You're missing a third option: "I give a lot to society at large (of which I am part), out of enlightened self-interest (reinforced by legal penalties if I act short-sightedly)."
Some people will thrive no matter what: centuries of warlordism, robber barons, gangsterism and piracy prove that.
But most people who make a lot of money -- whether from a well-paid job, running a successful business, or a fruitful investment portfolio -- can only do so, and can only enjoy the benefits of doing so, with the support of the trappings of a modern civilised society. E.g.:
- a settled body of law, with a justice system to enforce it
- a more or less ordered and peaceful society
- a more or less stable currency
- civil infrastructure, including transport, utilities and communications
- public health (private medicine will only go so far in protecting the rich in a society rife with infection; plus employees and customers dying of preventable conditions is bad for business)
- public education (all but the most menial jobs require at least basic literacy and numeracy, and most require significantly more)
- some kind of safety net for the poor (impoverished people make poor customers, and angry young impoverished people can get a bit handy at the barricades)
These cost money.
The rich get to be rich, and to enjoy their riches, because of the taxes they (and everyone else) pay, not in spite of them.
Well put. What strikes me as strange is that somehow a lot of people associate your train of thought there with some kind of "socialism" whereas it's just plain common sense (free market supporting) pragmatism.
if you can implement those policies without NSA surveillence overreach or police abusing their powers with civil asset forfeiture or Obamacare raising the cost of insurance or setting up a financial system with banks too big to prosecute, then I'd be all for it. Over the past year or so I'm convinced this is impossible, and that the existing value system the U.S. Is built on is flawed. I hope this has not struck you as strange.
I wasn't talking about the US in particular, I'm from Europe in fact.
I pretty much agree with all your points: surveillance overreach is unacceptable, police power abuse is disgusting, mandatory private health insurance is unethical (though the previous situation didn't exactly work either so I'm unsure that would be better), and I think almost all monopolies are the enemy of both free markets and social protection.
Fixing these things does not require libertarianism or socialism or whatelsehaveyouism. They need political pragmatism, courage and common sense.
I'm not an American libertarian, but the (non-american) libertarians I know agree with most of the points you mention.
- a settled body of law, with a justice system to enforce it
yes, and they want more of it. What they don't want is codifying morals and customs into law (eg: gay marriage or not, anti-abortion, anti-most stuff), except for the very basics (thou shalt not kill and stuff).
- a more or less ordered and peaceful society
- a more or less stable currency
well, actually that's one of the central points for most libertarians. Giving the government the power to print money (and to punish private transactions) is very problematic. See: Argentina right now. Or Venezuela.
- civil infrastructure, including transport, utilities and communications
well, yes, but they can be privatized and work as well.
- public health (private medicine will only go so far in protecting the rich in a society rife with infection; plus employees and customers dying of preventable conditions is bad for business)
this one's very debatable, yeah, most libertarians are against public health. I still don't know which is the best option (insurance companies certainly aren't)
- public education (all but the most menial jobs require at least basic literacy and numeracy, and most require significantly more)
most libertarians are against public education, but that does not translate to not helping everyone get basic literacy, it can be archieved through grants or coupons or stuff. Plus at least in my country there are several free private schools available (paid for by religious or other NGOs), of much better quality than public ones.
- some kind of safety net for the poor
some are in favor of that one, they disagree on the how (and very especially on the how it's done now).
Your "argument" doesn't answer isomorphic's point, nor makes any sense even on its own. The second option of your false choice is, if anything, an ideal of anarchism (which is what some people in the past or outside of America mean by "libertarianism"), not American Libertarianism. Private property, perhaps the most sacred of American Libertarian tenets, is entirely dependent on being enshrined by law and enforced by violence.
Another most sacred American Libertarian tenet is the notion of personal responsibility and credit, that each of us in a free market is solely and entirely to blame for our poverty and deserve all the profit and wealth we obtain, that in a free society society is not responsible for our personal condition nor us for society's. How does the importance you give to "when in-grained into society" in your straw-man setup jive with that?
Perhaps the important distinction you missed is "American Libertarianism", as opposed to libertarianism in general, which runs the gamut from Ayn Randian worship of selfishness, laissez-faire capitalism and strong private property rights to libertarian socialism and Libertarian Marxism.
I did not note the "American" part of "American Libertarianism".
I'll walk back to the anarchy camp.
Public benefits can be shared more efficiently and more benevolently by a government around the corner than by one thousands of kilometres away hiding behind lines of police, security guards and lobbyists.
> "I give a lot to my fellow human beings, because they are obligations enshrined by law."
In a democratic society, the laws are, broadly speaking, an expression of the voice of the people. The laws of my country of residence require that I give a significant amount of my income, plus 25% VAT on anything I buy. That's a societal choice, and the popular consensus is that it is a fine system, and the lesser inequality and better social services resulting from it make it entirely worth it.
The out of the goodness of my heart ignores the inefficiency of such a system. Government funded programs are much more efficient at ensuring a clean environment, good roads, universal education, universal healthcare, etc. Also it ignores human nature and the free rider problem.
Maximising efficiency isn't sufficient to build a harmonious society. Taking efficiency to the level of absurdity - it would be most efficient to put all non-productive individuals into a coma and pump them full of feel-good hormones, so that there's more roads, more education and more healthcare for those who are productive so they can pay more taxes to give more universal healthcare, education and roads.
I'm not saying that I'm against government funded programs, only saying your argument of the inefficiency of human goodness is not a valid one, when talking about building a society that maximises a utility measure that includes material as well as emotional wellbeing.
2) turns very readily into "I pretend to be all about giving to fellow human beings while not actually doing it" or "I give my employees 80 hour weeks so they can earn more, am I not generous?"
That seems overly simplistic. Sometimes it's easier to get motivated if you have already seen the results or what the taxes/regulations can do.
It's much easier to be motivated to pay taxes for public health care when you have seen it first hand, and not just listened to a politicans pipe dream.
It's even easier if the person needing help for health care is someone who you relate to intimately, like your best friend/parent/brother/child.
Where in a country of low taxes you'd be able to afford to provide care for your close ones out of the goodness of your heart, in a country of heavy taxation, it's much harder for you to do this. The inefficiency of government benefits and subsidies inflates the cost of health care on one hand, while inability for policies to customise benefits per patient means often benefits are distributed unfairly.
Where in a communist nation the government reduces inequality by making everyone poor, a nation that taxes heavily to provide universal benefits reduces inequality (of family connections) by making everyone face their problems alone, with only the help of a regular bank deposit from the government as well as the occasional union with a family member. It divides us from a strong network with many connections between each node to one of spoke and hub, where the spoke is an individual and the hub the state.
Sometimes you might feel lonely and have no one to turn to, even as you have dozens and dozens of friends. This is why.
If that's true then the free market - motivated by greed - must be the most evil institution imaginable. As Adam Smith put it, it is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.
"I give a lot to my fellow human beings, because they are obligations enshrined by law."
"I give a lot to my fellow human beings, out of the goodness of my heart."
And that's what "Anti-Libertarianists" don't get.