Just What is Libertarianism?

[PratchettFan]

People paying for common services, police, military, civilian and civil courts, roads, that sort of thing doesn't contradict living in a free society. Government doing things like redistributing money and taxing some citizens more than others is completely inconsistent with a free society, that's just getting free stuff

You are free to hold that opinion. You are free to try to get others to agree and get the laws changed. Good luck with that. In the meantime, I have already laid out your options. No one said you were always going to get your way.

You get your way because you use guns to get it. Then you talk about a free society. Talk about empty blather. Where does 50% plus one give you a moral imperative to remove my liberty and property? God? Government? "Society"? Based on what do you think you have a right to vote and give my money to someone else that I earned and they didn't. Sorry Kaz, but Steve here gives me a majority. Steve and I decided to take this much of your property. Sucks to be you.

That is what you are advocating. There is nothing moral or right about it. Think about what you said. I am free to convince others that the property I earned is mine. Why should I have to convince anyone to respect that?

No, you talk about a free society. I talk about the law. This nation is based upon the law, starting with the Constitution. I don't trust anything because someone calls it "moral". The laws are created under the framework of the Constitution. That is how this nation operates and it is not going to change because some people don't think it's working out the way they want.

Can the government take your property? You betcha and it has had that ability since the first day of the republic. Can it take your liberty if it doesn't approve of your actions? Absolutely. Can it decide to take your money and spend it on things you don't approve of. You can bet your life on it. Just like every other government on the planet.

So I repeat.... work to change the law, accept it, disobey and take the consequences or leave. Pick one and take some responsibility for yourself. And while you think your freedom is so trodden upon you might consider that for most of the people on this planet, options one and four don't exist.

Interesting how you started with "no" then agreed with everything I said. You think you and Steve can confiscate my shit with force because you outvoted me

Ok. Then just be outraged. Enjoy the rest of your day.

 

[PratchettFan]

Yep.

And so, if you talk about the law and if you believe that this nation is based upon the law, starting with the Constitution, why do yo not oppose state-enforced involuntary servitude?

Because I don't see it as involuntary servitude...

That only means you choose to be wrong.

I see you cut off the rest of my post

I don't bother myself with meaningless baiting.
You choosing to not see yourself as servant of the state in no way means you aren't, as the state, inarguably, forces you to provide goods and services to others without compensation. You can justify it however you want, but that fact remains.

.

Then pick your unappreciated ass up out of your chair, get on a plane and go somewhere you aren't so persecuted. My god you're boing. Have a nice day.

 

[M14 Shooter]

And so, if you talk about the law and if you believe that this nation is based upon the law, starting with the Constitution, why do yo not oppose state-enforced involuntary servitude?

Because I don't see it as involuntary servitude...

That only means you choose to be wrong.

I see you cut off the rest of my post

I don't bother myself with meaningless baiting.
You choosing to not see yourself as servant of the state in no way means you aren't, as the state, inarguably, forces you to provide goods and services to others without compensation. You can justify it however you want, but that fact remains.

Then pick your unappreciated ass up out of your chair, get on a plane and go somewhere you aren't so persecuted. My god you're boing. Have a nice day.

Why do you refuse to understand that you are an involuntary servant of the state?

 

[Skylar]

Okay, over and over again, I'm reading articles attacking this political philosophy. Here's what Wiki says about it:


Libertarianism (Latin: liber, "free") is a political philosophy that upholds liberty as its principal objective. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing political freedom, voluntary association and the primacy of individual judgement.


If this is the case, why should there be so many attacks against what is, to me, the very foundation of Americanism? Is it a growing dependence on government? An indoctrination in the education system against self-reliance?


And the left – and even some conservatives, are attacking Doctor Rand Paul for being a Libertarian running under a false flag. (I like some of his views, but still would vote for an governor over him)


What do you think?

Libertarianism in my experience is like a woman with an amazing body but an ugly face. From a distance, where you really can't get a good look at her, she's freakin' hot! But as you get closer and the details of her appearance become apparent.....things aren't quite as peachy.

