Something I don't understand about Libertarianism

[Atreus21]

When I speak to or about Libertarians, it seems that, above all, they wish to be left alone by the government, so that they may live their lives largely apart from government meddling.

While I understand the ideal behind this stance, it raises some questions for me.

The first of which is: Why do we clamor about the importance of voting when we don't want our elected officials to touch us?

The second, and more complex: Do we have a right to privacy, and therefore do we have the right to demand that government leave us alone?

My answer to that is no, we do not and should not have a general right to privacy. When we elect a government, we enter into the Social Contract. That is, we enter into a contractual obligation with the government in which we acknowledge that we are willing to sacrifice some liberties so that the government and society can function and provide services. Moreoever, we are dishonest when we draw benefits from society while claiming freedom from the contractual obligation upon which those benefits are contingent.

I pull this from J.S. Mill's "On Liberty."

Thoughts, please. Open for discussion.

 

[bamacre]

In regards to your first question, we vote because the government does have jobs to do. This isn't Anarchism.

Your second question is rather broad. What exactly do you mean by "privacy?"

Government should be protecting our rights and liberties, that is what the Constitution says, it is a contract with the people, promising to do so. The government can provide services while keeping that promise. And there is nothing dishonest about being the recipient of government service. This is a government for the people and by the people.

 

[Arkaign]

"My answer to that is no, we do not and should not have a general right to privacy."

^^^

Dumbest line of rotten bullshit I've read here this year, and that includes TLC's raving and rambling diatribes.

0/5

 

[Toasthead]

The Untied States government should be just big enough to provide us safety from aggressor nations. They should not 'take care of us' socially or financially. They should not care what we do so long as it does not interfere with their primary goal of keeping us safe from aggressor nations.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Toasthead
The Untied States government should be just big enough to provide us safety from aggressor nations. They should not 'take care of us' socially or financially. They should not care what we do so long as it does not interfere with their primary goal of keeping us safe from aggressor nations.

So, if I kill my neighbor, the government aught not to care?

They should care because in doing so, I trampled on my neighbor's rights.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: bamacre
In regards to your first question, we vote because the government does have jobs to do. This isn't Anarchism.

Well, but that's my point. Government can't do its job without being able to touch the citizenry, yet that's precisely what supporters of a right to privacy want of them. To ask to be left alone by government is, to me, to ask that there be no government.

Your second question is rather broad. What exactly do you mean by "privacy?"

Government should be protecting our rights and liberties, that is what the Constitution says, it is a contract with the people, promising to do so. The government can provide services while keeping that promise. And there is nothing dishonest about being the recipient of government service. This is a government for the people and by the people.

I'm glad you ask what I mean by privacy. What I mean is what everyone means, and that is privacy in any and every sense of the word.

Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? That's because it is. We can't expect a right to absolute privacy, because being a part of society means being part of a whole, which means you can't have privacy, at least not absolutely. Yet people cite a right to privacy seemingly whenever its convenient. The right to privacy, as established in Griswold v. Connecticut, was cited to support Abortion, though I don't want to open that can of worms.

I suppose this rant of mine isn't so much against Libertarianism than against the so-called right to privacy.

There's nothing dishonest about being the recipient of government service, I agree. But those services come at a cost. It's a contract. We give up some liberty, and they provide us with services. Yet we cry foul seemingly whenever we have to give up any liberties in order for Government to establish a different function, and that's dishonest.

I know I'm speaking very broadly. It's not easy to argue in specific terms about something so broad as "privacy."

Certainly there are some rights to confidentiality in some matters, I'll concede.

 

[Moonbeam]

I don't understand Libertarians or what they believe so I don't know how to answer in libertarian fashion, but:

"When I speak to or about Libertarians, it seems that, above all, they wish to be left alone by the government, so that they may live their lives largely apart from government meddling."

What is the problem here is the lives they want to lead apart form government don't meddle in other people's affairs?

"While I understand the ideal behind this stance, it raises some questions for me.

