Statism is extremism
It's strange to me how libertarians (we who are "aVal") are called "extreme" when the opposite is clearly the case.
For example:
One type of statist wants walls around everything. They don't stop with their houses, and private property, but want walls even around other people's property, in the form of "national borders" with actual physical walls, if possible.
The other type of statist doesn't stop at objecting to walls along "national borders", but doesn't even believe in private property, and therefore doesn't want you to exclude anyone from anywhere; it wouldn't be "fair".
Sure, there are degrees of extremism even among those poles of statism, but they are all comparatively extreme.
Only those who walk the line of reasonableness between the extremes manage to balance their principles where they need to be: walls around the property YOU own and control, and nowhere else.
The same goes for every other "issue" where liberty lovers are called "extreme".
Just look at any issue-- guns, drugs, trade, whatever-- and notice how extreme the statists are, and how reasonable, with regard to reality and human nature, libertarians are. This is because liberty is self-regulating. As it should be. And, that leaves the statists no room in which to rule the world, and they don't like it. Too bad; so sad. Reality doesn't care about anyone's feelings.
.
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com.
Donations and subscriptions are always appreciated!
the left/right paradigm is incorrect.
it's really 'more government control vs less government control'
Wrong, wrong, utterly wrong.
Sorry to say, but a leftist can be dictatoric, as well. Remember socialism?
While the two-dimensional political chart is also not flawless, I prefer using it if one's bound to right-left spectrum.
Less government is liberal or communist on the left, and capitalist (even ancap sometimes) on the right.
More government is usually socialist on the left, and fascist on the right.
And of course there are more subtle ideologies like syndicalism on the left, or conservatism on the right.
how come you said I was wrong then you agree with me?
You stated that right means "more government", left means "less government. This statement is very superficial about the nature of the spectrum.
Or at least that was my interpretation.
nope..
I said extremism means more government...
either/all flavors..
there is no spectrum
Sorry then, that is definitely true.
My only problem with Libertarianism is that's it's impractical. Say I need surgery, I can go to a state hospital and have an operation, irrespective of my personal wealth, because the state has a mechanism to subsidise the poor by taxing the rich.
Under Libertarianism, not only would I not be able to afford the operation because I'm too poor, the hospital probably wouldn't be there, and the doctors wouldn't have had the means to become trained because most people (who are generally poor) can't afford to pay for many of them.
All Libertarianism seems to do is to allow you to die young, but free.
So, no one values medical care enough to become trained in medicine, to open a clinic, or to help those in need? I don't believe the claim
Governments inflate the cost of medical care by rationing health care practitioners, rationing medicines, dictating HUGE amounts of red tape, and by stealing from some to pay for the hyper-inflated medical care of others.
Everyone wants doctors, but who will support the living costs and training costs of a doctor in training for the necessary years that they need to get to a level of competency? By what mechanism does that happen. Its very well to start Libertarianism from a point of abundant resource availaibility, but when everything becomes optional, most people wont worry about a doctor until they need one, only to find they should have been committing resources to it for decades.
From your link; 'Obviously if a patient goes to a healer who doesn't feel confident about fixing their problem, they will be referred to someone who can deal with it. The first healer seen would be liable for restitution otherwise.'.
Why is that obvious? How do you gain restituion if you are incapacitated, or dead, and the only person aware of what transpired was the 'healer'?
Id like Libertarinaism to work, but I have never seen a way that it could.
The costs and "necessary years" are artificially inflated by the government's system of rationing medical practitioners. I expect that a community could voluntarily come together to pay for medical training, with the contractual agreement that the person will practice medicine in that community for s specified number of years. In fact, that happens even today. If something is wanted, people WILL find a way.
Because family members and friends will know what transpired. Someone always does, and in a society where reputation matters more than it does here, today, people will make a point to know. Working beyond your expertise, and causing harm, will have dire consequences for a person's future earnings in a free society where no one is forced to subsidize anyone else.
Strange. It works fine for me right here in this statist "society", in spite of those bad guys who want to archate.
Also, in response... Charity, not theft and slavery
That's a lot of speculation.
Maybe you could answer me this question.
If you need surgery and lets say there's no state. Would you go to you neighbour with a gun en rob him the money you need for the surgery?
Which, depending on your personal views on values and morality, potentially worth more than die old but in "slavery".
True, but if I have Libertarianism forced on me as the only option, then am I really free, or just a slave to someone elses vision of freedom? The reason I say that is Libertarianism cant be called as such if it exists within a State; for then it relys upon the state and the resources of the state for its very existence.
So the propogation of Libertarianism is binary, and provides freedom only for those who subscribe to it.
Yes, that is a valid approach. What libertarianism calls freedom is freedom from the state, as it seems for me. It utilized the concept of "freedom" as a moral foundation in order to propagate a view that decreases the influence of governmental intervention.
And on its own, there is nothing wrong with that. It's because it silently implies that those of libertarian views let more room for your thoughts than a government would. But yes, if you oppose the ideology, yet they're in rule, then yes, you're screwed.
Sadly, it can be applied to any ideology, even liberalism. History is a constant clash of ideologies, but then again, I think it's fine.