Divorce Dissolution Questionnaire: Fill & Download for Free

I looked at this question a couple of days ago, and really failed to come up with a straight answer, or a strategy to answer it. But I will attempt it nonetheless.The first point that needs to be raised is that the law begins when common morality ends. Another way of expressing that is that common belief systems among like minded individuals are flexible, and reflect a multitude of competing ideas. But an equilibrium is achieved through leadership and common purpose. The law is far more fixed in nature. It also assumes the worst and works towards limiting the damage. It often a guard rail, limiting people's actions from going out of bounds.Traditionally, the law concerned itself with what was illegal. Namely, everything is acceptable unless it was specifically banned. But other traditions have taken the opposite tack, namely that everything is banned unless specifically allowed. Its the difference between roman jurisprudence and the prussian interpretation of roman jurisprudence.In a previous universe, I worked on military contracts. The army took the notion that "everything is illegal unless specifically allowed". While the good folks in the navy took the opposite tack, namely that pretty much everything was permitted unless specifically prohibited.And in our current lawless economy, there are people that insist that you should be allowed to do whatever it pleases them. So enter companies like Uber predicated on violating an entire class of municipal ordinances. The problem is that the self same companies that believe that they are not bound by the regulatory environment, do believe that individuals within the self same corporation are bound by the rules and regulations within the company. So they operate on a deterministic basis. Its the proverbial "we are not ordering you to do anything, but we all must agree these are the rules". Which requires individuals to abdicate their moral authority to the corporation. Which is where group think sinks in.Which is in stark contrast to the teachings of the roman catholic faith, where forty religious orders compete on the battle field of metaphysical truth. No one order has a monopoly, and no one individual is unbound from their moral authority. At the end of the day "It is so ordered". That is how organizational discipline is achieved. You don't have to agree to anything, but if the hierarchy puts forward a consensus opinion, and its is so ordered, then that is the official position. That is the traditional blah-blah-blah vademecum. If it makes zero sense, since its a consensus opinion.The protestants take the opposite tack, "there is only one truth, and if you disagree its because you have not understood, or are flaunting the Law". Because in the prussian system if there is one metaphysical truth, there can be only one law.But that is obviously problematic when you have competing truth values, within the same society. Jesus Christ did walk in the market and call the money changers evil, which undermined Rome's authority to tax. And he did walk into the Holy Temple, and proclaimed himself above their Devine Law. And He stated he was the Son of God. It was within their moral right, to demand that He be put to death. And Pontius Pilate gave in to the wishes of the crowd (the majority) and had Him crucified. The reason this is taught in catechism 101 is because that is the result one can look forward to, when the law follows the wishes of the crowd. That is the result when you force the legal system to parody the common held belief systems. That is what happens when a singular metaphysical truth is held up as law. People of different belief systems, get slaughtered. And then nobody renders onto Caesar what is Caesar's, namely a tax tribute.Which is why we still use roman jurisprudence. Because it was born at a time when there were 1000 competing deities. And no one metaphysical truth could be held above the rest. Because you cannot run a civilization with singular cultural norms. Which is why the law concerns itself with the chain of custody, and rules of evidence. And that is why the law must stand outside of morality, because nobody in a civilized court of law can determine what is right and what is not.Which is also the reason why traditionally most of the members of the US Supreme Court are catholics. Even "progressive" Obama put two catholics (Keagan and Sottomayor) on the bench. Because even a rabble rousing socialist as Sottomayor had to take exception with forcing 110,000 US Nuns to pay for their birth control and abortion rights. Because it defies reason.The above hopefully can separate the issue of "what is law" and what is "morality". We know what the law is, but we don't know what the presumptuous aspirations of moral people are. And nor should we care.The first duty of legal counsel is to educate their client. Because principal costs money. Because 99% of all entrepreneurs of the scientific variety don't understand the first thing about the law.***The biggest problem legal professionals face is that people believe "they re right" and when things go bad they expect lawyers to re-establish right. Which never happens, because the law does not really concern itself with right and wrong.People also believe that the law is designed to cover every eventuality. It cannot and should not. Only despotic authoritarian systems insist that the law (mostly administrative abuse in the form of rules and regulations) should cover every eventuality. The law is a pretty general "no trust system". The particularity of interest in any transaction, can be made legal bound only through the artifice of contract.Its contract that most people fail to grasp. Namely that their specific issues are contract bound, not morality bound, or lawfully bound.But bound is precisely that, its a boundary. The "sum", in latin, has many connotations. Its essentially the moral boundary that people chose to operate within. Its also a physical boundary. As in a plot of land being demarcated by its width and depth. Its a geometric boundary. The sum of which is the acreage. Which is why we use sum to indicate the measurements, say 100ft by 200ft sums up to 20,000 sq feet. Some would say cogito ergo sum (I think therefore I am), and other would say sum ergo cogito (I am therefore I think). Some others yet insist on sum et cogito (I am and I think). Because you think ahead so that you can protect and avoid harming the sum. The sum is the sum of my moral choices. The cogito is the sum of my mental skills. And the et is how I operate in reality, in this case, via grammatical rules.I am bound by the consequences of my moral choices. I am also bound by two "no trust" systems: accounting, and jurisprudence. How I put those three together is the sum of who I am.I bring this up because people show up in legal offices with the intent of codifying their power relationships in contract. And they need to understand that the contract cannot reflect their power over others.***Corporations are deterministic cultural organizations. They are duty bound and have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders, to operate within the law, under generally accepted accounting practices, and to eliminate as much of the risk as is humanly possible. Because shareholders do not exist in a vacuum. Its the surplus capital they set aside for retirement, medical bills and their children's education. So corporations are duty bound to preserve capital and grow it in excess of the risk premium employed, and in excess of the inflation present in the medium of exchange, also known as currency. The Corporation's job is to eliminate risk.***And entrepreneurial organization has the opposite purpose. Its there to take risk capital and apply it to risky disruptive business ventures. Its job is to explore new possibilities. Its in the business of discovery and exploration. Its in the risk business. Its is duty bound to risk the entire capital in the pursuit of innovation, new scientific discovery, and in extermediating inefficiencies in the system.In europe, a corporate bankruptcy will place you in jail. Because burning through capital is not deemed legal. Its risk averse in the extreme. It does not matter what class of investor commits what class of risk capital. You go under you go to jail. Its the debtor's prison of Dickensian lore.In the US that is not the case. Qualified investors can risk other people's capital with impunity.