Libertarianism/ Fun

[PsYcHo]

I specifically put this in "Fun" because I don't really have a clear point to make, or specific questions to ask. Some people are unclear on Libertarianism, and I find Penn Jillette both entertaining and informative, so maybe he can explain it better than I can.

Here's an 18 minute video of him explaining Libertarianism which mostly coincides with my own beliefs. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGAO100hYcQ

This is the fun topic, so feel free to put forth any questions or responses.

I will ask one question; If you disagree with the main premise of his thoughts on Libertarianism, what parts do you disagree with and why? (You are not being detained, and you do not have to answer.. )

[carnap]

I listened to the first 5 minutes or so and found his thinking to be largely incoherent. Take the drug example, drugs don't just impact individuals but society as a whole. Drug addiction has a variety of negative outcomes only some of which are for the individual doing drugs. So why should society turn a blind eye towards the actions of the drug addict when they have impacts on themselves? Many non-libertarians agree that personal choice should be upheld when the impact of that choice is largely isolated to the individual or individuals involved in the choice.

Libertarianism is fine so long as you're fine with people dying in the streets due to their personal choices/errors including choices that they are only partially responsible for....

[knot]

Libertarianism is one of those terms that's not well-defined, and can be either very reasonable or completely insane depending on how it's used.

If libertarianism is "the individual above everything else", then it doesn't make sense to me, since an individual can only ignore the collective for so long until they end up hurting themselves, so ultimately it becomes self-defeating.

The version Penn lays out seems reasonable and not radical. Known libertarian pioneers, such as Friedman, Sowell or Hayek, would probably even describe Penn as a socialist

Anyways, libertarians have made some good points about certain topics and given me new perspectives on things like the minimum wage, welfare and preferential policies. But political ideologies are more harmful than useful, since issues should be judged on case by case basis anyway, and you can't answer everything with a ready-made framework.

Maybe of interest:

"Why libertarianism is a marginal idea and not a universal value | Steven Pinker"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obts3Y-XRjg

[PsYcHo]

So why should society turn a blind eye towards the actions of the drug addict when they have impacts on themselves?

Sorry I haven't responded, due to reasons I'm going to be much busier and on the forum less frequently for a bit, but I thought this was worth addressing.

At the point that the drug addict impacts someone else's life, (stealing, murder, or any crime against another person or their property) then it is no longer about the drug of choice they are on, but they actions they take while on that drug.

If someone works a job, and smokes crack without stealing or hurting people, why shouldn't they be allowed to smoke crack? Telling someone you know what is best for them because soooo many others make bad choices isn't freedom. If this is truly your stance, and you are also for alcohol being prohibited again, then at least I'll understand your reasoning, but I'll still disagree.

And honestly, I have no problem with people dying in the street from a personal choice as long as they harm no one else.

They already are. You just aren't seeing it.

[carnap]

At the point that the drug addict impacts someone else's life, (stealing, murder, or any crime against another person or their property) then it is no longer about the drug of choice they are on, but they actions they take while on that drug.

There are to issues here. Firstly most drugs alter people's ability to make good rational decisions so the possibility of their behavior impacting others is high due to the very nature of the drugs. Secondly drug use has a variety of negative externalities for commodities precisely because they alter people's decision making and motivation. This includes health issues which society has to pay for unless you're willing to just let the people die from over-doses and other drug related issues.

Laws against drug use exist to deal with the various negative externalities drug users create for society.

If someone works a job, and smokes crack without stealing or hurting people, why shouldn't they be allowed to smoke crack? Telling someone you know what is best for them because soooo many others make bad choices isn't freedom. If this is truly your stance, and you are also for alcohol being prohibited again, then at least I'll understand your reasoning, but I'll still disagree.

If the typical crack addict was a productive citizen that wasn't causing issues for others there would be no reason to ban the substance, but its precisely because this isn't true that we have laws against its use. The case for alcohol is different. There is certainly a subset of the population that is prone to alcoholism and that has a variety of negative consequences but most people are able to consume it responsibly.

And honestly, I have no problem with people dying in the street from a personal choice as long as they harm no one else.

So you'd have no issue with millions of children, drug addicts, etc dying because they weren't born with the right resources?

But the reality is that people won't just die in the streets, they will resort to "criminal" activity to gain the resources they lack. I reckon your libertarian society won't be banning guns?