My problem with libertarianism tends to be in the specifics and practical effects. Libertarians seem keenly aware of how the concentration of power with the government can create abuse. And they're right. Where they fail is in either failing to recognize or recognizing and failing to care about the concentration of private power tending to create abuse. And in a society with very few limits on the powerful and wealthy, abuse is inevitable.

And in libertarianism, largely unchecked.

My other main beef with libertarianism is their binary conception of consent and force. They look at consent and force as black and white issues. Either it exists, or it doesn't. Where in reality, there's much more gray to it. If you and your family were starving or living on the street...and someone was willing to pay you a quarter an hour for hard labor, circumstances might force you to take the job.

Its grossly exploitative and abusive. But its technically 'consent' and lacks 'force' as a libertarian tends to conceive of them. As the Libertarian isn't causing the starvation...he's only taking hideous advantage of it. Libertarianism allows for, even encourages rampant abuse and exploitation. With horrible consequences for those who fail to submit to the will of the powerful. Consequences that include a slow and painful death.

And its perfectly consistent with libertarian ideals. A libertarian economy thrives on exploitation, desperation and wild power inequity. Its not a coincidence that the period in our nation's history that most closely aligned with the libertarian ideal was one where huge swaths of the population were indentured servants or literal slaves.

This is only a mention of LEGAL methods of action within a libertarian system. With much less regulation of campaign contributions and business 'gifts', influence peddling will predictably be rampant. With a pay to play legal system, most people can be threatened out of pursuing their rights.

Then there are the practical effects of virtually no regulation; our decisions effect each other. We've already seen the environmental effects of allowing private business to set clean water and air standards. You can watch it in slow motion happening right now in China. Its abysmal.

An unregulated economy is also wildly unstable. We had more recessions and depressions in the 80 or 90 years before central banking and a more regulated economy than we did the 80 to 90 years after.

And then there's the elephant in the living room, alluded to earlier; Libertarianism as their adherents envision it has a very limited shelf life. As its will either become a more centralized system as power is consolidated with government. Or it will become a more centralized system as power is consolidated with the wealthy and powerful elite. It has no mechanisms for preventing this in either direction. It can't check private power.

The abuses of private power will either drive the electorate to abandon libertarianism in an effort to seek protection from the government. Or the powerful and wealthy will subvert the government through legal and illegal means. Though mostly by eliminating corruption laws.

The ideals of liberty are laudable. But the practical effects of libertarianism are not.

 

[Skylar]

Libertarians disavow their role as a member of society.....up until they need that society

Its one of the practical, real world problems of libertarianism that becomes crippling and theory killing when you take it to the extreme of anarchy.

Just because you decentralize and demilitarize doesn't mean that your neighbor is going to. Centralization gets big projects done.

 

[M14 Shooter]

My problem with libertarianism tends to be in the specifics and practical effects. Libertarians seem keenly aware of how the concentration of power with the government can create abuse. And they're right. Where they fail is in either failing to recognize or recognizing and failing to care about the concentration of private power tending to create abuse. And in a society with very few limits on the powerful and wealthy, abuse is inevitable.

I think you will find that libertarians want the government to protect the rights of everyone, including the people from business and businesses from people.
And so I guess you'd have to further and better explain what you mean by the abuse of power in private hands.

 

[Skylar]

My problem with libertarianism tends to be in the specifics and practical effects. Libertarians seem keenly aware of how the concentration of power with the government can create abuse. And they're right. Where they fail is in either failing to recognize or recognizing and failing to care about the concentration of private power tending to create abuse. And in a society with very few limits on the powerful and wealthy, abuse is inevitable.

I think you will find that libertarians want the government to protect the rights of everyone, including the people from business and businesses from people.

In theory, perhaps. But most libertarian systems involve a pay to play legal system where the loser pays all legal fees. That powerfully discourages people from persueing their rights. As if they lose, they're financially ruined. Especially when dealing with those who have much more money and power.

Libertarianism also involves a dramatic reduction in regulation that prevents abuse, pollution, and various forms of social damage before they happen. Under libertarianism, you can't prevent someone from poisoning the river. You can only take action with them after people have been hurt.

Which seems foolish to me.

And so I guess you'd have to further and better explain what you mean by the abuse of power in private hands.

