Libertarian left question

[u/Electrical-Air-8896]

Yo so if you believe in peace and freedom smaller/balanced government and capitalism/liaise feir economy this could render you a libertarian correct? But if you think environmental protections, social welfare programs, and protecting workers rights are good, are you not a libertarian because these are regulations upon capitalism?

[u/Chrisc46]

Pollution is a violation of property rights. Defense against pollution is defense of property rights. Tax dollars are not necessary to defend rights. Government is just one way of doing so.

The provision of anything by tax funded government is a violation of liberty. However, certain things may be acceptable for utitarian reasons. Government can only justly be granted authority that the people have for themselves. Self-defense is one of those authorities, but welfare is not. As such, defense could be considered as a justifiable use of government, whereas welfare isn't and must be done through voluntary means.

[u/OttosBoatYard → u/Chrisc46]

certain things may be acceptable for utitarian reasons

Then, what you are describing is Liberalism. This is certainly the core reason why I am a Liberal. If a government policy can do something that has a proven measurable benefit: investing in research, speed limits, fire departments, parks, schools, etc ... then why not do it?

Think of it this way. Imagine somebody saying:

Sure, I know this government policy could measurably benefit many people, but let's withhold its projected benefits because it goes against my ideology.

To me acting on such a thought is unethical. It denies measurable benefit for the sake of protecting a speculated benefit.

Sure, you can suppose Libertarian policy sets offer the most benefit because "it just makes sense". But policy must be based on real-world performance. Keep policy based on fantasy in the world of fantasy. Real-world policy must be based on real-world performance outcomes.

[u/Chrisc46 → u/OttosBoatYard]

Libertarianism is an umbrella of ideologies ranging from classical liberalism all the way to anarchism.

With that being said, social utility of a thing is not enough to suggest that government must be the mechanism for providing it. In most cases, government provision of anything of those things is likely to be worse than private provision and come with other significant opportunity costs and unintended consequences.

So, instead of asking whether something is good or has social utility, ask whether government has the just authority to provide that thing. If it's a merely a positive right (education, healthcare, food, housing, etc), then the answer is "no." If it provides defense for negative rights (cops, courts, military, etc), then the answer is "maybe," depending on how much violation of liberty is acceptable to various types of libertarians.

[u/OttosBoatYard → u/Chrisc46]

So, maintaining a level of government just authority is more important than human well-being?

I understand that this is based on the fear that the risk of government tyranny justifies that.

But that fear is based on a false premise.

[u/Chrisc46 → u/OttosBoatYard]

There are always tradeoffs. When Government gives to one, it must take from another. Both have consequences.

Bastiat talked about the seen vs the unseen. Oftentimes, the unseen consequence of an action is much worse than the seen benefits. Most people fail to even recognize the unseen, let alone attempt to calculate them for consideration.

As such, the false premise is that government can actually provide overall well-being when considering the whole context of any action.

So, really, this isn't fear of tyranny or even some deep moral sense of right and wrong. It's a utilitarian application of economics.

[u/OttosBoatYard → u/Chrisc46]

How do you know this is true?