The first of which is: Why do we clamor about the importance of voting when we don't want our elected officials to touch us?"

Why wouldn it not be important to vote for people who will leave you alone?

"The second, and more complex: Do we have a right to privacy, and therefore do we have the right to demand that government leave us alone?

My answer to that is no, we do not and should not have a general right to privacy. When we elect a government, we enter into the Social Contract. That is, we enter into a contractual obligation with the government in which we acknowledge that we are willing to sacrifice some liberties so that the government and society can function and provide services. Moreoever, we are dishonest when we draw benefits from society while claiming freedom from the contractual obligation upon which those benefits are contingent."

What contract do we enter into that abrogates our right to privacy? Isn't it that our rights are ours so long as we don't violate the rights of others, including the right of privacy? Isn't the benefit we draw from contractual obligations, like the right of a private life, the result of honoring that contract with others by allowing them their own right to it? The only contingent upon our rights is that we respect those identical rights for others, no?

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Why do we clamor about the importance of voting when we don't want our elected officials to touch us?

You cannot change the system without either seceding from it or taking control of it. For the peaceful course of action it is very important to vote in liberals (not socialist) and conservatives (not neocon) who make up the libertarian side of both parties.

Then we?d have the ability to restore our constitutional rights starting with the 10th.

The second, and more complex: Do we have a right to privacy, and therefore do we have the right to demand that government leave us alone?

Did you ever read the declaration of independence? I believe it spells out the sort of thing we seek. Demands against government are no so much based on ?privacy? as much as the demands are meant to uphold and safeguard all our inherent rights. The declaration states it is our duty to abolish governments that trample those rights and to institute new government.

This isn?t a call for anarchy; it?s a call to form a government that ensures our rights. Privacy is one of those rights, but it's certainly not the sole focus of liberty. The first 10 amendments are all important and need to be upheld equally.

My solution? Localized authority. Continue collaboration between the states to fund projects, but the states are free to contribute to or remove themselves from those projects giving them the local authority over their people.

The smaller a government is, the more democratic it is. I believe this, and believe 50 states are more difficult to corrupt and sabotage than a single centralized entity.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

What contract do we enter into that abrogates our right to privacy? Isn't it that our rights are ours so long as we don't violate the rights of others, including the right of privacy? Isn't the benefit we draw from contractual obligations, like the right of a private life, the result of honoring that contract with others by allowing them their own right to it? The only contingent upon our rights is that we respect those identical rights for others, no?

I would agree, but what happens if we don't respect the rights of others?

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
I would agree, but what happens if we don't respect the rights of others?

Your local government whoops you.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Why do we clamor about the importance of voting when we don't want our elected officials to touch us?

You cannot change the system without either seceding from it or taking control of it. For the peaceful course of action it is very important to vote in liberals (not socialist) and conservatives (not neocon) who make up the libertarian side of both parties.

Then we?d have the ability to restore our constitutional rights starting with the 10th.

The second, and more complex: Do we have a right to privacy, and therefore do we have the right to demand that government leave us alone?

Did you ever read the declaration of independence? I believe it spells out the sort of thing we seek. Demands against government are no so much based on ?privacy? as much as the demands are meant to uphold and safeguard all our inherent rights. The declaration states it is our duty to abolish governments that trample those rights and to institute new government.

This isn?t a call for anarchy; it?s a call to form a government that ensures our rights. Privacy is one of those rights, but it's certainly not the sole focus of liberty. The first 10 amendments are all important and need to be upheld equally.

My solution? Localized authority. Continue collaboration between the states to fund projects, but the states are free to contribute to or remove themselves from those projects giving them the local authority over their people.

The smaller a government is, the more democratic it is. I believe this, and believe 50 states are more difficult to corrupt and sabotage than a single centralized entity.

I still think that in order for society and/or government to function, privacy must be secondary.

Some rights come before society, like the right to live, but not all rights do.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
I still think that in order for society and/or government to function, privacy must be secondary.