I elaborate in the same post you cited from. Corruption, exploitation, and abuse. Pollution to the environment, dirty water, dirty air, abusively low wages, a system that encourages exploitation, and legal system that discourages people from pursuing their own rights.

In short, a system that empowers the powerful. And strips the poor and powerless of many of their protections. With the pay to play legal system practically stripping them of many of their rights.

 

[hipeter924]

I don't mind libertarians, so long as they are prepared to discuss taxation, market regulation and social services realistically, rather than wade into civil war butthurt over secession.

 

[M14 Shooter]

My problem with libertarianism tends to be in the specifics and practical effects. Libertarians seem keenly aware of how the concentration of power with the government can create abuse. And they're right. Where they fail is in either failing to recognize or recognizing and failing to care about the concentration of private power tending to create abuse. And in a society with very few limits on the powerful and wealthy, abuse is inevitable.

I think you will find that libertarians want the government to protect the rights of everyone, including the people from business and businesses from people.

In theory, perhaps. But most libertarian systems involve a pay to play legal system where the loser pays all legal fees. That powerfully discourages people from persueing their rights. As if they lose, they're financially ruined. Especially when dealing with those who have much more money and power.

Sounds like a good way to keep silly cases out of the courts, don't you think?
If you have a sound case, bring it and win. if you don't, don;t try.

Libertarianism also involves a dramatic reduction in regulation that prevents abuse, pollution, and various forms of social damage before they happen.

Not at all necessarily so. If a business harms the rights of others by pouring chemicals into the drinking water supply, libertarians support the government stepping in to protect those rights.
Protecting the rights of the Giant Tiny Green Horned Tree Frog? Maybe not so much.

I elaborate in the same post you cited from. Corruption, exploitation, and abuse.

As notes, Libertarians believe that government exists to protect rights. If any of the things you mention here violate someone's rights, libertarians support government intervention.

 

[Skylar]

ay to keep silly cases out of the courts, don't you think?

Yup. It also sounds like a great way of keeping legitimate cases out of court. People are threatened out of pursuing their rights now, when no such restrictions exist. When any case could spell financial disaster, the cudgel of threat would become a sledge hammer.

Especially when punitive damages are taken off the table, as many libertarians seek.

When limited to actual damages, hurting people for profit could be a viable business model. Particularly in the libertarian model. As the threat of financial ruin would dramatically reduce the odds of the injured from pursuing their rights. And for those who fought and won, didn't win all that much. If its more profitable to hurt people with a bad product than it does to fix the product, businesses will

How do we know? Business has. If it costs more to recall a product than it does to pay off or threaten those killed or maimed .....often, there is no recall.

While those individuals who fought for their rights and lost could made examples of.

As notes, Libertarians believe that government exists to protect rights.

But it grossly curtails the government's authority to do what it 'exists to do'. Most labor regulation is out. Discrimination regulation is out. Environmental regulation is largely dismantled. And the pay to play legal system makes it extremely risky for anyone to pursue their own rights. As if they lose, they pay all legal fees.

With the government lacking any ability to prevent abuse or harm before it happens. But only react after. A business could, presumably, poison a river and kill people. With the government powerless to stop them. And only capable of punishing them if someone is willing to risk financial ruin in a pay to play legal system.

And that is but one in a myriad of aspects of comparative failure in a libertarian system that I listed in my post.

Any concentration of power will be abused. And this something that many libertarians either don't get....or don't care about.

 

[M14 Shooter]

My problem with libertarianism tends to be in the specifics and practical effects. Libertarians seem keenly aware of how the concentration of power with the government can create abuse. And they're right. Where they fail is in either failing to recognize or recognizing and failing to care about the concentration of private power tending to create abuse. And in a society with very few limits on the powerful and wealthy, abuse is inevitable.

I think you will find that libertarians want the government to protect the rights of everyone, including the people from business and businesses from people.

In theory, perhaps. But most libertarian systems involve a pay to play legal system where the loser pays all legal fees. That powerfully discourages people from persueing their rights. As if they lose, they're financially ruined. Especially when dealing with those who have much more money and power.

Sounds like a good way to keep silly cases out of the courts, don't you think?

