What does libertarianism first ask?

[utopian]

Having a philosophy concerning anything requires that the philosopher first ask "what is best". For example, the philosophy of a cage fighter would be "what is best for defeating my opponent". A person playing video games would ask "what is the best way to win the game". And of course, a decent parent would ask "what is best for my children?". Once this question is asked, the rest of the philosophy can be built upon to realize the goals of the first question.

 

Considering this, the more I look at libertarianism, the more it seems to me that the question that the libertarian philosophy first asks is, "what is best for ME?" I notice that, every time there is a topic or situation that may logically lead to an answer that is not best for the libertarian, this topic will be ignored, denied, or eventually shun anyone discussing the topic with empirical evidence. 

 

I don't want to introduce those topics because I don't want a derailment of this thread. What I am interested in, however, is a more clear definition of what libertarianism is asking for "what is best" because if libertarianism does indeed start with the question of "what is best for ME" then it would have inherit conflict of interests, especially concerning other philosophies one may run into while being a libertarian. For example, a libertarian who was also a parent, may find themselves not first asking "what is best for my children".

[WasatchMan]

Libertarianism asks "Does it [insert proposed action] initiate force against others? If not than we are good - if so than we have a problem".

 

This is all. 

 

Libertarianism is a political philosophy, and does not get into aesthetic and/or pragmatic questions regarding "what is best for ME, children, etc."  all it is concerned with is the NAP applied to society.

[utopian]

Libertarianism asks "Does it [insert proposed action] initiate force against others? If not than we are good - if so than we have a problem".

 

This is all. 

 

Libertarianism is a political philosophy, and does not get into aesthetic and/or pragmatic questions regarding "what is best for ME, children, etc."  all it is concerned with is the NAP applied to society.

 

Hmm... ok so, Libertarianism is unconcerned with potential moral issues? For example, a study was recently done on men and women, and the question was put forward "if you could, would you go back in time and kill Hitler, knowing his death may potentially save the lives of millions of people?"  

 

Because though the moral choice may theoretically be to kill Hitler, according to this definition of the NAP, the only problem would be if you initiated use of force in the killing of Hitler, despite potentially saving many lives in the act.

[WasatchMan]

Hmm... ok so, Libertarianism is unconcerned with potential moral issues? For example, a study was recently done on men and women, and the question was put forward "if you could, would you go back in time and kill Hitler, knowing his death may potentially save the lives of millions of people?"  

 

Because though the moral choice may theoretically be to kill Hitler, according to this definition of the NAP, the only problem would be if you initiated use of force in the killing of Hitler, despite potentially saving many lives in the act.

 

You would not potentially save many in the zero probability hypothetical that you would someday be faced with the decision to go back in time and kill Hitler.  You would save many lives, and you would know this.

 

The NAP allows for defense, even in the case you are defending someone else against aggression.  So this would seem to fall under the category of defense.

 

However, the NAP would not say you should go back in time and kill Hitler, all it would say is that it would not be immoral if you did.

[Agalloch]

Hmm... ok so, Libertarianism is unconcerned with potential moral issues? For example, a study was recently done on men and women, and the question was put forward "if you could, would you go back in time and kill Hitler, knowing his death may potentially save the lives of millions of people?"  

 

Because though the moral choice may theoretically be to kill Hitler, according to this definition of the NAP, the only problem would be if you initiated use of force in the killing of Hitler, despite potentially saving many lives in the act.

Going back in time to kill Hitler isn't a moral question, because time travel is logically meaningless and therefore physically impossible.

 

Also, you might want to look into the Non-Aggression principle, I'm almost completely certain that killing Hitler would under most circumstances, not be working against the principle.

Most importantly however, you seem to miss the big picture around your own argument. Hitler murdered literally 1 person by his own hand (and that was Hitler). You try to brush off the non-aggression principle because it won't allow the killing of Hitler, while avoiding the fact that the valid application of the NAP would have prevented those around Hitler from following his orders, from participating in his insanity and from suffering the abuse at the hands of their own parents that created the environment in which so many evil people flourished in early 20th century Germany. I'm pretty certain that State leaders are responsibile for their orders, but it is the Statist infastructure which exists in the minds of those that don't follow the NAP that allows those meglomaniacs orders to become action. Without that, they're just madmen that noone listens to.

 

Finally, people really need to get over this Hitler as the single handed evil of Germany thing. I'm sure he wants central in practical terms to the actual events that took place, but one evil man doesn't make an evil empire. To use the time travel analogy, going back in time to kill Hitler might actually cause millions more deaths under a worse leader. We can be pretty sure though, given the momentum of europe and Germany at the time, that very few lives would have been saved, World War 2 was an inevitable result of past evil.

[utopian]

A different example perhaps. Another study surveyed people and gave the following situation: you see 100 people standing on a train track. A train is coming, but you wont have enough time to warn the people. You can, however, pull a lever which will drop a crate on the tracks in front of the train, stopping it, but killing the one engineer. 

