Conservatism And Libertarianism Both Have No Dogma

[kaz]

Conservatism and Libertarianism both have no Dogma. It's true because both a founding father of modern conservatim and a leading Libertarian intellectual (oxymoron?) have claimed this to be true.

What do you thnk?

We're not the Borg like you are, no.

 

[bripat9643]

Give me examples? Almost all property laws are local ordinances.

You're thinking of property in narrow terms. One can say that an individual has a property right in their own body, for example, so a law that says we can't smoke marijuana is a violation of everybody's property right in their own body. But we might also say that local laws that forbid smoking in restaurants or bars are violations of the property rights of the owners of the restaurant or bar.

You are half right. The war on drugs is the biggest failure in our history. It has created a prison/industrial complex. And the 'privatization' of that industry is where laissez-faire is cancerous.

But smoking in a restaurant is a violation of employee rights and patron rights. Everyone has the right to breath air without deadly carcinogens. And before you come back with "they can go elsewhere", if someone needs to light up a cigarette, they can go outside.

There's no such thing as a private prison, as they all receive their money from the government. To pretend like "private" prisons have anything to do with genuine market activity is ridiculous.

The issue of smoking is, simply put, nobody's say but the property owner's. If I own a restaurant and don't want people smoking in it, as I wouldn't, then you're right to say that they can go outside. If, however, I decide the opposite, then yes, indeed my employees can choose to work elsewhere and customers opposed to smoking can go elsewhere. If they lose enough business they'll change their policy, but it's their right to decide.

There should be ZERO financial incentive to lock someone up. Do you understand that concept? There should be ZERO chance of that EVER being a factor. Do you understand that concept??

What floors me about you folks who call yourself 'libertarians' is that you have little understanding of human foible and no use for the biggest defender of civil liberties in America...the ACLU.

The current incarceration rate deprives record numbers of individuals of their liberty, disproportionately affects people of color, and has at best a minimal effect on public safety. Meanwhile, the crippling cost of imprisoning increasing numbers of Americans saddles government budgets with rising debt and exacerbates the current fiscal crisis confronting states across the nation.

Private prison companies, however, essentially admit that their business model depends on locking up more and more people. For example, in a 2010 Annual Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) stated: “The demand for our facilities and services could be adversely affected by . . . leniency in conviction or parole standards and sentencing practices . . . .” As incarceration rates skyrocket, the private prison industry expands at exponential rates, holding ever more people in its prisons and jails, and generating massive profits.

And while supporters of private prisons tout the idea that governments can save money through privatization, the evidence that private prisons save taxpayer money is mixed at best – in fact, private prisons may in some instances cost more than governmental ones. Private prisons have also been linked to numerous cases of violence and atrocious conditions.

more

You have every right to decide if people can smoke in your private home. Restaurants are PUBLIC facilities and PUBLIC workplaces. They fall under PUBLIC laws.

"Private" prisons would not exist in the absence of the government: True or false? Who would pay them if not the government? Don't make the mistake of thinking that I'm defending these prisons, I'm merely objecting to the idea that they have any relation to the free market. They are parasites who exist because of the state.

Restaurants are private property.

He keeps harping on private prisons as if that was some kind of major policy issues that libertarians are concerned about.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Conservatism and Libertarianism both have no Dogma. It's true because both a founding father of modern conservatim and a leading Libertarian intellectual (oxymoron?) have claimed this to be true.

What do you thnk?

We're not the Borg like you are, no.

No, you're all the lunatics running the asylum


next

 

[JWBooth]

Conservatism and Libertarianism both have no Dogma. It's true because both a founding father of modern conservatim and a leading Libertarian intellectual (oxymoron?) have claimed this to be true.

What do you thnk?

Dainty trolls and y'all take the bait....why?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Conservatism and Libertarianism both have no Dogma. It's true because both a founding father of modern conservatim and a leading Libertarian intellectual (oxymoron?) have claimed this to be true.

What do you thnk?

Dainty trolls and y'all take the bait....why?

Please, you're still as boring as ever -- and still with nothing of any value to add

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Drawing a line on people's property rights constitutes aggression.

No it doesn't, and no matter how many times you repeat it to yourself it will not make it so

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

https://mises.org/journals/jls/21_2/21_2_6.pdf

So if anybody is supporting this practice...

It is well documented that Mises is a highly partisan, right wing org

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Property rights are subject to the duly enacted laws of any society.

In the USA we are supposed to be a nation of laws.

We as the state can take away a man's freedom if laws are violated. We can take away a man's property if we use the laws enacted by society. Our laws say we can do this in the context of due process and just compensation. No whacky notion of 'natural law' trumps what a society itself chooses to do.