Yup. It also sounds like a great way of keeping legitimate cases out of court.

How does keeping silly cases out of court also keep legitimate cases our of court, when legitimate cases usually win?
Tell me: who SHOULD pay the legal fees in a civil suit, and why?

People are threatened out of pursuing their rights now, when no such restrictions exist.

By whom? How?

As notes, Libertarians believe that government exists to protect rights.

But it grossly curtails the government's authority to do what it 'exists to do'. Most labor regulation is out. Discrimination regulation is out. Environmental regulation is largely dismantled. And the pay to play legal system makes it extremely risky for anyone to pursue their own rights. As if they lose, they pay all legal fees.

Methinks you overgeneralize and overreach.

With the government lacking any ability to prevent abuse or harm before it happens. But only react after.

Funny thing about rights, no matter who has them: In a free society, we get to exercise them until we do something wrong.

 

[kaz]

People paying for common services, police, military, civilian and civil courts, roads, that sort of thing doesn't contradict living in a free society. Government doing things like redistributing money and taxing some citizens more than others is completely inconsistent with a free society, that's just getting free stuff

You are free to hold that opinion. You are free to try to get others to agree and get the laws changed. Good luck with that. In the meantime, I have already laid out your options. No one said you were always going to get your way.

You get your way because you use guns to get it. Then you talk about a free society. Talk about empty blather. Where does 50% plus one give you a moral imperative to remove my liberty and property? God? Government? "Society"? Based on what do you think you have a right to vote and give my money to someone else that I earned and they didn't. Sorry Kaz, but Steve here gives me a majority. Steve and I decided to take this much of your property. Sucks to be you.

That is what you are advocating. There is nothing moral or right about it. Think about what you said. I am free to convince others that the property I earned is mine. Why should I have to convince anyone to respect that?

No, you talk about a free society. I talk about the law. This nation is based upon the law, starting with the Constitution. I don't trust anything because someone calls it "moral". The laws are created under the framework of the Constitution. That is how this nation operates and it is not going to change because some people don't think it's working out the way they want.

Can the government take your property? You betcha and it has had that ability since the first day of the republic. Can it take your liberty if it doesn't approve of your actions? Absolutely. Can it decide to take your money and spend it on things you don't approve of. You can bet your life on it. Just like every other government on the planet.

So I repeat.... work to change the law, accept it, disobey and take the consequences or leave. Pick one and take some responsibility for yourself. And while you think your freedom is so trodden upon you might consider that for most of the people on this planet, options one and four don't exist.

Interesting how you started with "no" then agreed with everything I said. You think you and Steve can confiscate my shit with force because you outvoted me

Um...OK?

Ok. Then just be outraged. Enjoy the rest of your day.

 

[Skylar]

How does keeping silly cases out of court also keep legitimate cases our of court, when legitimate cases usually win?

Because there's more than cases that are 'silly' and always lose and cases that are 'legitimate' and always win.

Most cases are in between, with varying degrees of strength. And there are no guaranteed legal outcomes. A pay to play legal system increases the risk for any case of any strength. And acts as a powerful disincentive for those pursuing legitimate cases. As if they lose, they're financially ruined.

And with the elimination of punitive damages, it can dramatically reduce the benefit of pursuing a case.

People are threatened out of pursuing their rights now, when no such restrictions exist.

By whom? How?

By legal threats. Small businesses threatened with 'cease and desist' letters threatening vast legal action if they don't do as they are told. Even when the legal basis of the threat is legally unsound, many folks simply buckle under the threat and potential cost.

And that's with protections.

It would be much more severe when you could be threatened by a large company with both a lawsuit....and the cost of sending you the threat. Many more people would be threatened out of pursuing their rights.

Worse would be representation. As a laywer would need to assess not only the client's ability to pay their own fees. But a client's ability to pay the defendant's fees as well. Meaning that many legitimate cases would find it difficult to find representation as it wouldn't be financially sound for a lawyer to represent a low wealth client vs. a high wealth client.

The practical effect of a pay to play legal system is to empower the powerful. And discourage the powerless. Both by increasing the risk of those seeking to defend their rights. And lowering the benefit for those who successfully do so.