***We are of course concerned with this last class of entrepreneurs. And how can a legal professional help them...I believe that 99% of most entrepreneurs know absolutely nothing about the law. And that is the problem. So they don't avail themselves of all the benefits that understanding the law affords them. The same case can be made about accounting, its not mathematics.If I were a practicing lawyer trying to address the entrepreneurial market, as opposed to the corporate market, I would start by educating my target audience. But that cannot be done one to one. I would create a legal startup seminar for entrepreneurs.What I would cover with a series of seminars is the following:1) The law does not concern itself with morality.2) A basic introduction to contract.3) A basic introduction to regulatory issues.4) A basic introduction to no-trust systems.5) Investors want to protect capital, entrepreneurs are statistically likely to burn it.6) Investors have contracts designed to mitigate that.7) A contract is a two way street: it protects the employer from the employee, and the employee from the employer.8) The contract is not a tool of domination, its a boundary.9) Anything within the sum total of one's authority is permissible, anything outside the sum is subject to the contract.10) Operating within the contract is not subject to the law, rules or regulations. Those are moral choices.11) Investors have the right to set boundaries. Because they have a fiduciary responsibility to do so. So if a class of investors, say the venture capital industry insist on certain rules its not because "its the law" or because "its the right thing to do" or because "they are right and you are wrong". Its because its how they mitigate risk.12) Accounting is also a no trust system. And it has the full authority of the State to enforce the rules. Violating accounting rules is neither right nor morally wrong. Its simply a mathematical system. But violating accounting rules is an offense punishable by the law. It can be a fine, or a term of incarceration.13) All business is predicated on trust. Absent trust all business ceases. Because contracts can never keep up with all the myriad of business deals that get cooked up. What trust is predicated on, is generally accepted accounting practices. Because people that do not respect accounting, cannot be individually trusted. No investor will invest in an untrustworthy person, regardless of what contract their skilled lawyers can come up with.14) The law either says "you are free to do whatever you want, within these boundaries" (capitalism) or it says "you can only do what is specifically allowed, everything else is out of bounds" (totalitarianism, communism or whatever flavor of the month they are calling it). That is the regulatory environment.15) Ideas cannot be patented. Patents are based on process. Patents are monopolies. Monopolies are bad for business. Which is why they are allowed for limited times. Copyright only give rights to expression. And trademarks are perpetual symbols of Trust and Quality. Intellectual property is of course a misnomer. IP is mostly a Trade Secret under State law. Its an Employment Contract issue only.16) The only thing of value on the Balance Sheet is the Trademark Equity. Also known as Good Will. Because if you are shoving a contract in your clients face, he will not have goodwill. And if your interaction with your vendors is based on a contract, they will not have any goodwill either. Again, the object here would be to explain that contracts are out of bound statements, and are generally employed where trust fails.17) Domination is no substitute for leadership. People develop psychological resistance to being dominated. They develop resistance to being micro-managed. All rule based systems are collectivist attempts at domination. Which is why contract based industries are barely profitable. Capital intensive industries, like automakers or airlines are rule based systems. They have unions, and operate on union rules. Which is why they always end up in bankruptcy court. In order to protect the heavy investments necessary, they undermine their own profitability. Process is also deterministic. Which is why its rule based. Entrepreneurship is the exact opposite. Which is why its problematic. But even entrepreneurship has to operate within certain rules, namely the rules investors chose to protect themselves via contract, and within the rules of accounting. But you cannot deterministically, mechanically produce innovation. Which means the contract has to be a boundary or a limit, but not a process by which entrepreneurs dominate their economic charges.18) Most entrepreneurs want to know what are the mechanics of corporation formation. Also known as incorporation. Most entrepreneurs don't understand that if no currency is transacted, as far as the government is concerned, the business does not exist. Incorporation is only concerned with taxable events. Absent taxation, the company does not exist. Until such time as you are invoicing, and provided you have not taken somebody's money as investment (including your own), you have absolutely nothing to report to the Internal Revenue Service. They get really pissy if you file zero revenue corporate filings.But investors do care how they protect their capital. And they care even more about how they can mitigate and lower tax collection. Which means they choose tax efficient vehicles for their investments. So how VCs like to incorporate, has absolutely nothing to do with right and wrong, and everything to do with tax law. Even if an entrepreneur does not want to go the investment route, if it assumes that one day it might want to do so, then the corporation has at the very least be compatible with investment vehicles preferred by institutional investors (e.g. no llc's, but S Corps that can be one-time converted to C Corps).19) There is a substantial difference in the law between a "moral person" and a "corporation". And in most of Europe most corporations must have a moral person to take fiduciary responsibility. In the US the line is a little blurry. Regardless, leadership is morality bound to its employees, to its board of directors and to its shareholders. It also has legal responsibilities with tax authorities. And its legally bound to generally accepted accounting practices. Entrepreneurs get the three confused. And then they get upset when they take investment money and they realize they are just employees of the corporation. Yes, they are also shareholders, but in daily practice, they have to treat themselves as employees.20) The single most important contribution that legal professionals can make, is address partner relations. Because partners in a business are both moral persons, legal entities, and shareholders. And the moment that co-founders in a business disagree about metaphysical truth, the business is headed towards dissolution. I would say that 90% of all business disagreements among business partners revolves around "truth-values" which is what metaphysical truth goes by today. The legal professional should be very clear in explaining that the law does not care either way. And that a contract cannot enforce that either. If you want to foster "corporate culture", that is a moral choice. And all partners should agree on day one. If serious disagreements occur, then the organization goes out of bounds. And only a contract can resolve the dissolution of the organization. A contract cannot resolve the dispute, because the law does not care who is right or wrong. But in the eventuality that things go out of bounds, who gets to decide what? How are the shareholders represented? Under what authority does the board operate? Who gets to decide what where and when? Only a contract can spell that out. And that requires a legal professional.Once entrepreneurs understand the above, you can make a serious case for providing them legal services.They need to understand what can go wrong. They need to understand that the law will not protect the investor, the entrepreneur or the employee if the operation goes out of bounds. Only a contract can do that.And if something goes wrong, what is the exit strategy? What are the rules to determine the exit strategy? What can the shareholders expect? What can management expect? What can employees expect?. The law does not care if a company goes out of business. It only cares if accounting rules were broken, and who gets what of the remaining assets. The law is only concerned with the orderly disposition, and orderly dissolution of the corporate entity.The only case a legal professional can do is make a case for the worst case. Set the boundaries and provide a clear strategy for exiting the business.21) Entrepreneurs also need to understand that the law is highly specialized. You cannot call a criminal lawyer to resolve a divorce proceeding. And by the same token if