Some rights come before society, like the right to live, but not all rights do.

Your local government can still decide that for you. And you could still decide to live under that government or to move to the next state. That's freedom of choice when one shoe does not fit all.

 

[Arkaign]

Where did we get all these authoritarians. Must be something in the water.

The individual > The state, unless you relinquish your rights by violating societal/legal boundaries.

 

[bamacre]

Atreus21, You may be confusing some aspects of Libertarianism with Anarchism, or you may just have an extreme view of Libertarianism. That may be due to reading the words of a few nut jobs out there.

I would suggest you watch this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCM_wQy4YVg

It is a little lengthy, but it is very good. And I think this would give you a better, albeit not complete, understanding of Libertarianism.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Atreus21
I would agree, but what happens if we don't respect the rights of others?

Your local government whoops you.

Exactly. Why? Because of the contract entered into by government and the citizenry stating that the government will protect us, if we allow it to function effectively.

Take a police force. In order to function, it needs to detain suspects (against their right to privacy), kill when it must (against the killed's right to privacy and life), and other things.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: bamacre
Atreus21, You may be confusing some aspects of Libertarianism with Anarchism, or you may just have an extreme view of Libertarianism. That may be due to reading the words of a few nut jobs out there.

I would suggest you watch this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCM_wQy4YVg

It is a little lengthy, but it is very good. And I think this would give you a better, albeit not complete, understanding of Libertarianism.

Well, a little while ago I conceded that this wasn't really about Libertarianism, but more about the right to privacy.

The fact that I cited Libertarianism is only because I frequently hear that they "want to be left alone by the government." And that brought me into the speech about privacy.

I'll watch it, tho.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Where did we get all these authoritarians. Must be something in the water.

The individual > The state, unless you relinquish your rights by violating societal/legal boundaries.

I'm not sure if I agree. One would think that, if the individual were greater than the state, than why does the individual elect the state?

This is getting increasingly difficult to argue about coherently. It's too broad.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Atreus21
I would agree, but what happens if we don't respect the rights of others?

Your local government whoops you.

Exactly. Why? Because of the contract entered into by government and the citizenry stating that the government will protect us, if we allow it to function effectively.

Take a police force. In order to function, it needs to detain suspects (against their right to privacy), kill when it must (against the killed's right to privacy and life), and other things.

Are you trying to argue against Anarchy here? Your topic title appears to be very misleading when compared to your argument. In my own personal Libertarian view, your state police force would have that authority. The important and most critical aspect is that this authority does not originate 2,000 miles away, but instead can be found locally which means it can be held accountable for its actions and adapted much more easily than our modern day monolithic bureaucracy.

I argue against distant, unrepresentative and abusive government. Not against government itself. I suggest you take and pose your question towards Anarchists and not Libertarians.

Perhaps I have the wrong view of Libertarians, and you are indeed asking your questions to the right people. I would ask the others here who indentified with Ron Paul where they stand. With me on local authority, or with no authority? I would like to believe they stand for local authority making your argument pointless.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Atreus21
I would agree, but what happens if we don't respect the rights of others?

Your local government whoops you.

Exactly. Why? Because of the contract entered into by government and the citizenry stating that the government will protect us, if we allow it to function effectively.

Take a police force. In order to function, it needs to detain suspects (against their right to privacy), kill when it must (against the killed's right to privacy and life), and other things.

Are you trying to argue against Anarchy here? Your topic title appears to be very misleading when compared to your argument. In my own personal Libertarian view, your state police force would have that authority. The important and most critical aspect is that this authority does not originate 2,000 miles away, but instead can be found locally which means it can be held accountable for its actions and adapted much more easily than our modern day monolithic bureaucracy.

I argue against distant, unrepresentative and abusive government. Not against government itself. I suggest you take and pose your question towards Anarchists and not Libertarians.

