....I'm on my phone so quoting is difficult, but in response to why don't libertarians move somewhere else if they're being oppressed: why doesn't everybody who doesn't agree with how things are run now just move somewhere else? Libertarians believe in the freedom that this country was founded on, which incidentally was freedom from the tax burden overseas. It's not unpatriotic to propose a capitalist free market society.
Perhaps it's a matter of how much of it you don't accept, and how strong your disagreement is. For example, like any thinking person, I disagree with much of what is happening--or is being proposed--in this country. But I don't think I could find anywhere else to live in the world that would be a net improvement. More to the point, I don't think it's possible, even in principle, to live in a human society or social group without having to accommodate at least a few of my core beliefs and preferences to the preferences of the larger group. So, it's partly just a practical matter. I also love this country and the ideals on which it was founded, and I can see that those ideals are moving the US
gradually in the direction of greater social justice.
The concern I have with libertarians is that they represent a discontinuity with the nation's past, with its founding principles, with its potential for economic and social justice. I can hear the libertarians protesting that it's just the opposite: that
they are the heirs to the liberty-seeking founders of this country. And maybe they are. I keep conflating libertarianism and anarchism, which seems to be a more extreme flavor of libertarianism. I reject anarchism (that is to say, I don't want to live under anarchism, but I support the right to hold such beliefs). But where does libertarianism end and anarchism begin?[/QUOTE]
Also, it came up a bit on the last page or so, but saying that we agree to pay taxes by living here isn't really a perspective that can hold up much weight: what other institutions are we agreeing to endure by default of citizenship? All of them, or just the ones you personally agree with?
As a citizen, I agree to endure
all of the institutions and practices of this society/nation.
Enduring them doesn't mean I agree with them, but I accept them because they were arrived at through a legitimate (if highly imperfect) democratic political process, and therefore they have legitimacy. The income tax was arrived in through such a process, and it's a settled matter as far as I'm concerned until and unless the democratic system modifies it. I thought the process by which George W. Bush became president was outrageous and a mockery of justice. But the Supreme Court that handed him the presidency was acting in its lawful capacity, so I accepted it, and accepted that Bush was a legitimate president. What's the alternative? Leave the country, or start a revolution every time the government does something I object to? No, I accept that my wishes and needs are not always going to be accommodated by society, but as long as I can see that the government's decisions were arrived at based on the law and on the constitution, I'm satisfied.
This is more for
@Behemoth ....I've been reading the
New Yorker profile of Gary Johnson, the libertarian presidential candidate. Here's an interesting passage:
But Johnson isn’t reflexively against all government. He supports the Environmental Protection Agency, arguing that policing polluters is a proper function of the government. As governor of New Mexico, he aggressively used the power of the state to force Molycorp, a large mining corporation, to clean up a contaminated site. He eventually allowed the E.P.A. to declare the area a Superfund site, turning the issue over to the federal government, which had more resources to go after the company. “The government exists to protect us from harm, and that pollution is harm,” Johnson said. “Libertarians would say, ‘You and I have the ability to sue Molycorp. We can bring them to bear from a private standpoint.’ But the reality? You can’t.”
I can really respect and understand this POV. Johnson is a realist and recognizes that the actors in our economic and judicial markets are not operating on the same level of power and access. This is what I still
don't understand: how would a true/pure Libertarian (not a de facto republican as Behemoth regards Johnson) address a real-world problem like this?
For example, I'm INTJ (the N is pretty close to the middle--i.e., close to being S)
Too late to edit post above but found this pic.
