Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes. The typical libertarian mistakenly computes economics without regards to security. They would trade with a lock smith if the lock was cheaper, even if the lock smith open declared to keep their own key and burglarized them.
Nah. That would violate the NAP. Virtually no one would agree to that.
Quote:
Libertarians make unassailable economic arguments as simple as they are.
This makes me sad given I tend to be libertarian in principle. The liberals are minded numbed zombies that are programmed to repeat propaganda points. Conservatives are clever monkeys that understand basic math and make simple tools Libertarians are flawed idealists.
Nah. Libertarians are realists. 99% of people didn't commit aggression on another person today, meaning they lived a day based on libertarian philosophy.
I would like you to address my question because it lies at the heart of the failure of libertarian thought and to address the world as it exists.
But OK, I went to the website and scanned the platform:
"Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights and responsibilities regarding resources like land, water, air, and wildlife. Where damages can be proven and quantified in a court of law, restitution to the injured parties must be required."
Who qualifies the court? Who writes the law that determines what a pollutant is? Who does the testing to see if a transgression as occurred? Who determines the value of the damage? Who enforces the restitution?
Real life scenario:
Back in my neighborhood one of the neighbors had a furnace that ran on fuel oil. One day he got a new furnace and had it switched over to natural gas. When they put in the new furnace they removed the old tank (for those not living in northern climes, when you use fuel oil the tank is usually in your basement and holds about 250 gallons) and stuffed a rag into the feeder line until they could come back and remove it. Before they could remove the line, along comes the fuel oil delivery truck and pumps 250 gallons of heating oil into the guy's basement. Since this was an older home the basement was a one inch slab poured over fill. At the home's age, the concrete naturally cracks so the fuel oil began to seep into the ground.
Long story short, the house had to be lifted off its foundations and they had to dig a pit next to the house so they could get in with excavators and remove the floor and a few inches of dirt below it. Of course the 3 parties involved, the new furnace company the oil company and the homeowner all pointed fingers at each other. I wonder if the principals of the libertarian platform can stand up to a case like this, much less some corporate polluter where the damage is much less self evident.
The LP is as representative of libertarianism as Nancy Pelosi.
I think our two party system needs to be scrapped. I however think proportional representation offers the best chance to give us the kind of governance we need. Libertarians don’t take into account the human condition which makes their belief system an academic exercise at best, comparable to communism.
Did you commit murder, rape, assault, or fraud today? Did you disrespect someone's property rights and trespass?
Much of the Libertarian system works. There is no perfect system though and why people think they must defend the complete theory behind a belief system is something I do not understand.
I think you're looking at things through a different lense than we are. Most of us are not libertarian purely based on what works best in every situation. It's not "we think libertarianism will solve every problem", as many people tend to portray it (see "idealist", "naive", "utopia" comments).
Here's the mindset - We won't advocate that someone else do something on our behalf that we would never do on our own. We view the use of force against people doing no harm, and/or taking what belongs to them, as unacceptable.
With that firmly established, you then look at how to solve problems within that framework.
That's why it can be difficult to argue from the libertarian perspective sometimes. Yeah, it's harder to solve problems when you can't just boss innocent people around and take their stuff because we outnumber them, but we refuse to support that kind of behavior.
And really, that leads to more long-term harm within society, but people don't zoom out and look at the big picture. They want the simple and easy solution - state power - which is practical in the short term, but undermines their society in the long term.
I think you're looking at things through a different lense than we are. Most of us are not libertarian purely based on what works best in every situation. It's not "we think libertarianism will solve every problem", as many people tend to portray it (see "idealist", "naive", "utopia" comments).
Here's the mindset - We won't advocate that someone else do something on our behalf that we would never do on our own.
You do though as you are unable to do many of the things that have to be done on your own. I've argued this endlessly.
Quote:
We view the use of force against people doing no harm, and/or taking what belongs to them, as unacceptable.
With that framework firmly established, you then look at how to solve problems.
That's why it can be difficult to argue from the libertarian perspective sometimes. Yeah, it's harder to solve problems when you can't just boss innocent people around and take their stuff because we outnumber them, but we refuse to support that kind of behavior.
I think you're looking at things through a different lense than we are. Most of us are not libertarian purely based on what works best in every situation. It's not "we think libertarianism will solve every problem", as many people tend to portray it (see "idealist", "naive", "utopia" comments).
Here's the mindset - We won't advocate that someone else do something on our behalf that we would never do on our own. We view the use of force against people doing no harm, and/or taking what belongs to them, as unacceptable.
With that firmly established, you then look at how to solve problems within that framework.
That's why it can be difficult to argue from the libertarian perspective sometimes. Yeah, it's harder to solve problems when you can't just boss innocent people around and take their stuff because we outnumber them, but we refuse to support that kind of behavior.
And really, that leads to more long-term harm within society, but people don't zoom out and look at the big picture. They want the simple and easy solution - state power - which is practical in the short term, but undermines their society in the long term.
Don’t see how it is difficult to argue. There is no moral justification to use violence against peaceful people.
Status:
"Moldy Tater Gangrene, even before Moscow Marge."
(set 11 hours ago)
Location: Dallas, TX
5,790 posts, read 3,598,050 times
Reputation: 5697
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
Environmental issues reach across state borders. If a state allows the dumping of waste into a river it makes it way to other states.
Can a state harmed down river sue another state for billions in clean up fee's?
If that's true, pk, then it seems to contradict libertarianism - or at least anarcho-capitalism. If someone can sue you (property-related or not) then that implies a restriction on your personal freedom.
It'd be the same as if I put a cheap incinerator on my land. If I have the right to use my property as I see fit, then why give a damn if that incinerator pumps a lot of toxic crap into the air, ruining others' health?
Personal freedom and property freedom also can conflict. Think of teenagers who vandalize cars in parking lot for the thrill of it. If the property owners' right reigns supreme, then that violates the teens' right to personal freedom to do what they want. If personal freedom reigns supreme, then the car owner has no right to punish the teens for exercising their personal freedom.
Yes, you can make rules saying "No, don't damage, destroy, or negate the enjoyment of that property". Same with "Don't use your property in ways that damage, destroy, or endanger others". The problem is that any restriction under pure libertarianism (i.e. AnCap or close to it) will be arbitrary at best. And that is why I'm not even a Libertarian, let alone an AnCap.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