you cook the books, you need a tax lawyer. Corporations in heavily regulated industries, need lawyers that specialize in that industry. And you will not call an insurance liability legal specialist, if you want to negotiate landing rights at a major airport. By the same token you cannot call on a lawyer practicing patent law with a specialization in microbiology if you want to file a patent on a communications semiconductor. The law is highly specialized. Corporate law is one thing, entrepreneurship requires a different set professional practices.22) Most entrepreneurship law practices revolves around VC needs. That is a serious conflict of interest, process and adjudication. That is driven by the fact that VCs have money. Their money their rules. And entrepreneurs have no money. So a gun is placed to the temple of some twenty something technical nerd and $50k is extracted under duress to create a legal entity sympathetic to the investor's needs. So far so good. Because time is money and lawyers have 12+4+3 years of education to pay for. Another 3 if they practice patent law, and say they also have an advanced degree in chemistry.So to answer the question I would provide:a) A three weekend seminar on the law for entrepreneurs.b) A set of boilerplate agreements that can keep the legal costs down at incorporation.c) A boilerplate "all legal requirements to get a tax id"d) A co-founders questionnaire that raises most of the known problems, which forces discussion and resolution of the most common "misunderstandings".e) A boilerplate partners agreement.f) A boilerplate articles of incorporation.Or if the co-founders questionnaire raises serious problematics:g) A human reviewed partner's agreement and articles.h) Boilerplate corporate IP protection and Employee Contract that reflects the corporations IP rights.i) Boilerplate vendor/subcontractor/consultant contract with IP assignment to corporation.Make the above an Introductory Seminar Series.And make it a requirement to gaining access to more specialized seminars. Like one on patents, copyrights and trademarks. EtcThen make a strong case for review the moment the business gets traction. Or code is written and IP becomes a real concern. Or potential investors are being sought and corporate documentation must be finessed to reflect that.The point is that entrepreneurs don't have the money to get proper legal counsel. But if you educate them at a reasonable dollar figure because you are squeezing 50 people in the same room, they will call when its reasonable they should do so. Its also important to understand that 90% of business incorporation leads absolutely nowhere. So a "boilerplate" agreement should be boilerplate and very cheap, but cover all they need to incorporate a business. But they also need to understand that a boilerplate legal incorporation might be completely wrong for their specific needs. So some form of legal counsel must be brought into the equation. But that costs money. Serious money. So they should be advised to go through all the partnership questionnaires and seriously look at control issues, and resolve them first. And only then have a lawyer spend a couple of hours reviewing them and making recommendations.The money of course will come when those companies grow and need big-people legal agreements. Because every inflection in the business needs new legal frameworks. New partners or new investors will obviously require that.I would also make the case that eventually partner-shareholders need representation when dealing with professional investors. But again here we have the same problem we started out from, namely that partner-shareholders have stock options only in their wallets, and the investors have the cash.So you have to look at it differently. If you have a VC you are supporting you could be looking at 20 contracts a year at 20-50k. Which is a good chunk of change. But if you are looking to provide advice to startups you will need to address the fact that no-money entrepreneurs have little cash to spare. Which means its a numbers name, and you need to get organized around processing the greatest amount of incorporations at the lowest possible cost. And then growing the legal practice around their changing needs. Hopefully if they understand the limits of the law, and the strengths of the Contract, they will seek the help they need, when they see the need. But you need to educate them as to the specific nature of the need first.Jurisprudence is a magnificent edifice of grand intellectual stature. And so is accounting. And yet people jump into business not knowing the first thing about either. That is the problem. If you don't know that you need a hammer and nails to build a house, chances are you will not complete the house. And the by the time the house collapses, its useless to call in a lawyer.The only value a lawyer has in a startup is the value that he/she creates within that startup. The fact that they do not see the value, or act on that value is on you. Because ultimately if they fail, that is not your moral responsibility. Your responsibility is purely ethical. And until such times as both sides of the equation get that last statement, nobody is availing themselves of the Grand Edifice.Bridge the gap, the money will follow.Or go for the money and screw the entrepreneurs.Long answer... if it was clear in my mind, I could have provided a shorter answer. Thanks for the a2a, sorry for the delay in responding.

Where do liberals disagree with libertarians?It depends upon what is meant by libertarianism.What is libertarianism?If you think of yourself as a “libertarian” but would have preferred Bernie Sanders to any of the other candidates for president in 2016, then you are probably not the kind of “libertarian” I am talking about in this answer.The kind of “libertarianism” discussed below by this answer is a hostile reaction to liberalism that seeks to destroy it. The focus in this answer is on the kind of libertarianism we see being espoused by the Libertarian Party, the Koch brothers and their network (the most selfish faction of the corporate elite), Rupert Murdoch and his media empire including Fox News, Rand Paul, etc.For purpose of this answer, I shall assume that the word “libertarian” refers primarily to these rich and powerful people on the far right, because it is their version of “libertarianism” that is most significant, because it is their version that has the most power over American policy. It is their version that is most likely to actually be imposed on us in America.Differing Values of Liberals and LibertariansThe Cato Institute published some interesting data about the last election that can help us identify some differences between liberals and libertarians.First, Cato had supporters of various candidates rank themselves on the question of how liberal or conservative they are. Then they had people answer questionnaires designed to bring out how strongly they felt about four “foundations” of morality: Care (empathy, compassion), Proportionality (People should get what they deserve), Liberty, and Loyalty-Authority-Sanctity (a group of moral foundations that previous researchers had identified as being shared by conservatives, but not by liberals). They used the resulting data to create the graph below.Citation: Donald Trump Supporters Think about Morality Differently than Other Voters. Here's How.On the graph, the candidates are listed in order based on how liberal or conservative their followers report themselves to be, with the most liberal on the left and most conservative on the right. Bernie Sanders’ supporters are the most liberal, so we will take the values of his supporters as indicative of liberal values. Rand Paul is generally regarded as the most “libertarian” of the candidates, so we will take the values of Rand Paul supporters as representative of libertarian values.Paul’s supporters place the highest value on liberty, but Sanders’ supporters place the second highest value on liberty. Thus, both groups place a high value on liberty. A question I will get to later is whether they value the same kind of liberty.Both groups place a low value on authority, loyalty, and purity, a set of values that are popular among all of the supporters of conservative candidates other than Rand Paul. Sanders’ supporters place the lowest value on authority, loyalty, and purity, while Paul supporters place the second lowest value on those attributes. Lack of regard for loyalty and authority would appear to be consistent with the fact that both Paul and Sanders’ supporters place a high value on liberty.So far, liberals and libertarians seem pretty close to each other in their attitudes. However, they