But it grossly curtails the government's authority to do what it 'exists to do'. Most labor regulation is out. Discrimination regulation is out. Environmental regulation is largely dismantled. And the pay to play legal system makes it extremely risky for anyone to pursue their own rights. As if they lose, they pay all legal fees.

Methinks you overgeneralize and overreach.

What part of my post do you disagree with? Specifically.

With the government lacking any ability to prevent abuse or harm before it happens. But only react after.

Funny thing about rights, no matter who has them: In a free society, we get to exercise them until we do something wrong.

And preventing obvious and predictably harm until after there is blood on the floor is foolish. Like having no law to prevent someone from firing a gun into a crowd of people. But only laws that punish the offender if someone is actually hit.

Its far more effective, inexpensive, and rational to keep someone from pouring poison into the river than decontaminating the river and burying the bodies of the dead afterward.

Its an axiom of common sense that most anyone would recognize. But libertarianism cannot allow.

 

[bripat9643]

And so, if you talk about the law and if you believe that this nation is based upon the law, starting with the Constitution, why do yo not oppose state-enforced involuntary servitude?

Because I don't see it as involuntary servitude...

That only means you choose to be wrong.

I see you cut off the rest of my post

I don't bother myself with meaningless baiting.
You choosing to not see yourself as servant of the state in no way means you aren't, as the state, inarguably, forces you to provide goods and services to others without compensation. You can justify it however you want, but that fact remains.

.

Then pick your unappreciated ass up out of your chair, get on a plane and go somewhere you aren't so persecuted. My god you're boing. Have a nice day.

Is that what you tell the queers when they are whining about someone who refuses to bake them a wedding cake?

 

[bripat9643]

I don't mind libertarians, so long as they are prepared to discuss taxation, market regulation and social services realistically, rather than wade into civil war butthurt over secession.

In other words, you don't mind libertarians who aren't real libertarians.

Your brilliance is stupefying!

 

[bripat9643]

People paying for common services, police, military, civilian and civil courts, roads, that sort of thing doesn't contradict living in a free society. Government doing things like redistributing money and taxing some citizens more than others is completely inconsistent with a free society, that's just getting free stuff

You are free to hold that opinion. You are free to try to get others to agree and get the laws changed. Good luck with that. In the meantime, I have already laid out your options. No one said you were always going to get your way.

You get your way because you use guns to get it. Then you talk about a free society. Talk about empty blather. Where does 50% plus one give you a moral imperative to remove my liberty and property? God? Government? "Society"? Based on what do you think you have a right to vote and give my money to someone else that I earned and they didn't. Sorry Kaz, but Steve here gives me a majority. Steve and I decided to take this much of your property. Sucks to be you.

That is what you are advocating. There is nothing moral or right about it. Think about what you said. I am free to convince others that the property I earned is mine. Why should I have to convince anyone to respect that?

No, you talk about a free society. I talk about the law. This nation is based upon the law, starting with the Constitution. I don't trust anything because someone calls it "moral". The laws are created under the framework of the Constitution. That is how this nation operates and it is not going to change because some people don't think it's working out the way they want.

Can the government take your property? You betcha and it has had that ability since the first day of the republic. Can it take your liberty if it doesn't approve of your actions? Absolutely. Can it decide to take your money and spend it on things you don't approve of. You can bet your life on it. Just like every other government on the planet.

So I repeat.... work to change the law, accept it, disobey and take the consequences or leave. Pick one and take some responsibility for yourself. And while you think your freedom is so trodden upon you might consider that for most of the people on this planet, options one and four don't exist.

Interesting how you started with "no" then agreed with everything I said. You think you and Steve can confiscate my shit with force because you outvoted me

Ok. Then just be outraged. Enjoy the rest of your day.

You're an idiot. You're the modern day version of the red-necks who said "America, love it or leave it." However, you're ilk would be the first to whine if gays weren't allowed to marry.

 

[M14 Shooter]

How does keeping silly cases out of court also keep legitimate cases our of court, when legitimate cases usually win?

Because there's more than cases that are 'silly' and always lose and cases that are 'legitimate' and always win.