 

[kaz]

Conservatism and Libertarianism both have no Dogma. It's true because both a founding father of modern conservatim and a leading Libertarian intellectual (oxymoron?) have claimed this to be true.

What do you thnk?

We're not the Borg like you are, no.

No, you're all the lunatics running the asylum


next

Logic not being Dante's strong suit, I'll point out ... he just agreed with me ...

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Conservatism and Libertarianism both have no Dogma. It's true because both a founding father of modern conservatism and a leading Libertarian intellectual (oxymoron?) have claimed this to be true.

What do you thnk?

We're not the Borg like you are, no.

No, you're all the lunatics running the asylum


next

Logic not being Dante's strong suit, I'll point out ... he just agreed with me ...

Only in the echo chamber that is your world.

poor kaz, thinking like a logic machine and not a human. such a limited mind -- shit in, shit out

 

[kaz]

Conservatism and Libertarianism both have no Dogma. It's true because both a founding father of modern conservatism and a leading Libertarian intellectual (oxymoron?) have claimed this to be true.

What do you thnk?

We're not the Borg like you are, no.

No, you're all the lunatics running the asylum


next

Logic not being Dante's strong suit, I'll point out ... he just agreed with me ...

Only in the echo chamber that is your world.

poor kaz, thinking like a logic machine and not a human. such a limited mind -- shit in, shit out

Dante is talking about something not thinking? Dante doesn't even understand the conversation we are having. It's a hoot.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Of course Dante is only the OP

Conservatism and Libertarianism both have no Dogma. It's true because both a founding father of modern conservatim and a leading Libertarian intellectual (oxymoron?) have claimed this to be true.

What do you thnk?

 

[kaz]

Of course Dante is only the OP

Conservatism and Libertarianism both have no Dogma. It's true because both a founding father of modern conservatim and a leading Libertarian intellectual (oxymoron?) have claimed this to be true.

What do you thnk?

Yes, liberalism is completely dogmatic. Libertarianism is certainly not. Social conservatism can be dogmatic, particularly when it's religious based. But fiscal conservatism has no dogma.

Do you know what dogma means? Not having dogma is a good thing, a very good thing. Liberalism is a religion, you have all kinds of dogma that go with that.

 

[Bfgrn]

You are half right. The war on drugs is the biggest failure in our history. It has created a prison/industrial complex. And the 'privatization' of that industry is where laissez-faire is cancerous.

But smoking in a restaurant is a violation of employee rights and patron rights. Everyone has the right to breath air without deadly carcinogens. And before you come back with "they can go elsewhere", if someone needs to light up a cigarette, they can go outside.

There's no such thing as a private prison, as they all receive their money from the government. To pretend like "private" prisons have anything to do with genuine market activity is ridiculous.

The issue of smoking is, simply put, nobody's say but the property owner's. If I own a restaurant and don't want people smoking in it, as I wouldn't, then you're right to say that they can go outside. If, however, I decide the opposite, then yes, indeed my employees can choose to work elsewhere and customers opposed to smoking can go elsewhere. If they lose enough business they'll change their policy, but it's their right to decide.

There should be ZERO financial incentive to lock someone up. Do you understand that concept? There should be ZERO chance of that EVER being a factor. Do you understand that concept??

What floors me about you folks who call yourself 'libertarians' is that you have little understanding of human foible and no use for the biggest defender of civil liberties in America...the ACLU.

The current incarceration rate deprives record numbers of individuals of their liberty, disproportionately affects people of color, and has at best a minimal effect on public safety. Meanwhile, the crippling cost of imprisoning increasing numbers of Americans saddles government budgets with rising debt and exacerbates the current fiscal crisis confronting states across the nation.

Private prison companies, however, essentially admit that their business model depends on locking up more and more people. For example, in a 2010 Annual Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) stated: “The demand for our facilities and services could be adversely affected by . . . leniency in conviction or parole standards and sentencing practices . . . .” As incarceration rates skyrocket, the private prison industry expands at exponential rates, holding ever more people in its prisons and jails, and generating massive profits.

And while supporters of private prisons tout the idea that governments can save money through privatization, the evidence that private prisons save taxpayer money is mixed at best – in fact, private prisons may in some instances cost more than governmental ones. Private prisons have also been linked to numerous cases of violence and atrocious conditions.

more

You have every right to decide if people can smoke in your private home. Restaurants are PUBLIC facilities and PUBLIC workplaces. They fall under PUBLIC laws.

"Private" prisons would not exist in the absence of the government: True or false? Who would pay them if not the government? Don't make the mistake of thinking that I'm defending these prisons, I'm merely objecting to the idea that they have any relation to the free market. They are parasites who exist because of the state.