are at opposite poles with regard to the other two “moral foundations” included in the diagram.Sanders and Paul supporters part ways with regard to their opposite attitudes about (1) care and compassion for others, and (2) “proportionality” which is described as a preference that each person should get their “just deserts”.Disagreement #1: Liberals put a much Higher Value on Care and Compassion that LibertariansSanders’ supporters (liberals) place the highest value on care and compassion as compared to the supporters of all other candidates, while Paul supporters (libertarians) place the lowest value on care and compassion as compared to the supporters of all of the other candidates.A libertarian may argue that they are more rational because they do not let emotions determine their political choices.A liberal would respond that reason requires compassion for all because reason concludes that the well being of each person is an equally important goal to the well being of every other person. Virtuous emotional dispositions such as the disposition to have compassion for all, do not tend to lead to irrational consequences, but rather, those dispositions provide the emotional motivation to be consistently rational. Compassion is an counter balance, and sometimes an antidote, to the instinctual emotions supportive of selfishness and tribalism. Consequently a person should strive to develop compassion for all as an important virtue. The liberal position is that reason and compassion are compatible virtues that together lead to the best policy choices. Liberals see libertarians’ lack of care and compassion as a vice that leads to poor policy choices. The lack of compassion leads to an easy willingness to adopt defective (irrational) policy arguments that are selfish or tribalistic, and incompatible to reason’s demand that the welfare of all person’s be regarded as equally important.Disagreement #2: Liberals put a much lower value on “proportionality” (“just deserts”) than libertariansAs can be seen from the graph above, Sanders’ supporters (liberals) place a low value on “proportionality” (“just deserts”) while Paul supporters (libertarians) place a very high value on that factor. Liberals disagree with libertarians on this issue.Instinctively, human beings love to see virtue rewarded and vice punished. Almost any story or movie includes this feature.But, should we simply treat our instincts as fundamental principles of morality, or should we consult reason about what is best?The “just deserts” instinct developed because it helped people survive and reproduce in small hunter gatherer communities. Simply following our “just deserts” instinct may not be the best policy for maximizing human well being in modern society. As rational beings, we should ask whether giving free reign to our just deserts instinct works best to maximize well being in modern society.Liberals generally believe that certain limited “just deserts” policies can work as strategies to maximize the well being of all people, but that the incautious unlimited use of such policies as are supported by libertarians has bad consequences.Libertarians and many other conservatives argue for a just deserts policy in which the market determines what a person’s just deserts are. If a person is poor, the market has measured them as undeserving. If a person is wealthy, the market has measured that person as being deserving. On this view, the market determines what a person justly deserves.Why do liberals oppose an unrestricted, market based, “just deserts” policy?While liberals generally agree that there should be some correlation between effort/productivity and earnings, it does not follow that people actually deserve outrageously different incomes when they are each contributing honestly and beneficially to the economy. Furthermore, those who are not able to qualify for (or acquire qualifying skills for) jobs that pay a living wage do not deserve to be destitute.Those who are paying attention can see that in the long run, even the wages for high cognitive skilled jobs will drop below a living wage since such workers will eventually have to compete with low cost automation. A surplus of skilled workers will develop driving down wages for the remaining jobs that are not eliminated by automation. A strong market based “just deserts” policy may have worked during the mid-twentieth century when there were plenty of unskilled jobs with reasonable wages. Things change. Increasingly in the twenty-first century, a market based “just deserts” policy will just drive almost everyone into poverty.The second reason liberals do not support an unrestricted “just deserts” policy is that poor children do not deserve their poverty merely because they are children of adults who are deemed to deserve their poverty. Libertarians and others who insist on strong market based “just deserts” policies have to turn a blind eye toward the children who are deprived of equal opportunity by those policies. It turns out that a strong market based “just deserts policy” is really an “unjust deserts” policy when children are taken into account.The third reason liberals oppose the sort of unrestricted market based “just deserts” policy that libertarians and conservatives support is that such policies depend on the market to allocate rewards and punishments, but the market is not a reliable measure of who deserves what. Under a genuine “just deserts” policy, virtue would be rewarded and vice would be punished, but a market place system of rewards and punishments is driven by many other factors. Very high economic rewards from the market often are based on luck, securing a monopoly, cheating, criminality, immorality, innate ability, having wealthy parents, preying on other peoples’ addictions, and other factors that have nothing to do with virtue. Similarly, poverty as a punishment doled out by the market is often based on factors like having poor parents, lack of innate abilities, disabilities, discrimination, choosing to do what is better rather than what pays more, and other factors that have nothing to do with vice. In other words, a strong market based “just deserts” policy is really an unjust deserts policy. Such a policy needs to be moderated in order to make it more just.The fourth reason liberals do not favor a strong, market based “just deserts’ policy is because such a policy leads to destructive levels of inequality. Liberals understand that such a policy gives excessive power to those who get to decide who deserves what ( the powerful people get to decide). When the corporate elite self servingly collude with each other on corporate boards to decide that their work is worth hundreds of times what your work is worth, or when someone acquires great wealth through dishonest or immoral means, or through luck or monopolies, then liberals are going to say that extreme wealth should be moderated by taxes, and the liberals who are rich agree with them. Liberals can see that an extreme, unmoderated market based “just deserts” policy leads to extreme inequality and is, therefore, a recipe for oligarchy, and thus a negation of the value of both liberty and of the equality of importance of everyone’s happiness.Disagreement #3: Liberals disagree with the libertarian idea of libertySome libertarians describe their view as “the moral view that agents initially fully own themselves and have certain moral powers to acquire property rights in external things.” Alternatively, “Libertarianism is sometimes identified with the principle that each agent has a right to maximum equal empirical negative liberty, where empirical negative liberty is the absence of forcible interference from other agents when one attempts to do things.” Libertarianism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). In either case, libertarianism is associated with placing a high value on liberty understood as the lack of forcible interference by others. With regard to the right wing political philosophy associated with the libertarian party, the Koch brothers, etc., the focus of libertarianism is on freedom from government regulation and taxation.Liberals would agree up to a certain point: the liberty we are entitled to includes the right to be free of unreasonable regulations and unreasonable taxation. However, we are not entitled to be free of democratically imposed reasonable regulations and reasonable taxation. We are entitled to the right to participate in a genuine democracy to determine what the reasonable regulations and taxes will be. Thus, liberals disagree with libertarians with regard to the extent of the liberty we are entitled to. We are not entitled to be vicious.Early liberals