 

If you were to pull the lever, killing the engineer and saving the 100 people, would that violate the NAP? Cause you are agressing by taking the one guy's life.

 

And I do want to look into NAP more/libertarianism, but I dont have all that much time and there is a lot of stuff here I want to look through and do.

[SWMA]

A different example perhaps. Another study surveyed people and gave the following situation: you see 100 people standing on a train track. A train is coming, but you wont have enough time to warn the people. You can, however, pull a lever which will drop a crate on the tracks in front of the train, stopping it, but killing the one engineer. 

 

If you were to pull the lever, killing the engineer and saving the 100 people, would that violate the NAP? Cause you are agressing by taking the one guy's life.

 

And I do want to look into NAP more/libertarianism, but I dont have all that much time and there is a lot of stuff here I want to look through and do.

Yes it would violate the NAP. You should try to get away from such puzzles, because they're just that and nothing more. You can't derive general moral statements from situations in which the course of action is strictly confined (in number of choices, the choices themselves, also the actions are laid out to "always" lead to a certain outcome, as in there is no uncertainty at all, etc) by a completely arbitrary layout of the situation itself.

[Libertus]

Yes, it would violate the NAP. It would be immoral to do so. However, you might still do it, wouldn't you? Sometimes people do things that are immoral, don't they? What is your question?

[Agalloch]

A different example perhaps. Another study surveyed people and gave the following situation: you see 100 people standing on a train track. A train is coming, but you wont have enough time to warn the people. You can, however, pull a lever which will drop a crate on the tracks in front of the train, stopping it, but killing the one engineer.

 

If you were to pull the lever, killing the engineer and saving the 100 people, would that violate the NAP? Cause you are agressing by taking the one guy's life.

 

And I do want to look into NAP more/libertarianism, but I dont have all that much time and there is a lot of stuff here I want to look through and do.

I want to say this situation us rare, but that's rubbish,. This situation had never and will never happen to the point that it's practically impoosible. These aren't moral questions.

 

Also, why does this matter? The NAP applys to real life why does it matter that it doesn't apply to situations that never happen? And why does this matter to you? If you can find an unrealiatic situation in which the NAP seems intuiuvely wrong, suddenly it's ok to aggress against people in your own life?

 

I recommend worrying about the application of morality in your own life, using the logically sound framework from which we can reasonably validate the NAP: universally preferable behaviour; instead of trying to disprove it with emotional claims.

 

Finally, you completely ignored my last set of responses and implied that a better example was necessary. Suggesting that I misunderstood and that my reasonable criticisms would be invalid if I just got it better is both terribly rude and an awful debating technique.

[dayna j.]

Your initial premise is flawed.  Only a philosophy based on utilitarianism would proceed by asking "what is best?"  Generally, philosophy begins with the question "What is TRUE??" and proceeds on the basis of principles which encapsulate those truths. 

 

Example:  No one has the right to initiate the use of force against others.  This would be a "positive right" and is invalid by extension of the is/ought dichotomy.  Therefore, government cannot derive any powers involving the initiation of the use of force on the basis of the consent to be governed (because people do not have that right in order to delegate it). 

 

All actions of government require the initiation of the use force.

 

Therefore, Anarchism.

[SWMA]

All actions of government require the initiation of the use force.

 

Therefore, Anarchism.

Not necessarily true - a minimal government can operate without the initiation of force in the areas of a judicial system, military and police.

 

Of course their respective areas of work would be different from now, there cannot be a mandatory draft for example.

 

Police wouldn't be very much like ours today is, more like is usually ascribed to the "private security firm" in the anarchistic utopia, but with public accountability.

 

And of course mandatory taxes wouldn't be a thing, but I'm sure with just those three areas of government left it would be very, very manageable with voluntary taxes.

[LovePrevails]

Hmm... ok so, Libertarianism is unconcerned with potential moral issues? For example, a study was recently done on men and women, and the question was put forward "if you could, would you go back in time and kill Hitler, knowing his death may potentially save the lives of millions of people?"  

 

 

and it's a stupid question, because why kill him when you can save him from his abusive caregivers and put him in a warm and loving home.

[Romulox]

Police wouldn't be very much like ours today is, more like is usually ascribed to the "private security firm" in the anarchistic utopia, but with public accountability.

 

What system of public accountability to you propose that is superior to the freedom of association that results from the NAP?  A government run police force implies that they hold a monopoly over the legal use of force in a given area, which requires the initiation of force to maintain that monopoly.  Otherwise it is just a private security firm.

 

 

And of course mandatory taxes wouldn't be a thing, but I'm sure with just those three areas of government left it would be very, very manageable with voluntary taxes.

 

Please help me understand the term "voluntary tax". Isn't a tax by definition an involuntary payment demanded by a government?  If a government does not have the power to collect payments through the use of force, how is it different than a private company that you can freely associate with?