So why have a system that has no risk for people bringing silly cases?
Who SHOULD pay the legal fees in a civil case?

What part of my post do you disagree with? Specifically.

You make claims that this that and the other thing are "out" under libertarianism.
Those generalizations, well, overgeneralize.
Do you think libertarians see protecting people from true discrimination as outside the role of government? Why?
Do you think libertarians see protecting people from true environmental abuse as outside the role of government? Why?

And preventing obvious and predictably harm until after there is blood on the floor is foolish.

No law can prevent a company from dumping toxins into a river.
Lets say there is a law against dumping Chemical. X into the river because it will kill people. Libertarians are, of course, OK with this law because it protects the rights off the people.
Libertarians would prosecute a company that does this.
What would you have then do otherwise?

Like having no law to prevent someone from firing a gun into a crowd of people. But only laws that punish the offender if someone is actually hit.

No law can prevent someone from firing a gun into a crowd of people.
Lets say there is a law against firing a gun into a crown of people because people are in real danger of getting hurt. Libertarians are, of course, OK with this law because it protects the rights off the people.
Libertarians would prosecute person that does this.
What would you have then do otherwise?

 

[Skylar]

So why have a system that has no risk for people bringing silly cases?

Again, no one is arguing that there should be 'no risk'. You're arguing absolutes. Either a silly case that always loses or a legitimate case that always wins. A legal system with no risk, or a legal system that means financial ruin for any unsuccessful case.

I'm discussing practical effects. And the practical effects of a pay to play legal system is that it powerfully discourages people from pursuing their rights. They may not have the money to do pay the judge. Or the risk of economic catastrophe should they lose could be too great.

I'd argue that a system that powerfully discourages people from pursuing their rights powerfully discourages the protection of rights. And I argue that libertarianism is one such system.

What part of my post do you disagree with? Specifically.

You make claims that this that and the other thing are "out" under libertarianism.
Those generalizations, well, overgeneralize.

Ah, so there are no specific parts of my post you disagree with.

In terms of discussing the topic broadly, I'm being no more 'over-general' than the OP.

And preventing obvious and predictably harm until after there is blood on the floor is foolish.

No law can prevent a company from dumping toxins into a river.

Not in the absolute sense that your argument leans toward, perhaps. But in a practical sense, you bet laws can prevent it. Environmental regulation, fines for violating those regulations, testing of water samples to verify compliance, etc.. Its illegal to dump the poisons to begin with. And anyone found doing it is in violation of the law, even if no one is hurt. And this dramatically improves water quality.

How do we know? Just compare water quality before regulation and after. Its measurably better after.

Libertarianism lacks the mechanism to regulate in this fashion. And can only act when people are actually hurt....and only if those hurt have enough money to seek redress. And can withstand the severe risk in doing so.

Under libertarianism you could empty a gun into the side of anyone's home. And if you don't actually hit anyone, the worst they could sue you for was property damage. Perhaps vandalism. As there are no laws that preventing foreseeable harm. Only compensation AFTER harm.

And that's foolish.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Again, no one is arguing that there should be 'no risk'. You're arguing absolutes. Either a silly case that always loses or a legitimate case that always wins. A legal system with no risk, or a legal system that means financial ruin for any unsuccessful case.

I'm discussing practical effects. And the practical effects of a pay to play legal system is that it powerfully discourages people from pursuing their rights. They may not have the money to do pay the judge. Or the risk of economic catastrophe should they lose could be too great.

I'd argue that a system that powerfully discourages people from pursuing their rights powerfully discourages the protection of rights. And I argue that libertarianism is one such system.

Who SHOULD pay the legal fees in a civil case?

Ah, so there are no specific parts of my post you disagree with.

Clearly there were as I brought up two of the issues you presented.
Do you think libertarians see protecting people from true discrimination as outside the role of government? Why?
Do you think libertarians see protecting people from true environmental abuse as outside the role of government? Why?

No law can prevent a company from dumping toxins into a river.

Not in the absolute sense that your argument leans toward, perhaps. But in a practical sense, you bet laws can prevent it. Environmental regulation, fines for violating those regulations, testing of water samples to verify compliance, etc

Lets say there is a law against dumping Chemical. X into the river because it will kill people. Libertarians are, of course, OK with this law because it protects the rights of the people.
Libertarians would prosecute a company that does this.
What would you have then do otherwise?