such as John Locke and Adam Smith conceived of liberty not as complete license to do whatever one pleases, but rather as license to live a good life, understanding the good life as one characterized by virtue and happiness.How did the word “liberal” get its meaning? Before the word “liberal” was applied to politics, it was an adverb used to indicate a connection between the modified noun and the virtue known as “liberality”. Adam Smith and his contemporaries were the first to give the word “liberal” a political meaning when they began to use the adverb “liberal” to modify words like “policy” and “system”. Their purpose was to indicate the connection between the virtue of liberality and the policies and systems they were arguing for. Thus, from the beginning, liberalism had to do with the virtue of liberality.When used to refer to virtue, the word “liberality” means open mindedness and generosity.Open mindedness, when referring to a virtue, does not mean willingness to believe anything, but rather means willingness to depart from traditional and/or habitual beliefs when presented with more rational ideas. In other words, to be open minded is to be rational. Thus, to call a system, policy, or person liberal, was to indicate they are rational.Generosity is the behavior of a compassionate person. Thus, to call a system, policy, or person “liberal”, was to indicate they are compassionate.Thus, from the beginning, the defining virtues of liberalism were reason and compassion. Consequently, when a liberal identifies what sort of liberty is most important, they turn to the guidance of reason and compassion.The kind of liberty that a rational and compassionate person wants for themselves and for others is the liberty to live a good life. Such liberty is not just freedom from interference, it is freedom to achieve a good life. Such liberty requires the possibility of access to the means for accomplishing the goal.Thus, the liberty most valued by liberals is the liberty to live good life (a life characterized by sustained happiness and virtue including reason, compassion, and other dispositions approved by reason and compassion). The existence of such liberty depends on genuine ability (with assistance if necessary) to access the means for living a good life like food, shelter, education, healthcare. Since liberals value everyone having the liberty to live a good life, they are keen to increase access to, and provide assistance for others to gain access to, the means for living a good life.The most important liberty for liberals, the liberty to live a good life, in addition to involving access to the means for living a good life, also involves a considerable degree of that freedom from interference that libertarians value. In order to allow a person to live a good life, the person should not be subject to forcible interference, except where such interference is rationally justified because such interference is necessary to establish the conditions for a universal liberty to live a good life. Establishment, for all people, of the conditions for the liberty to live a good life has been found to require reasonable regulation and taxation. Consequently, liberals generally hold that there should be no forcible interference with another person’s control over themselves except when such interference is justified for purposes of establishing the conditions for a universal liberty to live a good life. Reasonable regulation and taxation are necessary for that purpose.Locating Liberals and Libertarians on an Empirically Based Political Orientations GridFor purposes of explaining the next two disagreements that liberals have with libertarians, it will help to look at the political orientations grid below. The grid has an empirical foundation. I based it on the the 2010–2014 Inglehart–Welzel Cultural Map. That cultural map was based on extensive research by a network of social scientists around the world on behalf of the World Values Survey which focused on determining the prevalence of various values in a large number of countries around the world. (We will be looking at the World Cultures Map later in this answer).The political orientations grid makes use of four concepts which I define as follows:Traditionalists follow tradition, and often look to ancient sacred religious texts as the ultimate guide for what they should do, say, and believe. Their political orientation favors adherence to tradition, especially their religion, when determining how society should be organized, what our laws should be, what rights should be protected, etc.Progressives deviate from tradition when they believe that some other alternative would work better than tradition. They tend to rely on reason and observation to determine what would work better. Thus, progressives place a higher value on reason and observation than on tradition when determining how we should proceed.Tribalists are those who tend to prefer a society in which (1) persons inside some group (which I will refer to as the “tribe”) regard each other as having more value than those outside the group, so that those inside the group are recognized as valuable persons, and those outside are regarded as irrelevant, having little or no value, and (2) there is a hierarchy within the group in which those with power are regarded as having more value and a greater right to control the group than those with no power.Humanists are those who prefer a society in which all people (and even other sentient beings) matter equally, so that our proper moral concern should be maximizing the well being of everyone. Humanism recognizes that the reciprocity reflected by the Golden Rule is morally required.Whereas the value opposition between traditionalists and progressives has to do with the way we decide which strategies we should use to achieve our goals, the value opposition between tribalists and humanists is concerned with what those goals are. For the tribalists, the goal is the well being of tribal members, especially the powerful members. For humanists, the goal is the well being of all people, treating each person’s well being as being as important as every other person’s.Further clarification of the Nature of Humanism: A Meditation on Humanism, Equality, and the Golden RuleI can imagine being born into poverty, or without the abilities needed to ever earn a reasonable income, or with biologically based emotional disabilities, or with abusive, neglectful, or low ability parents, or as the member of a disfavored race, ethnic group, gender, or sexual orientation. I can imagine needing health care but being unable to afford it. I can imagine being born into some future where past generations have so raped the earth that the earth no longer provides a hospitable home for humanity. I can imagine being born into a future where all natural resources have already been squandered. I can imagine living in an area where industrial or agricultural corporations have polluted the land, water, and/or air so that it negatively affects the health of my family, my friends, and myself. I can imagine using medicines that were not fully and honestly researched before marketing them. I can imagine being subject to an authoritarian government that ignores my fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and stacks the deck against me in order to benefit the powerful few.We can ask, what kind of society (or past) would we want if those situations were our lot in life, and then we can vote for the politicians who will work toward bringing about a good society that efficiently deals with all such concerns. A humanist would apply the Golden Rule in this way, or use some other more or less effectively equivalent procedures of moral evaluation that recognizes the considerable and equal importance of the well being of all persons.The Political Orientations GridAny person’s political orientation can be located on the grid below as follows:A political philosophy or orientation will be placed higher on the grid to the extent it is more progressive, and lower to the extent it is more traditionalist, farther right to the extent it is more humanist, and farther to the left to the extent it is more tribalistic.As an example, a political orientation that is strongly progressive and strongly tribal would be located near the upper left corner of the grid, but one that is only moderately progressive and moderately tribal would be located near the center of the grid in the progressive tribalist quadrant.In the modified version below, we can see how this grid relates to the linear political spectrums that are typically used to compare political orientations such as liberals vs. conservatives, or right