Libertarianism (Pro) vs. Socialism (Con)

The Role of The Government in a Libertarian SocietyMy opponent is mistaken in his notion that an individual has a right to do absolutely anything in a Libertarian society. The definition of Libertarianism is “...the view that each person has the right to live his life in any way he chooses so long as he respects the equal rights of others”; as I have already made clear, these rights can be broadly defined under the umbrellas of Life, Liberty, and Property. To determine if an action would be considered illegal under a Libertarian system, ask yourself if it directly violates one or more of these three principles; then you’ll have your answer. Because the Libertarian philosophy holds autonomy in highest regard: that the owner of the individual is the individual himself, any law that seeks to restrict an action that does not violate the equal rights of others is interpreted as an outside power trying to enforce its will onto something that does not belong to them. To further expand upon this legal philosophy, here is a short rundown of actions, and their hypothetical legal status. Status ViolatesMurder: Illegal----------Life, Liberty, PropertyRape: Illegal-----------Liberty, PropertyBurglary: Illegal-----------PropertyMarijuana: Legal----------N/AGay Marriage: Legal------N/AThe Nature of Human RightsMy opponent’s argument that individual rights are not natural, but merely the property of a government that “allows” us them is a clear exhibition of the state-worship so prevalent on the progressive left. As Thomas Jefferson famously declared in The Declaration of Independence, “Man is endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights…” They are not a concept thought up by some foppish French philosophers in the 18th century, but rather a natural product of evolution, and man’s eventual realization of himself as a unique, autonomous individual. When we look at Nazi Germany, we do not say that the Jews had no right to be alive in the country simply by the fact that the government killed 6 million of them, but rather that the government was actively suppressing their right to life. It was a crime, regardless of what was on the German law books. Similarly, if a Democratic Socialist society confiscates the wealth of millions, it is not “granting fewer rights than a libertarian government”, because the wording implies that rights are the property of the state, free to be swept aside when convenient. The more accurate phrase to use when describing such a situation is that the Democratic Socialists are suppressing more. While on the subject of wording, the claim that libertarians allow for people to “hoard great wealth”, while technically true, is heavily misleading. We do not profess that hoarding a great amount of wealth is a moral or desireable act, but recognize a man’s right to do as he pleases with his own property. It is very easy to frame any personal liberty as undesirable by presenting it from the angle of their sometimes ugly results. For example, “the right to be racist” sounds a lot worse that “the right to free speech”, but they are ultimately the same concept.Forced Charity, and The Fallacy of “Need”In order to illustrate his point that redistribution by force is permissible, my opponent presents a touching story about how the wants of the poor outweigh the rights of the rich. Not only does this present a misunderstanding of income mobility, and who the rich actually are, but adds yet another tally to his growing list of reasons to deny rights to thousands of people. As I said in my previous posting, the distinction between brackets of taxation is a complete arbitration by the sheer virtue of its assumption that an individual’s right to property grows weaker and weaker the higher up the ladder he gets. The very definition of rights is that they are absolute, and I stand by my original argument. My opponent attempted to counter this by saying that a certain family may live more comfortably if the rich man were to relinquish his property rights. Even if true, I fail to see how the prospect of potentially helping one person justifies the suppression of another’s freedoms. The logic used here is akin to saying that a bully should have his tongue cut out because it would possibly make his victim feel better. The only difference between these two scenarios is that the hypothetical family on the receiving end of the redistribution isn’t the victim of the man being stolen from, and thus the action is even less justifiable. Capitalism and the Death of PovertyIn the comments (it wasn't pasting on here) is the average GDP Per Capita from approx. 1 A.D.-2000. Capitalism in its modern form has existed since around 1800, and as you can see it has had a tremendously positive impact on the wealth, and standard of living from people all around the world. The wealth earned and the presence of a Democratic Socialist does not seem to have any correlation, as Japan (a country without a European style welfare state) has recently surpassed Western Europe. In addition, places like Switzerland, Hong Kong, and Singapore, which are renowned for their very libertarian-like economies, easily compete with Western Europe as far a economics go, and are currently growing at a much faster rate.The Tyranny of the MajorityWhy Individuals Must Be ProtectedMy opponent has made the argument that “The needs of society outweigh the rights of the individual”. What he fails to understand, however, is that the collective (society) does not exist as an objective reality. The collective, rather is a group of individuals who all have the same equal rights. A group of 1000 individuals does not have any more rights than a group of two, nor is a group of two superior to one. To do so would be to fall into the trap of “tyranny of the majority” or mob rule. There is a reason why the United States was founded as a Republic rather than a Democracy, and it was to avoid a pure Democracy’s tendency to devolve into mob violence and persecution. The central prescription that prevents a Republic from falling down the path of absolute Democracy is the presence of individual rights. These rights are intended to protect the minority, and the individual is the smallest minority in existence. My opponent seems to already have advocated for the “voting away” of other’s rights, showing that his ideology or a limited respect for the republican system, and individual freedoms as a whole.