Restaurants are private property.

Non sequitur. Prisons are a necessary part of any civil society to protect the population. And government of We the People is the ONLY entity that should be involved in incarceration. There needs to be ZERO monetary incentive to incarcerate a human being. As a matter of fact, a monetary incentive NOT to incarcerate a human being is paramount to liberty and freedom. Prisons should only be filled with people who are a threat to society, not filled with people who do not pose that threat. Do we really need private entities lobbying for more people to fill their prisons Kevin? THINK man. You ARE defending this malfeasance of the marketplace.

Libertarians are NOT really interested in protecting liberty. That immediately goes out the window when laissez-faire principals come into play. They are more interested in protecting laissez-faire and corporations over We, the People. THAT is why you won't defend the ACLU.

Presidential candidate Gary Johnson talks guns, for-profit prisons

For-profit prison companies like Correction Corporation of America and GEO Group have been in the news for an array of negative issues, including running dangerous facilities and being accused of lobbying lawmakers to create legislation that would put more people behind bars, including having an influence on Arizona's controversial immigration law, which would put more immigrants in detention facilities.

As governor of New Mexico, Johnson was an avid supporter of private prisons. And although he acknowledges that they have problems, he also believes that the positives outweigh the negatives.


Restaurants are public places and fall under public laws that ensure protection of the general public and ensure workplace protection. Can a restaurant refuse to allow health inspectors on their premises?

So while you deride "private" prisons, you accept that government prisons are necessary. Yet, as I keep pointing out, "private" prisons are government prisons. All that has happened is that the government has contracted out the services to some corporatist entity.

The term privatization is used today as a confusion with the contracting out of government services. Governments do not fully privatize services such as prisons, as Tabarrok’s definition explains. They purchase contracts from private firms to provide the services which have grown too costly for them to produce them-selves. This model retains the government’s authority in regulation and authority over the industry.

https://mises.org/journals/jls/21_2/21_2_6.pdf

So if anybody is supporting this practice, it's you by assuming that the government should have this authority in the first place. I do not support government prisons, so I do not support the corporatist government contracted out prisons on the basis that they're the exact same thing.

Again, restaurants are private property. Period. They are open to the public but they still retain private ownership. Being open to the public changes nothing regarding the fact that they're privately owned. Can a restaurant refuse to allow health inspectors on their premises? No, but they should be able to, obviously. The same way they should be able to refuse to pay tribute to the mob, but do so regardless on the basis that they don't want aggression inflicted on them if they refuse.

This is exactly why libertarianism is nothing but anarchy laced with childishness.

So what you are saying is NO prisons...WTF is wrong with you?

 

[dblack]

Conservatism and Libertarianism both have no Dogma. It's true because both a founding father of modern conservatim and a leading Libertarian intellectual (oxymoron?) have claimed this to be true.

What do you thnk?

I think you're a bootlicking fan of fascism.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Drawing a line on people's property rights constitutes aggression.

No it doesn't, and no matter how many times you repeat it to yourself it will not make it so

Yes it does.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

https://mises.org/journals/jls/21_2/21_2_6.pdf

So if anybody is supporting this practice...

It is well documented that Mises is a highly partisan, right wing org

It is a well documented that the Mises Institute is one of the leading libertarian think-tanks in the world, so when it comes to matters of libertarianism they are an authority. As for being right-wing, only in the sense that "right-wing" is completely meaningless. The Mises Institute has nothing to do with Republican or conservative politics.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Property rights are subject to the duly enacted laws of any society.

In the USA we are supposed to be a nation of laws.

We as the state can take away a man's freedom if laws are violated. We can take away a man's property if we use the laws enacted by society. Our laws say we can do this in the context of due process and just compensation. No whacky notion of 'natural law' trumps what a society itself chooses to do.

So how many people would it take to rightfully repossess your television?

 

[Lakhota]

Conservatism And Libertarianism Both Have No Dogma

I agree! They both have lots of dogs - but no dogma.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

There's no such thing as a private prison, as they all receive their money from the government. To pretend like "private" prisons have anything to do with genuine market activity is ridiculous.

The issue of smoking is, simply put, nobody's say but the property owner's. If I own a restaurant and don't want people smoking in it, as I wouldn't, then you're right to say that they can go outside. If, however, I decide the opposite, then yes, indeed my employees can choose to work elsewhere and customers opposed to smoking can go elsewhere. If they lose enough business they'll change their policy, but it's their right to decide.