vs. left.When people think of the political spectrum as going from “most conservative” to “most liberal”, they are thinking of the political spectrum as being a line. On the above grid, that line would run from the lower left conservative corner to the upper right liberal corner. “Moderates” are located at the middle of that line which is at the center of the grid.When people think of the political spectrum as running from far right (fascism) to far left (communism) with liberalism located somewhere near the center, then the line that represents that spectrum is the long curve I have added to the grid. Note that in this case, “centrists” are located on the humanist side of the grid rather than in the center of the grid.What the grid clarifies is that the far right and far left are actually closer to each other than either is to liberalism or any other variety of centrism, since both the far right and far left are strongly tribalistic. (While Marx hoped that the communist revolution would eventually result in a humanist communist stateless future, the actual history of the communist revolutions is one in which the authoritarian tribalism of the communist party was established at the time of the revolution and never “withered away” to create a communist humanist utopia). Liberalism and centrists in general are significantly different than both the far right and the far left because liberals and centrists are humanists.Where are Libertarians located on the Grid?To answer that question we need to answer two questions: Are libertarians humanist or tribalist, and are libertarians traditionalists or progressives?Are libertarians humanists or tribalists?To get some idea of what policies are preferred by the most powerful libertarians, we can look at the platform of the Libertarian Party the year that one of the Koch brothers ran for vice-president on the Libertarian Party ticket.“We urge the repeal of federal campaign finance laws, and the immediate abolition of the despotic Federal Election Commission.”This was decades prior to the Supreme Court’s decisions in Citizens United. The end of campaign finance law would give the rich corporate elite more control over who gets elected in the US. How much more control? As Lawrence Lessing points out in this TED talk, the elimination of limits on campaign donations has created an “unofficial money primary” prior to the election which determines who the candidates will be in the general election (generally, the ones who obtained the most, or at least significant, campaign contributions from wealthy donors).We the People, and the Republic we must reclaimThe consequence of this Libertarian attack on campaign finance laws, is that politicians now spend their time in office trying to compete for support from wealthy donors, rather than competing for support from a much broader cross section of the American public. Thus, the libertarian elimination of campaign finance laws is a strategy for creating a more hierarchical society in which the wealthy control what the government does.The libertarian strategy of eliminating campaign finance regulations reveals their tribalistic preference for an unequal society in which the wealthy government. That suggests libertarianism is more tribalistic than humanistic.The platform also included provisions to eliminate taxes which the wealthy pay more of by eliminating a large number of government benefits that are most needed by everyone else, especially the least wealthy and powerful people. Here again, libertarians reveal a tribalistic preference for the powerful over the less powerful. Some examples in the platform that show this preference include:“We favor the abolition of Medicare and Medicaid programs.”“We oppose any compulsory insurance or tax-supported plan to provide health services, including those which finance abortion services.”“We favor the repeal of the fraudulent, virtually bankrupt, and increasingly oppressive Social Security system. Pending that repeal, participation in Social Security should be made voluntary.”“We oppose all personal and corporate income taxation, including capital gains taxes.”“We support the eventual repeal of all taxation.”“As an interim measure, all criminal and civil sanctions against tax evasion should be terminated immediately.”“We support repeal of all law which impede the ability of any person to find employment, such as minimum wage laws.”“We advocate the complete separation of education and State. Government schools lead to the indoctrination of children and interfere with the free choice of individuals. Government ownership, operation, regulation, and subsidy of schools and colleges should be ended.”“We demand the return of America's railroad system to private ownership. We call for the privatization of the public roads and national highway system.”“We support an end to all subsidies for child-bearing built into our present laws, including all welfare plans and the provision of tax-supported services for children.”“We oppose all government welfare, relief projects, and ‘aid to the poor’ programs. All these government programs are privacy-invading, paternalistic, demeaning, and inefficient. The proper source of help for such persons is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals.”“We call for the privatization of the inland waterways, and of the distribution system that brings water to industry, agriculture and households.”Finally, the libertarian tribalistic preferential treatment for the powerful is revealed by the fact that the platform calls for the elimination of regulation and regulatory agencies whose job it is to protect ordinary citizens from egregious corporate conduct.“We also favor the deregulation of the medical insurance industry.”“We support the abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency.”“We support abolition of the Department of Energy.”“We call for the dissolution of all government agencies concerned with transportation, including the Department of Transportation.”“We advocate the abolition of the Federal Aviation Administration.”“We advocate the abolition of the Food and Drug Administration.”“We call for the repeal of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.”“We call for the abolition of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.”“We support the repeal of all state usury laws.”From What Do the Koch Brothers Want?The general aim of libertarianism as revealed by this Koch brother supported platform is to transfer control of America’s government to the corporate elite billionaire class, reduce it’s size to make it easier to control, and transform the purpose of government from supporting the general welfare in accordance with the the US Constitution, into making government an arm of international corporations that allow them to maximize profits by eliminating our liberal democratic republic as a possible source of opposition, taxation, and regulation.This is an extremely tribalistic, anti-humanist project. The only reasonable conclusion is that libertarianism belongs on the strongly tribal region of the grid.Is libertarianism traditionalist or progressive?It is not strongly traditionalist. As we will see when we turn to the World Cultures Map, countries that are both traditionalist and Christian tend to locate in the traditionalist humanist quadrant of the world cultures map. The libertarian rejection of humanism is distinctly against the humanist tradition of traditional Christianity. Furthermore, libertarianism generally rejects the traditional use of law to regulate private activities like drug use, divorce, etc. Thus, it would appear that libertarianism is more progressive than traditionalist.At the same time, libertarianism is not as progressive as communism which sought to serve the working and peasant classes. Instead, libertarianism favors a traditional wealth based hierarchy.In conclusion, libertarianism falls in the region of the grid that is identified as “far right”: it is strongly tribalistic and moderately progressive. In contrast, liberals are located in the progressive, humanist quadrant of the grid.What additional disagreements do liberals have with libertarians?Disagreement #4: Liberals Prefer Humanism. Libertarians Prefer Tribalism.The single most fundamental disagreement liberals have with libertarianism is about humanism and tribalism, whether society should be set up to benefit all persons, or whether distribution of the benefits of society should correlate with the status of a person within the “tribe.”Humanism is an essential defining characteristic of liberalism. The goal of political life for a liberal is to create a society that tends to maximize everyone’s well being. That means