Climate change and the strange death of libertarianism

by John Q on January 18, 2020

It wasn’t that long ago that everyone was talking about the “libertarian moment” in the US. Now, libertarianism/propertarianism is pretty much dead.

https://crookedtimber.org/2020/01/18/climate-change-and-the-strange-death-of-libertarianism/

"Who bailed out all those evil greedy Individuals?"

So you think big government bailing out big business for problems caused by big government is a reason in favour of big government? A bigger dill than I thought.

I had a policy of just ignoring Mr Opinion because he was incapable of sustaining a logical thread of discussion and thought valid argument involved throwing inane comments at all who made him look the fool.

Same here. Indeed, pretty sure its the same dill.

Be careful of those from the far right extreme like David Leyonhjelm a convicted defamer, who believes "free speech" is a right to attack others. History is littered with haters who spoke incessantly in the name of "free speech", and exalted others to do likewise, as long as their speech totally agreed with them, Hitler and Mussolini are a couple of prime examples, can add Leyonhjelm to the list.

I was wondering whether I am a libertarian. I have no answer.

I believe in the individual's freedom from society,
that anyone who so wishes should be able to live their life without resort to society and its institutions,
that membership in all societies should be voluntary,
that any forcing of people into societies is an unacceptable form of violence.

But once one has freely made an informed choice to belong to a society, then there are no limits as to how that society operates internally.
A freely-entered society may involve just a small chunk of its members' lives (the liberal/libertarian view), their whole lives (the socialist/communist/fascist view), or anything in between - all in accordance with its constitution which all its members presumably agreed to.

BUT IN THE ABSENCE OF FREELY-ENTERED SOCIETIES:

* The only morally-legitimate "right" of a society is the self-defence of its individual members against whatever dangers they authorised their society to defend them from (and provided that to begin with it was morally-legitimate for the individuals in question to defend themselves against these "dangers").

* Should a society provide certain benefits and members freely choose to accept these benefits, then that society may legitimately impose conditions in return.

So if a society prints money and members (including those who are involuntarily included, which in itself is wrong) choose to accept and use that money, then they must not complain about taxation and welfare, including about their high levels.

While I stand for individual freedom and believe that people should be able to conduct their life without reference to the state, its institutions or its money, that people should not even be obliged to have a name or register their birth with the state, I believe that for those who choose to use the state's money regardless (including foreign currency by force of international agreements, when present) there is nothing wrong with high taxation and levels of welfare - and this, I think, greatly differs from the traditional libertarian view.

I believe in the individual's freedom from society,
Yuyutsu,
I take you then also believe in society's freedom from individuals ?

Dear Indyvidual,

«I take you then also believe in society's freedom from individuals ?»

Society inherits its powers from the individuals it is comprised of:
it may aggregate these powers, but not create new ones out of thin air,
thus the question comes down to whether or not the individuals that the society is comprised of are morally allowed to make themselves free of other individuals [which they do not like].

In my view, it is acceptable to act in self defence to rid oneself of dangerous enemies, but not to rid of others just for the sake of comfort and fulfilling one's ambitions and desires.