Libertarian v. Libertarian

[Citizen James]

It's always struck me as odd that there are (at least) two very different philophies which tend to label themselves as "libertarian"

On one side, you have people who tend to have a high opinion of human nature.  "people are smart enough to be trusted with matches" is the sort of thing they'll tell you.  They consider it human nature to be fair and kind, that law are only needed to define boundries for the few exceptions who do not behave honorably, and that people are far better at taking care of themselves and one another than the government is.

Then you have the far more pessimistic, social darwinst sort of view of human nature.  People are greedy scum, and government just multiplies the malignancy of human nature.   They figure every man for himself, and I definitely don't want to prop up all those losers who are worse off tham me.  Let 'em die, world's better off without them.

I suppose you could also count the Randians (either or neither camp, or don't care if it doesn't involve me), and LINOs

Thoughts? Comments?

[Bono]

You seem to forget government is made of people.
It is exactly becuase I believe in the general evil of the human race that I suport the abolition of government. Because people have much more potential of hurting others to advance their interests if they are part of a monopoly on force.

[jokerman]

I've recognized this before.  The first you described is more of the philosophy of the libertarian party and posters like John Dibble and True Independent.

The later is something that could better describe posters like Walt Mitty and perhaps a few others, which is prevelent among wealthy people who have an elitist look on economics and really don't care about social issues either way, and thus happen to be libertarian leaning through that.

[Emsworth]

There is a third possible philosophy that is the basis of libertarianism: opposition to coercion. One may oppose coercion regardless of one's views on human nature.

[MaC]

I fit Emsworth's description.  I think that to say mankind is inherently "good" or "evil" is too narrow minded, and simplistic, and to believe in it is a belief in a black-and-white fallacy.  Certainly us humans posess traits of "good" and "evil", but it is rare to only be susceptable to only one quality.  I feel both ways sometimes.  I imagine on how great things would be with the government off our backs, but also have contempt for those who use the government to gain whatever they want.

[CARLHAYDEN]

I find the MaC Daddy's view of human nature is probably the most accurate, and Emsworth's explanation of the central tenent of the libertarians (as I understand it) also right on the money.

[Peter]

There is a third possible philosophy that is the basis of libertarianism: opposition to coercion. One may oppose coercion regardless of one's views on human nature.

One can be equally co-erced in places with "smaller" government by economic interests and the movements of the market. One could indeed say that in some guises, "bigger" government can protect you from that coercion.

[Bono]

There is a third possible philosophy that is the basis of libertarianism: opposition to coercion. One may oppose coercion regardless of one's views on human nature.

One can be equally co-erced in places with "smaller" government by economic interests and the movements of the market. One could indeed say that in some guises, "bigger" government can protect you from that coercion.

I didn't know you were a fan of Karl Marx.

[Emsworth]

One can be equally co-erced in places with "smaller" government by economic interests and the movements of the market. One could indeed say that in some guises, "bigger" government can protect you from that coercion.

I don't necessarily disagree with you on the size of government. However, I would disagree that the free market is a form of coercion. If the government adopts a laissez-faire policy, one is never coerced or legally compelled to do anything by the market. Any "coercion" arises purely from one's own desires, not from the dictates of the state.

[Peter]

There is a third possible philosophy that is the basis of libertarianism: opposition to coercion. One may oppose coercion regardless of one's views on human nature.

One can be equally co-erced in places with "smaller" government by economic interests and the movements of the market. One could indeed say that in some guises, "bigger" government can protect you from that coercion.

I didn't know you were a fan of Karl Marx.

I don't, I was actually playing devil's advocate because I believed there was a hole in the premise presented.