Total Posts:3|Showing Posts:1-3
Jump to topic:

"Minimum government" can often be illusory.

debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2015 3:58:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Based on my knowledge, there are some very capitalist libertarians who claim that they support "minimal" or "minimum" government.

Some of these same fellows dislike "government" because it represents a "monopoly on power" (otherwise known as a monopoly on coercive force, or a monopoly on threatening harm to achieve a goal or goals).

From what I know, these libertarians generally support and recommend the application of deadly or coercive force... while at the same time denouncing coercive force.

The moral pretext for this is that the protection of private property is a moral obligation, and that private property is a moral right.

It seems to me that this invoking of supposed objective right (as well as various philosophical arguments for that objective right) forms the basis of all "right" libertarian philosophies. The success of "right" libertarian philosophy in America is truly astounding... and it makes me wonder... could the same philosophy gain the support of the majority of all Americans if it did not make the same claims to moral objectivity and obligation? I seriously doubt that it could.

Anyway... capitalism is a system of privately-owned industry. The libertarians I mentioned earlier seem to largely be in favor of "pure" capitalism, or capitalism in which the only thing that is enforced is private-property and in which the government does not interfere in the economy...

"Does not interfere in the economy"?

The basis of a capitalist economy is private property. The basis of private property in such a system is government.

Sure, the government does not do anything other than enforce private property laws, but it enforces private property laws.

And if all property is private...

And if all private property is subject to law...

And if the basis of law is government...

Then government is truly everywhere.

Is "everywhere" the minimum?
You can call me Mark if you like.
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2015 8:04:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/25/2015 3:58:46 PM, debate_power wrote:
Based on my knowledge, there are some very capitalist libertarians who claim that they support "minimal" or "minimum" government.

Some of these same fellows dislike "government" because it represents a "monopoly on power" (otherwise known as a monopoly on coercive force, or a monopoly on threatening harm to achieve a goal or goals).

From what I know, these libertarians generally support and recommend the application of deadly or coercive force... while at the same time denouncing coercive force.

The moral pretext for this is that the protection of private property is a moral obligation, and that private property is a moral right.

It seems to me that this invoking of supposed objective right (as well as various philosophical arguments for that objective right) forms the basis of all "right" libertarian philosophies. The success of "right" libertarian philosophy in America is truly astounding... and it makes me wonder... could the same philosophy gain the support of the majority of all Americans if it did not make the same claims to moral objectivity and obligation? I seriously doubt that it could.

Anyway... capitalism is a system of privately-owned industry. The libertarians I mentioned earlier seem to largely be in favor of "pure" capitalism, or capitalism in which the only thing that is enforced is private-property and in which the government does not interfere in the economy...

"Does not interfere in the economy"?

The basis of a capitalist economy is private property. The basis of private property in such a system is government.

Sure, the government does not do anything other than enforce private property laws, but it enforces private property laws.

And if all property is private...

And if all private property is subject to law...

And if the basis of law is government...

Then government is truly everywhere.

Is "everywhere" the minimum?

And, much less than today! Government would be at a minimum point, executing an agreeable role of only protecting negative rights. This would be a great point to have government, people being able to form voluntary groups without coercion. Government at this level is a small step from being completely unneeded.

If government is only used to protect negative rights, nobody would care about politics.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2015 7:19:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/25/2015 3:58:46 PM, debate_power wrote:
Based on my knowledge, there are some very capitalist libertarians who claim that they support "minimal" or "minimum" government.

Some of these same fellows dislike "government" because it represents a "monopoly on power" (otherwise known as a monopoly on coercive force, or a monopoly on threatening harm to achieve a goal or goals).

From what I know, these libertarians generally support and recommend the application of deadly or coercive force... while at the same time denouncing coercive force.

The moral pretext for this is that the protection of private property is a moral obligation, and that private property is a moral right.

It seems to me that this invoking of supposed objective right (as well as various philosophical arguments for that objective right) forms the basis of all "right" libertarian philosophies. The success of "right" libertarian philosophy in America is truly astounding... and it makes me wonder... could the same philosophy gain the support of the majority of all Americans if it did not make the same claims to moral objectivity and obligation? I seriously doubt that it could.

Anyway... capitalism is a system of privately-owned industry. The libertarians I mentioned earlier seem to largely be in favor of "pure" capitalism, or capitalism in which the only thing that is enforced is private-property and in which the government does not interfere in the economy...

"Does not interfere in the economy"?

The basis of a capitalist economy is private property. The basis of private property in such a system is government.

Sure, the government does not do anything other than enforce private property laws, but it enforces private property laws.

And if all property is private...

And if all private property is subject to law...

And if the basis of law is government...

Then government is truly everywhere.

Is "everywhere" the minimum?

I am wondering, do they identify themselves as libertarians?
They sound more like free market capitalists to me (a subset of Republicans in my country), but that does not mean they do not call themselves libertarian.
If you are attaching that label to them, I am interested in your justification.