as those who are currently receiving it, would be permitted to keep their benefits, but as they age and die, it would trickle out to nothing. The current generation would begin their mandated insurance on their own with the money they saved from paying for SSI, and they would be better off in the long run. Meanwhile, those surviving SSI benefactors would get their money from government land sales.

Privatised schooling would reap more savings. Government entities that cannot explain themselves would be eliminated. The expensive drug war would end.

You can do all of this and save billions upon billions in tax dollars, and still protect property rights, workers rights, free markets, the environment, and anything else you want to protect. And all of that money would go back into people's pockets, so that they can afford their own retirement, medical care, living conditions, etc. without relying on the feds to do it for them. And when people manage their own, they do a far better job of it than any impersonal government can. They cannot understand your personal, individual needs, and they have to balance your specific needs against the needs of the whole. That's why they screw up everything they touch. All of that extra money would infuse the economy, creating jobs, wealth, and all the social security you really need.

My problem with libertarianism is, basically, that it sounds rather brutal to me. You say 'If they don't, then there is no reason why they should come to the state and say "I was too stupid to save any money, please take care of me for the rest of my life."' - but what do you if they don't? Let them die of cold, poverty and hunger on the streets? Surely not? Similarly for unemployment benefit. As to private schooling, I have very sincere doubts about how well market forces would provide in this area. And what about people who couldn't afford it? Presumably the more expensive schools would be better than the cheaper ones, so this would create even more of an education gap than there is now. At least there are some things we can agree on though, cutting the military budget and ending the war on drugs. I would use the money to make the schools better, in America I would make healthcare free for all, and so on. Although I'm not really left wing in the same way that libertarians aren't right wing, I lean to the left in the same way that libertarians lean to the right. In fact, I almost agree with the fundamental motivations for libertarianism, getting rid of a government which favours the rich (OK maybe you wouldn't agree with this one), allowing people to control their own lives, and so on, but I cannot agree with your method. It seems to have no compassion or humanity.

It does have quite a bit of compassion, if you dig a bit deeper. With these means, you put money into the pockets of the poor. They can afford more food, better shelter, medical insurance, and everything else better when you do this. It also helps the rest of the population, so the economy surges. Jobs are created. Standard of living improves.

Libertarianism is based on the concept that people know what is best for them, and that they can handle their own affairs better than anyone else, especially since they are the primary beneficiaries. Left-wing liberalism is based on the concept that people cannot take care of themselves, so the government has to. Which sounds better?

We're not advocating the disestablishment of all assistance, but we don't necessarily think it should come from the government. Private NGO's do a much better job of helping people directly. People who are incapable of working will continue to receive disability from their employers. Families help family members better than the government can.

It does create an atmosphere of personal responsibility. That may seem heartless to you, but it is only cruel to irresponsible people. If we're going to give people the only real right, that to do as they d*****d well please, then we should give them the only real responsibility... to suffer the consequences.

"Help me! I got my girlfriend pregnant, and we're only 17!" Suffer the consequences. You had sex ed at age 11. You have no excuse.

"Help me! I lived at the end of my means for my entire life, and now I have nothing on which to retire!" Suffer the consequences. They've told you to start planning for your retirement since you took your first job. You have no excuse.

"Help me! I dropped out of school to do drugs, got arrested a bunch of times, and now I can't get hired anywhere!" Suffer the consequences. Those of us who were smart enough to finish school and get employed have been supporting you for too long already, and it's not fair to us. You were bombarded with anti-drug propaganda from the time you could walk. You have no excuse.

But then, it's my argument that government programs create the demand for government programs. How much teen pregnancy did we have before teen pregnancy became government funded?

Colonel Sellers. All this sounds perfectly wonderful. People helping people. Responsibility and freedom. All things I firmly believe in, and I am sure the most ardent Christian right-winger would agree, too. However, Libertarians assume too much. They assume there is only one right and the rest is wrong. They assume everyone who is in trouble is there because of free will. That is not the case. Only the rich and well educated would prosper in a purely libertarian society. Do we need libertarian ideas? Most assuredly. However, like communism, socialism and democracy, libertarianism is flawed. It seeks one answer to many questions. And I don't know the answers to all the questions.

"Suffer the consequences... You have no excuse." - this is exactly what I mean by having no compassion. Even if it is their own fault (whatever that means), they are still people and if a libertarian society would let them suffer (for whatever the reasons or lack of them), then it is no society at all, it is uncivilised and barbaric. That, of course, is a personal view. You say that left-liberalism is based on the concept that people cannot take of themselves, my position (which I presume you think is left-liberalism) is that those who can provide for themselves can and will do so, and those who can't are provided for by the state. I too would argue for a minimal state, but only to the extent that we can remain civilised. If your assumption that people can provide for themselves is right, nobody will be in the position of needing the state to help them, if you are wrong then people will suffer. I think this justifies the state in helping people. Are libertarians so uncharitable that giving away a small portion of their income to help the weakest is too much? I'm sorry if this seems like a personal attack, it isn't supposed to be, I just find it deeply disturbing and upsetting that you and other libertarians think like this.