Lets say there is a law against firing a gun into a crown of people because people are in real danger of getting hurt. Libertarians are, of course, OK with this law because it protects the rights of the people.
Libertarians would prosecute person that does this.
What would you have then do otherwise?

Under libertarianism you could empty a gun into the side of anyone's home And if you don't actually hit anyone, the worst they could sue you for was property damage. Perhaps vandalism.

If no one is home, what else would you charge them with? It might not even be illegal discharge, depending on if the house is in a city or rural area.
If someone is home, do you really think a libertarian would not want them charged for reckless endangerment or maybe attempted murder? If so, why?

As there are no laws that preventing foreseeable harm. Only compensation AFTER harm.

Given that it is already illegal to do so, what law do you suggest would prevent people from shooting at a house, as you describe?[/quote]

 

[Skylar]

Clearly there were as I brought up two of the issues you presented.

Do you think libertarians see protecting people from true discrimination as outside the role of government? Why?
Do you think libertarians see protecting people from true environmental abuse as outside the role of government? Why?

That's neither agreement nor disagreement. But a homework assignment. If you have a perspective to share on my argument, please do so.

But you're not actually disagreeing with me.

Lets say there is a law against dumping Chemical. X into the river because it will kill people. Libertarians are, of course, OK with this law because it protects the rights of the people.

Libertarians would prosecute a company that does this.
What would you have then do otherwise?

How would a libertarian government enforce this law before it killed people? Specifically. Remember, most libertarians call for a vast reduction in regulation if not an outright elimination. Its one thing to have words on a page that say that a business can't dump Chemical X into a river. Its another to enforce those words. And an agency with no budget, no testing, and utterly insufficient staff can provide no oversight.

You'd be trusting the businesses to regulate themselves. Which has a poor record of success. Especially after civil consinequences have been diminished with a pay to play legal system and the elimation of punitive damages.

And many libertarians I've spoken with would disagree with you. As they argue that the government should play no role in the use of private land. If you own land, any government interference on the use you put the land to would be a violation of liberty and sovereignty.

So I argue that on the grounds of lack of enforcement or oversight, libertarianism would do a piss poor job environmentally. And I'd argue that many libertarians would claim that the entire concept of government enforcement or oversight of the use of private land to be antithetical to liberty.

Which would lead to the same abysmal environmental record that less regulation has historically produced. And we're seeing right now in countries like China.

The historical record of libertarian leaning environmental policy is quite awful. As regulation without enforcement is mere decoration.

Lets say there is a law against firing a gun into a crown of people because people are in real danger of getting hurt. Libertarians are, of course, OK with this law because it protects the rights of the people.
Libertarians would prosecute person that does this.

And I've discussed such issues with libertarians in the past that argue that hypothetical harm is insufficient justification to regulate with force. That only actual harm would mandate such a response. With firing a gun into a crowd being only hypothetical harm until someone is actually hit.

The proactive prevention of hypothetical but foreseeable harm is one of the hallmark differences between the system we have now and that of libertarianism.

Given that it is already illegal to do so, what law do you suggest would prevent people from shooting at a house, as you describe?

There is already environmental regulation, central banking, compulsory taxation, zoning laws and a variety of other factors that libertarians advocate eliminating.

Thus, the existence of a law in the current legal system doesn't necessarily translate into the existence of the same law in a libertarian legal system.

And of course, there are a myriad of other flaws in Libertarianism. To name a few:

* their skewed concept of binary force and consent. In reality, both force and consent are exercised in increments. Not a switch.

* Its allowance of vast abuse and exploitation. Its historic dependance on such abuse and exploitation.

* The strong tendency for the concentrations of private power, with the accompanying abuse that follows any concentration of power.

* The tendency for corruption of public institutions by private power when regulatory oversight of corruption (and pretty much every other industry or realm of public life) are eliminated or dramatically diminished.

* the empowerment of the powerful and the stripping of protections from the powerless.

In short, libertarianism is an oligarch's wet dream.