 

This is a great example of why asking "What is True?" is the ultimate question.  Instead of arguing whether a governmental police force with public accountability is more effective than private security firms through the "What is Best?" argument, we establish whether a governmental police force that does not violate the NAP can logically exist in the first place.  This also applies to the voluntary tax concept.  If we find this concept to be logically false, its effectiveness in providing judicial or military services is irrelevant.

[labmath2]

A different example perhaps. Another study surveyed people and gave the following situation: you see 100 people standing on a train track. A train is coming, but you wont have enough time to warn the people. You can, however, pull a lever which will drop a crate on the tracks in front of the train, stopping it, but killing the one engineer.

 

If you were to pull the lever, killing the engineer and saving the 100 people, would that violate the NAP? Cause you are agressing by taking the one guy's life.

 

And I do want to look into NAP more/libertarianism, but I dont have all that much time and there is a lot of stuff here I want to look through and do.

I do not understand why people resort to this. There are much more prevalent questions of similar quality.

[utopian]

 

I want to say this situation us rare, but that's rubbish,. This situation had never and will never happen to the point that it's practically impoosible. These aren't moral questions.

Finally, you completely ignored my last set of responses and implied that a better example was necessary. Suggesting that I misunderstood and that my reasonable criticisms would be invalid if I just got it better is both terribly rude and an awful debating technique.

 

Don't get me wrong, I am trying to find a good example of things that are in some way the same as the actual argument I want to consider, without actually putting forth my real issue. I don't want to put forth my real issue because, like I said in my OP, I am concerned that anything that may logically lead to an answer that is not best for the libertarian will be ignored, denied, or eventually shun anyone discussing the topic with empirical evidence. Your criticisms seem valid, but do not seem to apply to my real issue. And seems that yes, though I am only speaking of a "test issue" I am running into some of my concerns in responses here.

 

 

Your initial premise is flawed.  Only a philosophy based on utilitarianism would proceed by asking "what is best?"  Generally, philosophy begins with the question "What is TRUE??" and proceeds on the basis of principles which encapsulate those truths. 

Aah, but you see, I am finding that libertarianism does not ask "what is true" but "what is best for my personal freedom". If you were to ask "What is true" you would conclude that "survival of the fittest" is a valid philosophy, because humans, among many other species, only exist because of the validity of this philosophy. The thing is, "survival of the fittest" and "NAP" are opposed to one another. 

 

If lions could understand philosophy, the NAP would render lions extinct, because they could never agress against the zebra they eat. Do you see how this translates to humans?

 

 

and it's a stupid question, because why kill him when you can save him from his abusive caregivers and put him in a warm and loving home.

 

The concerns of my OP, personified. 

 

 

I do not understand why people resort to this. There are much more prevalent questions of similar quality.

 

It was some kind of study on the difference between men and women;

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/would-you-travel-back-in-time-to-kill-hitler-men-are-more-likely-to-say-yes-to-stop-ww2-according-to-research-10156842.html

[J. D. Stembal]

What is the subject of the thread and the intended direction or purpose of the discussion?

[shirgall]

What is the subject of the thread and the intended direction or purpose of the discussion?

 

It was a race to see who would say "compared to what?" first... except we all missed the opportunity.

[SWMA]

What system of public accountability to you propose that is superior to the freedom of association that results from the NAP?  A government run police force implies that they hold a monopoly over the legal use of force in a given area, which requires the initiation of force to maintain that monopoly.  Otherwise it is just a private security firm.

Why do you think you would have to get rid of the freedom of association?

That's what I meant when I said it would be different from the police today. It does not mean "monopoly of legal force". You can still defend yourself etc pp. You can even have a private security firm. Except that those have an incentive to keep a level of threat up. You get that, right?

 

 

Please help me understand the term "voluntary tax". Isn't a tax by definition an involuntary payment demanded by a government?  If a government does not have the power to collect payments through the use of force, how is it different than a private company that you can freely associate with?

 

This is a great example of why asking "What is True?" is the ultimate question.  Instead of arguing whether a governmental police force with public accountability is more effective than private security firms through the "What is Best?" argument, we establish whether a governmental police force that does not violate the NAP can logically exist in the first place.  This also applies to the voluntary tax concept.  If we find this concept to be logically false, its effectiveness in providing judicial or military services is irrelevant.

No, that is not the definition of "tax" I am using, and that was quite clear by the words which I chose. You can call it "donations" if you want.

 

The difference between "my" utopia and yours is, if you look at it, just that in your case you propose many (potentially small, overlapping) areas of what I propose for a big area. To each question of "how best to do something" there is but one answer, one ideal to strive for (you have to phrase the question precise enough of course). A contract in one area either would be valid in another, or one of those areas has an inferior standard of what constitutes a legal contract. Take the best standard, apply it everywhere.