liberalism is strongly opposed to the preferential treatment given to the corporate elite by libertarianism.As we saw above in analyzing the Libertarian Party platform associated with the candidacy of one of the Koch brothers, libertarianism is a strategy to transform the US government into a tribalist corporatocracy that is (1) controlled by the corporate elite, (2) does not serve the general welfare, but instead (3) facilitates the profits of large and often international corporations whose profit motives conflict with any loyalty to the American people and concern for their general welfare.Liberals perform some sort of rational humanistic analysis like the Golden Rule analysis discussed above to evaluate policy strategies and goals, and they employ reason and science to determine if their policies succeed at their humanist purpose.The differences in outcomes between progressive humanist (liberal) policies, and the policies of the far right, which would include libertarian corporatocracy, can be measured by comparing how successful liberal countries are at establishing the conditions of well being, as compared to countries on the far right. The evidence that liberal countries do much better is substantial. I will provide that evidence after identifying the other disagreements that liberals have with libertarians.Disagreement #5: Liberals prefer reason and science to propaganda. They disagree with the extensive libertarian use of propaganda.Earlier, we located liberals in the progressive humanist quadrant of the political orientations grid, and libertarians in the progressive tribalist quadrant of the grid. We can consider how progressivism, tribalism, and humanism affect how people in those quadrants would decide what we should say, what we should believe, and how we should decide what to say and believe. In other words, we shall consider how progressivism, tribalism, and humanism lead to a preferred “epistemology” or “ethics” of speech, belief, and intellectual methodology for both of the relevant quadrants.The Ethics of speech, belief, and methodology of the Progressive Tribalist QuadrantTribalism entails that the ultimate goal of action is to benefit the tribe, especially the most powerful members of the tribe.Thus, what a person should say and what they should believe, will be based on what benefits the tribe, especially its most powerful members.Progressivism allows deviation from tradition in order to determine what would best benefit the tribe, especially its most powerful members. (Remaining in this quadrant presumes a person has not decided that humanism is what most benefits the tribe, especially the most powerful members, since reaching that conclusion would cause one to abandon this quadrant and move to the progressive humanist quadrant).Tribal propaganda provides the favored mode of speech and belief in this quadrant. By tribal propaganda, I mean statements that are made and believed because they benefit the tribe, especially the most powerful members.Science and reason are allowed and even required except when they contradict tribal propaganda.Traditional tribal religion should be modified or eliminated to the extent that it contradicts tribal propaganda, science, and/or reason.The Ethics of speech, belief, and methodology of the Progressive Humanist (Liberal) QuadrantHumanism requires that the goal when deciding what to say or believe, is to benefit all persons.Progressivism entails that tradition, including traditional religion, should not be allowed to prevent us from saying or believing what best benefits all persons.Thus, what we say and what we believe, should be determined by identifying the statements and beliefs that best benefit everyone.Reason and science are the appropriate methods to use for determining what we should say and believe, because “reason” and “scientific method” just are that collection of methods that have been identified as having the best consequences for everyone.Thus, science and reason provide the favored mode of speech and belief in this quadrant.If our traditional religion is not consistent with science and reason, our religion is inaccurate and should be modified or eliminated, whichever has the best consequences for everyone.The progressive humanist (liberal) quadrant treats science and reason as the preferred methods for determining what we should say and believe. Since libertarians are located in the progressive tribalist quadrant, and since propaganda is the favored mode of speech and belief in that quadrant, libertarians should be expected to favor tribal propaganda over science and reason.Liberals object to what they see as extensive use of propaganda by libertarians. There are libertarian think tanks churning out libertarian arguments, including the Cato Institute and Americans for Limited Government, both founded by Charles Koch, and the Heartland Institute founded by a former Cato director.As an example of libertarian propaganda, Heartland questioned the health effects of second hand smoke on behalf of tobacco corporations and is now a leader in climate change denial on behalf of the fossil fuel companies.In addition, there is the libertarian Rupert Murdoch’s media empire, including Fox News, founded by Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes, which are seen by liberals as leading sources of right wing propaganda.The very use of the name “libertarian” is propaganda, since, as can be seen from our review of the libertarian party platform, the ultimate aim of the most powerful “libertarians” is to replace democracy and equality, with an authoritarian oligarchic corporatocracy governing a highly unequal society in which only the corporate elite will enjoy their liberty.As promised earlier, I shall proceed to offer the evidence that shows that liberalism works better than far right ideologies like libertarianism.First Item of Evidence Confirming the Hypothesis that Liberalism Works Best to Maximize Human Well beingThe American Psychological Association (APA) reports on a study that shows that liberal counties have happier citizens.“Overall, people living in countries with more liberal policies reported higher life satisfaction than those in countries with less liberal policies, irrespective of their own political views, according to the study.”***“…researchers compared how people rated their own life satisfaction with each country’s welfare policies. For example, when researchers looked at what a country does for its citizens, greater liberalism corresponded with higher well-being…The researchers analyzed surveys collected from 1,134,384 people between 1970 and 2002 in France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Denmark, Ireland, the United Kingdom, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Finland, Sweden, Austria and Norway. The surveys were representative samples of each country’s population. This data set is part of a series of public opinion surveys conducted on behalf of the European Commission.”“To determine if a country was politically liberal or conservative, the researchers looked at ease of access to services such as pensions, sickness benefits and unemployment compensation. They also examined each country’s level of spending on welfare, which is found in a report produced by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.”Liberal CountriesSecond Set of Evidence Confirming the Hypothesis that Liberalism Works Best to Maximize Human Well beingWe can confirm these results by making use of the 2010–2014 Inglehart–Welzel Cultural Map below in order to show how different kinds of value schemes are distributed around the world. That culture map was developed by the World Values Survey (WVS). What is the World Values Survey?“The World Values Survey is a global network of social scientists studying changing values and their impact on social and political life, led by an international team of scholars… The survey, which started in 1981, seeks to use the most rigorous, high-quality research designs in each country… The WVS is the largest non-commercial, cross-national, time series investigation of human beliefs and values ever executed, currently including interviews with almost 400,000 respondents.”WVS Database.The World Culture Map shows how various culture families are arranged based on two sets of opposing values. The vertical axis places various national cultures based upon the degree to which they prefer either “traditional values” or “secular-rational values”. This value opposition is described as follows:“Traditional values emphasize the importance of religion, parent-child ties, deference to authority and traditional family values. People who embrace these values also reject divorce, abortion, euthanasia and suicide. These societies have high levels of national pride and a nationalistic outlook.”