Perhaps I have the wrong view of Libertarians, and you are indeed asking your questions to the right people. I would ask the others here who indentified with Ron Paul where they stand. With me on local authority, or with no authority? I would like to believe they stand for local authority making your argument pointless.

My primary beef is that Libertarians embrace the right to privacy. That's what I'm arguing about in terms of Libertarians, because I believe no such general right exists, nor should it exist.

I'm not arguing either for or against local or remote authority. What I AM arguing is that, if you want ANY authority, you can't have absolute privacy.

 

[Brigandier]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Where did we get all these authoritarians. Must be something in the water.

The individual > The state, unless you relinquish your rights by violating societal/legal boundaries.

I'm not sure if I agree. One would think that, if the individual were greater than the state, than why does the individual elect the state?

This is getting increasingly difficult to argue about coherently. It's too broad.

The individual elects other INDIVIDUALS to represent them for organized government services.

We do not elect the state at large, because most positions are not open for election. The positions are filled under the authority of that department, and the ultimate responsibility for the continued success of that entity is generally laid at the feet of those elected to run/oversee it.

Our country's success is not based on supremacy of the state, but a balanced representative system in which we have a say in who runs the country. That has been somewhat usurped by unelected parties gaining undue influence (PAC Money, vote selling, etc), but our general system of democracy has been the foundation for our success for quite some time. It's far from perfect, but when you flip to a state-supreme government, you are on the road to the 3rd reich or Stalin's USSR in a hurry.

Each political stripe believes that it has the ultimate solution to how to structure society, and the danger in the authoritarian/gov't supreme brand of either right or left, is that it utterly destroys along the way the rights of individuals for the goals of their elite. Communism and Fascism are the result of removing the rights of individuals, such as the right to privacy of person and property, and the farther you travel down that trajectory, the worse things get.

What the hell is wrong with privacy to begin with?

Amendment IV
(Privacy of the Person and Possessions)
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Brigandier
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Absolutely. I only wish people and Supreme Courts interpreted it literally.

 

[Brigandier]

I think the best way to understand a libertarian viewpoint is to read the constitution.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
I'm not arguing either for or against local or remote authority. What I AM arguing is that, if you want ANY authority, you can't have absolute privacy.

Fair enough, but aren't there many different things to keep private? Perhaps some matter more than others for government's ability to police us.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Where did we get all these authoritarians. Must be something in the water.

The individual > The state, unless you relinquish your rights by violating societal/legal boundaries.

I'm not sure if I agree. One would think that, if the individual were greater than the state, than why does the individual elect the state?

This is getting increasingly difficult to argue about coherently. It's too broad.

The individual elects other INDIVIDUALS to represent them for organized government services.

We do not elect the state at large, because most positions are not open for election. The positions are filled under the authority of that department, and the ultimate responsibility for the continued success of that entity is generally laid at the feet of those elected to run/oversee it.

Our country's success is not based on supremacy of the state, but a balanced representative system in which we have a say in who runs the country. That has been somewhat usurped by unelected parties gaining undue influence (PAC Money, vote selling, etc), but our general system of democracy has been the foundation for our success for quite some time. It's far from perfect, but when you flip to a state-supreme government, you are on the road to the 3rd reich or Stalin's USSR in a hurry.

Each political stripe believes that it has the ultimate solution to how to structure society, and the danger in the authoritarian/gov't supreme brand of either right or left, is that it utterly destroys along the way the rights of individuals for the goals of their elite. Communism and Fascism are the result of removing the rights of individuals, such as the right to privacy of person and property, and the farther you travel down that trajectory, the worse things get.

What the hell is wrong with privacy to begin with?

Amendment IV
(Privacy of the Person and Possessions)
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Well, there's nothing wrong with privacy.

Except that it must be abridged, in some cases, so that government may fulfill its roll. I'm not arguing against some privacy. I'm arguing against absolute privacy.

And there are people who believe that they have a right to absolute privacy. That's what I think is absurd. As I said earlier, there is and should be a reasonable expectation of confidentiality in some matters, but not in all.