Why are you a libertarian?

[John Dule]

To your third paragraph - absolutely I agree. And honestly, it sounds kind of cliche, but it's because of how politicized it is. I mean when the influenza vaccine came out you didn't see one party attack and a solid proportion of Americans question its effectiveness and instead resort to bleach.

To your second - yes, it'd be expensive, but first of all, I'm obviously not talking about a 100% vaccination rate. Herd immunity would require a vast majority, but not necessarily everyone, to get vaccinated. If there was a way we could get, say, 90% of Americans vaccinated without force, I'd definitely take it, because then the need to vaccine the others (10%) wouldn't even matter much and forced vaccinations wouldn't matter. The trouble is that enough Americans are diehard objects to the vaccine that if we let them remain unvaccinated and stopped just short of force, I don't think we'd necessarily meet the mark (whatever it may be - 75%, 80%, 90%, whatever) for herd immunity. So forced vaccinations would, in fact, be necessary. I do take strong objection to this point of yours - "The potential for political violence and violence against medical professionals cannot be overstated." I absolutely don't think the American government shouldn't force vaccinations because they fear a bunch of far-rightists would threaten others. They cannot be indimidated - firstly on a moral ground and secondly, it's the U.S.! Whatever danger the MAGAns may pose can easily be alleviated by the FBI keeping close tabs on them, or sending the trusted doctors like Fauci to safe place, or giving them extra security detail, or whatever the FBI / government would consider appropriate. I do also want to say that with regards to forced vaccinations, there may be other solutions. I suppose the same way leper communities exist, we could have a 'COVID community' where all those who don't want the vaccine are forcibly sent to reside for the rest of their lives - maybe somewhere in a rural part of the TX panhandle, or the OK panhandle, or some other extremely sparse area (like rural AK).

Don't take this the wrong way, but it sounds like the vaccine is no longer a matter of public policy for you, and has instead become an issue of morality. Ignoring whether that's a fair way to view the situation, I would submit to you that it simply doesn't make any sense from a policy standpoint. Herd immunity can be obtained somewhere between a 70 and 90% vaccination rate. Right now, 76% of the country has gotten at least one dose of the vaccine. We are well on target to achieve herd immunity, and even if the virus mutates in the unvaccinated population and causes another outbreak, those later strains will be too weak to kill anyone but the fattest, oldest, most unhealthy people in the country. Simply put, it is a waste of time and resources to continue these draconian policies just to maybe save the lives of that small demographic. Forced vaccinations will help no one, and will only serve to accelerate the breakdown of trust between citizen and state in this country.

[Vosem]

I believe the state is capable of unique evils, against individuals, communities, and society broadly. Since abolition is not feasible for a variety of reasons, I think the power of the state should be strictly curtailed. More generally, I believe restrictions on individual liberties are much, much more morally repugnant than inequalities.

(I generally refrain from calling myself a 'libertarian', just because on the Internet that invariably gets interpreted as 'anarcho-capitalist' -- which I am not -- but it's not a label I wholly reject, either, and I think it would be fair to call me a fellow traveler to libertarianism, or something along those lines).

EDIT:

Well, this forum seems to think I'm an authoritarian because I believe the state has a role in protecting people against their own worst impulses and encouraging them to be moral.

Another way of putting this would be that I disagree with this post with every fiber of my being (and frankly find it horrifying). I think history shows that state-led morality invariably leads to genocide and state-led protections invariably lead to slavery. I am a libertarian because I believe the state is inherently immoral, and people have a role to play in discouraging it from taking as many actions as possible, and certainly in discouraging the state from holding itself up as a source of morality rather than depravity.

[Schiff for Senate]

To your third paragraph - absolutely I agree. And honestly, it sounds kind of cliche, but it's because of how politicized it is. I mean when the influenza vaccine came out you didn't see one party attack and a solid proportion of Americans question its effectiveness and instead resort to bleach.

To your second - yes, it'd be expensive, but first of all, I'm obviously not talking about a 100% vaccination rate. Herd immunity would require a vast majority, but not necessarily everyone, to get vaccinated. If there was a way we could get, say, 90% of Americans vaccinated without force, I'd definitely take it, because then the need to vaccine the others (10%) wouldn't even matter much and forced vaccinations wouldn't matter. The trouble is that enough Americans are diehard objects to the vaccine that if we let them remain unvaccinated and stopped just short of force, I don't think we'd necessarily meet the mark (whatever it may be - 75%, 80%, 90%, whatever) for herd immunity. So forced vaccinations would, in fact, be necessary. I do take strong objection to this point of yours - "The potential for political violence and violence against medical professionals cannot be overstated." I absolutely don't think the American government shouldn't force vaccinations because they fear a bunch of far-rightists would threaten others. They cannot be indimidated - firstly on a moral ground and secondly, it's the U.S.! Whatever danger the MAGAns may pose can easily be alleviated by the FBI keeping close tabs on them, or sending the trusted doctors like Fauci to safe place, or giving them extra security detail, or whatever the FBI / government would consider appropriate. I do also want to say that with regards to forced vaccinations, there may be other solutions. I suppose the same way leper communities exist, we could have a 'COVID community' where all those who don't want the vaccine are forcibly sent to reside for the rest of their lives - maybe somewhere in a rural part of the TX panhandle, or the OK panhandle, or some other extremely sparse area (like rural AK).