“Secular-rational values have the opposite preferences to the traditional values. These societies place less emphasis on religion, traditional family values and authority. Divorce, abortion, euthanasia and suicide are seen as relatively acceptable. (Suicide is not necessarily more common.)”These contrasting sets of values correlate with the distinction I discussed earlier between traditionalists and progressives. Traditionalists embrace “traditional values.” Progressives embrace “secular-rational values.”The horizontal axis of the World Cultures Map places various national cultures based on the degree to which they prefer either “survival values” or “self-expression values”. That value opposition is defined as follows by the World Values Survey:“Survival values place emphasis on economic and physical security. It is linked with a relatively ethnocentric outlook and low levels of trust and tolerance.”“Self-expression values give high priority to environmental protection, growing tolerance of foreigners, gays and lesbians and gender equality, and rising demands for participation in decision-making in economic and political life.”These contrasting sets of values correlate with the distinction I discussed earlier between tribalists and humanists. Tribalists embrace “survival values.” Humanists embrace “self-expression values.”Interestingly, patterns emerge when national cultures are placed along these two dimensions. The countries tend to gather into groups of countries that share a common cultural history.Since the value oppositions on the World Cultures Map correlate with the categories I used to create the grid for political orientations, we can imagine superimposing that grid over the World Cultures Map.The most liberal cultural families tend to locate toward the upper right corner, since liberals tend to prefer secular-rational values and self-expression values over traditional values and survival values. That liberal corner of the map corresponds to the progressive humanist quadrant of the grid.The most conservative cultural families tend to gather in the lower left corner, since conservatives tend to prefer traditional values and survival values over secular-rational values and self-expression values. That corner of the world Cultures Map corresponds to the traditionalist tribalist quadrant of the grid.In the upper left corner of the World Cultures Map can be found communist or former communist countries like China, and the member and satellite countries of the former Soviet Union. The communist revolutions can be seen as a progressive experiment of the twentieth century that did seek progress over the traditionalism that preceded them. Specifically, they sought to limit religious traditionalism using the tribalistic power of an authoritarian government, and they did so with the tribalistic purpose of benefiting a particular class of people: the proletariat (working poor) and/or the peasant farmers. Thus, it makes sense that these countries would tend to gather in the corner that correlates to the progressive tribalistic quadrant of the grid.The fourth corner of the World Cultures Map, the traditionalist humanist corner, is the most sparsely populated corner. This makes sense given that as a country becomes more humanist, its citizens can be expected to demand that the government follow reason and compassion even if those conflict with tradition. Consequently, no countries end up being both strongly humanist and strongly traditionalist. The World Cultures Map includes a large empty space at the traditionalist humanist corner. Countries that fall within the traditionalist humanist quadrant of the World Cultures Map include the Latin American countries, and some English speaking countries including Ireland, the United States, and Canada (the latter 3 being more humanist than the Latin American countries, and more progressive than many of the Latin American countries).We can now test to see which of the four quadrants contain countries that do the best job at establishing the conditions for their citizen’s wellbeing.I have added additional information to the world cultures map below based on information from the 2017 World Happiness Report. World Happiness Report 2017. Data available at World Happiness Report - Wikipedia. I have also added the country rankings from the 2016 Democracy Index, published by the Economist Intelligence Unit of The Economist magazine. Democracy Index 2016. Data available at Democracy Index - Wikipedia.The first number associated with each country is that country’s rank on the Democracy index. The number is blue if the country’s government is classified as a full democracy (ranked 1-19) or flawed democracy (ranked 20-76). The number is red if the government is classified as a hybrid regime or authoritarian regime (ranks 77-158).The second number associated with each country is its rank on the World Happiness Report. That number is blue for countries ranked 1 through 77 and red for countries 78 through 151.A yellow asterisk indicates that the country’s government is one of the 19 full democracies. A blue asterisk indicates that the country is one of the countries with the 19 highest happiness ranks. In most cases, a country with a yellow asterisk also has a blue asterisk showing there is a strong correlation between full democracy, the form of government championed by liberals, and a high happiness rank. Furthermore, the happiest countries tend to fall within the progressive humanist (liberal) quadrant, or in that portion of the traditionalist humanist quadrant that is close to the progressive humanist quadrant.Every country on the liberal side of the light blue dashed line is classified as a full or flawed democracy. All but four of those countries (South Africa, India, Portugal, and Greece) have blue happiness ranks.If we look at the happiness and democracy ranks for each of the four quadrants, there is a strong pattern in which the countries in the progressive humanist (liberal) quadrant tend to have the highest happiness and Democracy Index ranks, followed by the traditionalist humanist quadrant, which is followed by the progressive tribalist quadrant. The worst happiness and democracy index ranks tend to be found in the traditionalist tribalist (conservative) quadrant.Thus, once again, we have confirmation that the hypothesis that liberalism does the best job at establishing the conditions for the well being of a country’s citizens.Third Set of Evidence Confirming the Hypothesis that Liberalism Works Best to Maximize Human Well beingAnother method for confirming the hypothesis that liberalism works best is to look at history. We can test whether the humanism inherent in liberalism, or the tribalism inherent in libertarianism lead, to more human well being. We only need compare human well being in early human history where tribalism was predominant, to modern history where humanism has become much stronger.Steven Pinker’s book, The Better Angels of our Nature, provides extensive evidence that violence has been steadily decreasing over the course of human history. He makes his point in this TED Talk:The surprising decline in violenceClearly the huge reduction in violence he documents indicates a significant improvement in well being, not only because it means people live longer with less tragedy, but also because reductions in violence indicate a reduction in the things that cause violence: fear, robbery, abuse, poverty, exploitation, feuds, and high levels of dissatisfaction.One can identify other factors that show progress from the ancient to the modern world: technology, longevity, less infant mortality, education, less slavery, etc. These developments were all facilitated by the historical increase in progressivism, humanism, and especially the combination of both, progressive humanism (liberalism).Consequently, so long as one prefers the life in the modern world for oneself and one’s family, including all of the benefits that human cooperation based on reason and compassion have provided us, then one should conclude that the humanism inherent in liberalism works better than the tribalism preferred by libertarianism to deliver human well being.Conclusion:In conclusion, liberals rightly reject the far right libertarianism of the Koch brothers, the Libertarian Party, Rand Paul, and the Rupert Murdoch media empire including Fox News. Libertarianism (of the far right variety) is basically far right propaganda designed to clear the way for an authoritarian corporatocracy which would rob us of our liberty rather than establish it.