A small portion of their income? Last time I looked, a third of my pay is taken before I get it. Then still more comes out whenever I spend it. Taxes eat up 40% of my total income. That is *not* a small portion.

Your argument assumes that the state is the only place a person can get aid. People can aid each other. People can organize to aid many. People can and do perform this, and perform it better than the government does.

A co-worker of mine has a daughter who is mentally retarded. She lives by herself, works a steady job, pays her bills, and generally takes complete care of herself without government assistance. She can do it. So what is everyone else's excuse?

Let me give you a scenario under libertarian ideals: A woman with three children is being abused by her husband. She leaves him, but she has no job skills, because she screwed around in school. Her family takes her in, helping her to take care of the kids while she gets out into the job world. Helped by the family's network of friends, she shortly lands a job tending bar. She gets to standing on her own, and moves herself and her kids into their own apartment.

And now, under the current welfare state: Woman realizes she is eligible for welfare, so she applies and receives it. Then she finds a job, but realizes that she wouldn't make significantly more by bartending full-time than she would for nothing on welfare. She arranges with the owners to "volunteer" her time, and she gets paid under the table, and doesn't have to claim her tips as wages. Continues to live off of the government teat, even though she doesn't need it.

You may think this is fanciful, but first let me tell you that I have direct experience with both types of scenarios. In fact, scenario 1 is somewhat autobiographical. My family is too proud to accept government assistance. In fact, when I was un-and partially employed for six months, I managed just fine without ever applying for the unemployment insurance which you could say I had rightfully earned. But we are an exception. People accept government aid because it is the easy answer. Everyone needs a little help sometime, which is why I support unemployment, even though I declined to draw it. But the other government programs are too habit forming. Rather than help the problem, they create new ones. Let people figure out on their own how best to help themselves.

As for Zmrzlina's concern, we're not answering all questions with the same answer. We're repudiating the answer that has been used for the last 70 years. Government interference is *not* the answer. People can answer their own problems best themselves. And it means that there is an individual answer to each unique problem, rather than applying a blanket, stereotypical response. That is the failure of left-wing liberalism.

Begining with your example.

"A woman with three children is being abused by her husband. She leaves him..." Now let makes this not one extreme or the other, like you have done...like I see in many libertarian examples.

She leaves him, and she didn't screw around in school, so she has wonderful job skills. However, her eldest child is only 10 and she doesn't have family living nearby. Quality childcare is terribly expensive, so she is has to find a job that she can work after school hours so she can get a high school student to watch her children. What kind of jobs might be available like that...mostly sales and food service. The work is drugery, her skills wasted and she is not home when her children need her most. She does however find a job with a company that has daycare on-site, which is more than likely funded at least in part by the state. This is not an ideal situation for child, but it allows her to work hours that will let her be home when her children are home. In addition, she is able to take a class in computers one night a week at a state university or college which she wouldn't be able to afford if it were a private institution. That class allows her to build on her skills and improve her living conditions and the opportunities for her children.

"We're repudiating the answer that has been used for the last 70 years." I reject the last 70 years of answers, too. Only I am not willing to let others suffer the situations their "free will" put them in (with exceptions). Free will is only free when it is easily exercise.

True, people can aid each other. However, this is not very reliable. Your second last paragraph at least gives me some understanding of why you think what you do. As someone who has managed to do well, despite adversity, (is this a reasonable summary?) you have very little respect for those who don't. Am I right? The problem, for me, is that although there are isolated cases, like perhaps your own, where exceptional people can break through from being badly off to being well off, there are large barriers in their way. Anyone who isn't completely stupid or very unlucky can live a perfectly satisfactory lifestyle if they were born of a wealthyish family, got a good education, good connections from school and so on. It is very difficult to do things the other way round. I find it very strange that those people who do manage it tend to have such little sympathy for those who haven't managed it.

I don't think my story is at all exceptional. I think it can be the rule, if people just apply themselves. As far as people helping each other, that's what builds a sense of community. I recommend that you visit a third-world country and make some comparisons. They value family and community to such a degree that it staggers the imagination. Why? Because they *can't* depend on the government for assistance, so they *have* to help each other. Meanwhile, in Western civilization, we pay exhorbitant taxes, and our charitable feelings are used up. So we tell them to go talk to the government, and turn our backs. Now their needs are in the hands of some self-important bureaucrat who sees them as a statistic at best, an annoyance at worst.

As for people who rise up on their own having little respect for those who don't, it's because those who rise realize how easy it is, and how much people control their own destinies. We see those who remain in poverty as choosing to do so by continuing their bad or lazy habits. Why help them, when they could so easily help themselves?