Don't take this the wrong way, but it sounds like the vaccine is no longer a matter of public policy for you, and has instead become an issue of morality. Ignoring whether that's a fair way to view the situation, I would submit to you that it simply doesn't make any sense from a policy standpoint. Herd immunity can be obtained somewhere between a 70 and 90% vaccination rate. Right now, 76% of the country has gotten at least one dose of the vaccine. We are well on target to achieve herd immunity, and even if the virus mutates in the unvaccinated population and causes another outbreak, those later strains will be too weak to kill anyone but the fattest, oldest, most unhealthy people in the country. Simply put, it is a waste of time and resources to continue these draconian policies just to maybe save the lives of that small demographic. Forced vaccinations will help no one, and will only serve to accelerate the breakdown of trust between citizen and state in this country.

Fair enough. To be 100% on honest with you, I did assume less than 76% had at least one vaccine dose, and more importantly I thought herd immunity would require something like 80% vaccinatio rates, not 70%. Then in all honesty, I don't think we would really require physical vaccine mandates. What I still stand by, however, is that if it were in fact necessary to obtain herd immunity - if, hypothetically, we needed 80% vaccinated and we only had, say, 70% vaccinated and the other 30% refusing to get the vaccine no mater what - I would say that it would have to happen. Fortunately, as things actually stand, I don't think it'll actually be required. So yes, in this case, fortunately, the extreme authoritarianism I think the government might have otherwise had to resort to can be avoided. But I think as a philosophy, my problem with libertarianism is that while on certain things, yes, we could do with a smaller, less interfering government, we need a totally authoritarian and forceful government in others (and I'd say the pandemic is an example where the latter attitude is approprate, except thankfully, the number of insane MAGAtards is low enough that we don't need it).

[Schiff for Senate]

bro y is this thread tldr

Because a significant part of it is a discussion between myself in Dule. I'm not exactly known to write short posts - or even split my posts in paragraphs - so that makes sense, and Dule is also a great and very thoughtful poster (his meming aside). Given that we are discussing libertarianism as a philosophy/ideology, a pretty deep topic, I wouldn't be too surprised that we have long posts here. (If you want to read short posts that are snappy, witty, and attack the other side, see the entire USGD board  ).

[John Dule]

Fair enough. To be 100% on honest with you, I did assume less than 76% had at least one vaccine dose, and more importantly I thought herd immunity would require something like 80% vaccinatio rates, not 70%. Then in all honesty, I don't think we would really require physical vaccine mandates. What I still stand by, however, is that if it were in fact necessary to obtain herd immunity - if, hypothetically, we needed 80% vaccinated and we only had, say, 70% vaccinated and the other 30% refusing to get the vaccine no mater what - I would say that it would have to happen. Fortunately, as things actually stand, I don't think it'll actually be required. So yes, in this case, fortunately, the extreme authoritarianism I think the government might have otherwise had to resort to can be avoided. But I think as a philosophy, my problem with libertarianism is that while on certain things, yes, we could do with a smaller, less interfering government, we need a totally authoritarian and forceful government in others (and I'd say the pandemic is an example where the latter attitude is approprate, except thankfully, the number of insane MAGAtards is low enough that we don't need it).

The thing is, you don't get to choose to have an authoritarian government for just the small number of occasions in which you really need it. In theory, yes, it would be great to have a government that adjusts its approach (and size) to respond to the situation at hand. But getting the state to "shrink back down" post-crisis is rarely possible. Thus, when you grant the government a new power, you should operate off of the assumption that it will retain that power indefinitely. Once you assume that, ask yourself this: Would you feel secure knowing this power was in the hands of your enemies rather than your friends? Is this a power you would entrust not only to the leaders of the present, but to those of the future as well? Are there safeguards in place to prevent an unscrupulous person from using this power for his own gain? Once you start asking these questions, you'll be surprised at how often you answer "no."

I am not an ideological libertarian. I am a utilitarian who happens to believe that libertarianism maximizes utility. Thus, I have no particular loyalty to libertarian thought in-itself, and I'll be the first to admit that libertarian systems often fail to meet certain challenges. But politics is not a project of perfection. There is no system that works 100% of the time-- our goal should simply be to find the system that works better than the rest.

[HisGrace]

Because I don't like being forced to do things and don't particularly want to force anyone else to do much of anything beyond basic stuff like not killing or stealing. It's not complicated. I continue to be amazed by how much both red and blue avs want to run other people's lives, though.

[Saint Milei]

Damn near everyone critical of libertarianism doesn't know much about it. Centrist is proof

This is coming from you, a guy who still doesn't know, something like 15 months post-election, that Biden won, and in fact a neo-Confederate, so excuse me if I'm not too offended by your words. John Dule's opinion, I respect. Yours, I ignore.

It's coming from an actual libertarian.