There should be ZERO financial incentive to lock someone up. Do you understand that concept? There should be ZERO chance of that EVER being a factor. Do you understand that concept??

What floors me about you folks who call yourself 'libertarians' is that you have little understanding of human foible and no use for the biggest defender of civil liberties in America...the ACLU.

The current incarceration rate deprives record numbers of individuals of their liberty, disproportionately affects people of color, and has at best a minimal effect on public safety. Meanwhile, the crippling cost of imprisoning increasing numbers of Americans saddles government budgets with rising debt and exacerbates the current fiscal crisis confronting states across the nation.

Private prison companies, however, essentially admit that their business model depends on locking up more and more people. For example, in a 2010 Annual Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) stated: “The demand for our facilities and services could be adversely affected by . . . leniency in conviction or parole standards and sentencing practices . . . .” As incarceration rates skyrocket, the private prison industry expands at exponential rates, holding ever more people in its prisons and jails, and generating massive profits.

And while supporters of private prisons tout the idea that governments can save money through privatization, the evidence that private prisons save taxpayer money is mixed at best – in fact, private prisons may in some instances cost more than governmental ones. Private prisons have also been linked to numerous cases of violence and atrocious conditions.

more

You have every right to decide if people can smoke in your private home. Restaurants are PUBLIC facilities and PUBLIC workplaces. They fall under PUBLIC laws.

"Private" prisons would not exist in the absence of the government: True or false? Who would pay them if not the government? Don't make the mistake of thinking that I'm defending these prisons, I'm merely objecting to the idea that they have any relation to the free market. They are parasites who exist because of the state.

Restaurants are private property.

Non sequitur. Prisons are a necessary part of any civil society to protect the population. And government of We the People is the ONLY entity that should be involved in incarceration. There needs to be ZERO monetary incentive to incarcerate a human being. As a matter of fact, a monetary incentive NOT to incarcerate a human being is paramount to liberty and freedom. Prisons should only be filled with people who are a threat to society, not filled with people who do not pose that threat. Do we really need private entities lobbying for more people to fill their prisons Kevin? THINK man. You ARE defending this malfeasance of the marketplace.

Libertarians are NOT really interested in protecting liberty. That immediately goes out the window when laissez-faire principals come into play. They are more interested in protecting laissez-faire and corporations over We, the People. THAT is why you won't defend the ACLU.

Presidential candidate Gary Johnson talks guns, for-profit prisons

For-profit prison companies like Correction Corporation of America and GEO Group have been in the news for an array of negative issues, including running dangerous facilities and being accused of lobbying lawmakers to create legislation that would put more people behind bars, including having an influence on Arizona's controversial immigration law, which would put more immigrants in detention facilities.

As governor of New Mexico, Johnson was an avid supporter of private prisons. And although he acknowledges that they have problems, he also believes that the positives outweigh the negatives.


Restaurants are public places and fall under public laws that ensure protection of the general public and ensure workplace protection. Can a restaurant refuse to allow health inspectors on their premises?

So while you deride "private" prisons, you accept that government prisons are necessary. Yet, as I keep pointing out, "private" prisons are government prisons. All that has happened is that the government has contracted out the services to some corporatist entity.

The term privatization is used today as a confusion with the contracting out of government services. Governments do not fully privatize services such as prisons, as Tabarrok’s definition explains. They purchase contracts from private firms to provide the services which have grown too costly for them to produce them-selves. This model retains the government’s authority in regulation and authority over the industry.

https://mises.org/journals/jls/21_2/21_2_6.pdf

So if anybody is supporting this practice, it's you by assuming that the government should have this authority in the first place. I do not support government prisons, so I do not support the corporatist government contracted out prisons on the basis that they're the exact same thing.

Again, restaurants are private property. Period. They are open to the public but they still retain private ownership. Being open to the public changes nothing regarding the fact that they're privately owned. Can a restaurant refuse to allow health inspectors on their premises? No, but they should be able to, obviously. The same way they should be able to refuse to pay tribute to the mob, but do so regardless on the basis that they don't want aggression inflicted on them if they refuse.

This is exactly why libertarianism is nothing but anarchy laced with childishness.

So what you are saying is NO prisons...WTF is wrong with you?

Note how you're changing your complaint regarding my position, but failing to acknowledge that you got it completely wrong before. Regardless, I'm saying no state run or regulated prisons. We can't say exactly how the market would supply the equivalent of prisons, but Robert Murphy has some fairly interesting ideas on the subject that I think would certainly be a viable model. You can read about it for free in his essay in the book "Chaos Theory."

Robert P. Murphy Chaos Theory

It should also be pointed out that not all libertarians would agree that the state has no role in maintaining prisons.