Just What is Libertarianism?

[dblack]

How do you enforce the laws against vandalism/reckless endangerment/attempted murder before they are broken?

Off the top of my head? Anti-loitering laws. Regulation of the paints used by vandals.

Exactly. The only way to enforce preventative law is to punish people for doing things that don't harm anyone. Like standing around on the street corner. Or owning the wrong cant of paint.

Given that we're discussing an analogy for environmental regulation, how does your reasoning track?

If we want to prevent a business from dumping a particular chemical in the water, there are all sorts of preventative measures we can take. I can do inspections, we can test water quality coming out of the business, we can regulate the chemical so we know if the business has it, we can mandate handling practices with that chemical that make accidents less likely. And fine the company if they don't comply with those regulations, even if their failures don't result in direct harm to anyone.

There are all sorts of measures that can be taken for environmental regulation to prevent hypothetical but plausible harm. Libertarians don't believe in regulation for business.

Period.

This is very true. We don't believe in that kind of "preventative" regulation for anyone.

I know its true. I have a pretty firm handle on libertarianism because I took the time to ask libertarians what they actually believe. Its not a unified philosophy, but there are some averages and relatively common tenets.......the abolishment of preventative regulation being one of them.

And I think that their dismissal of preventative regulation is foolish for the reasons I've offered. Its one of the many reasons that libertarianism is a poor fit for our society. And I try and point out the practical costs of libertarianism whenever the vague 'freedom and liberty' shellack is offered.

Libertarianism comes with costs most people don't want to pay when they learn of them.

Maybe. But indulging "preventative" government control over our lives comes with costs most people don't want to pay as well. At present, your side seems to be winning. We're tossing aside individual liberties at an alarming rate to placate the fears and insecurities of those who think government can save them from themselves. But we'll keep fighting to wake people up to the truth.

 

[Skylar]

Off the top of my head? Anti-loitering laws. Regulation of the paints used by vandals.

Exactly. The only way to enforce preventative law is to punish people for doing things that don't harm anyone. Like standing around on the street corner. Or owning the wrong cant of paint.

Given that we're discussing an analogy for environmental regulation, how does your reasoning track?

If we want to prevent a business from dumping a particular chemical in the water, there are all sorts of preventative measures we can take. I can do inspections, we can test water quality coming out of the business, we can regulate the chemical so we know if the business has it, we can mandate handling practices with that chemical that make accidents less likely. And fine the company if they don't comply with those regulations, even if their failures don't result in direct harm to anyone.

There are all sorts of measures that can be taken for environmental regulation to prevent hypothetical but plausible harm. Libertarians don't believe in regulation for business.

Period.

This is very true. We don't believe in that kind of "preventative" regulation for anyone.

I know its true. I have a pretty firm handle on libertarianism because I took the time to ask libertarians what they actually believe. Its not a unified philosophy, but there are some averages and relatively common tenets.......the abolishment of preventative regulation being one of them.

And I think that their dismissal of preventative regulation is foolish for the reasons I've offered. Its one of the many reasons that libertarianism is a poor fit for our society. And I try and point out the practical costs of libertarianism whenever the vague 'freedom and liberty' shellack is offered.

Libertarianism comes with costs most people don't want to pay when they learn of them.

Maybe. But indulging "preventative" government control over our lives comes with costs most people don't want to pay as well. At present, your side seems to be winning. We're tossing aside individual liberties at an alarming rate to placate the fears and insecurities of those who think government can save them from themselves. But we'll keep fighting to wake people up to the truth.

Libertarianism involves less government regulation. If you don't like government regulation, that's a plus. Libertarianism would also involve lower taxes. If you don't like taxes, that's a plus.

However.

If you're not into a pay to play legal system, a stunning lack of environmental regulation, a loser pays all tort system, the lack of preventative regulation, the empowerment of the powerful, the removal of protections for the comparatively powerless, a stark increase in economic instability, the removal of many social safetynets, and the concentrations of massive power and influence in the hands of wealthy....

......then maybe libertarianism isn't for you.

My argument is that when fully informed of the costs and benefits of libertarianism, most folks feel the cost outweights the benefits. I try to keep people informed of the costs. I'll leave it to you and yours to cover the benefits.

 

[dblack]

Exactly. The only way to enforce preventative law is to punish people for doing things that don't harm anyone. Like standing around on the street corner. Or owning the wrong cant of paint.

Given that we're discussing an analogy for environmental regulation, how does your reasoning track?

If we want to prevent a business from dumping a particular chemical in the water, there are all sorts of preventative measures we can take. I can do inspections, we can test water quality coming out of the business, we can regulate the chemical so we know if the business has it, we can mandate handling practices with that chemical that make accidents less likely. And fine the company if they don't comply with those regulations, even if their failures don't result in direct harm to anyone.

There are all sorts of measures that can be taken for environmental regulation to prevent hypothetical but plausible harm. Libertarians don't believe in regulation for business.

Period.

This is very true. We don't believe in that kind of "preventative" regulation for anyone.

I know its true. I have a pretty firm handle on libertarianism because I took the time to ask libertarians what they actually believe. Its not a unified philosophy, but there are some averages and relatively common tenets.......the abolishment of preventative regulation being one of them.

And I think that their dismissal of preventative regulation is foolish for the reasons I've offered. Its one of the many reasons that libertarianism is a poor fit for our society. And I try and point out the practical costs of libertarianism whenever the vague 'freedom and liberty' shellack is offered.

Libertarianism comes with costs most people don't want to pay when they learn of them.

Maybe. But indulging "preventative" government control over our lives comes with costs most people don't want to pay as well. At present, your side seems to be winning. We're tossing aside individual liberties at an alarming rate to placate the fears and insecurities of those who think government can save them from themselves. But we'll keep fighting to wake people up to the truth.

Libertarianism involves less government regulation. If you don't like government regulation, that's a plus. Libertarianism would also involve lower taxes. If you don't like taxes, that's a plus.

However.

If you're not into a pay to play legal system, a stunning lack of environmental regulation, a loser pays all tort system, the lack of preventative regulation, the empowerment of the powerful, the removal of protections for the comparatively powerless, a stark increase in economic instability, the removal of many social safetynets, and the concentrations of massive power and influence in the hands of wealthy....

......then maybe libertarianism isn't for you.

My argument is that when fully informed of the costs and benefits of libertarianism, most folks feel the cost outweights the benefits. I try to keep people informed of the costs. I'll leave it to you and yours to cover the benefits.

Fair enough. That's honest political advocacy. I'll do likewise.

 

[bripat9643]

How do you enforce the laws against vandalism/reckless endangerment/attempted murder before they are broken?

Off the top of my head? Anti-loitering laws. Regulation of the paints used by vandals.

Exactly. The only way to enforce preventative law is to punish people for doing things that don't harm anyone. Like standing around on the street corner. Or owning the wrong cant of paint.

Given that we're discussing an analogy for environmental regulation, how does your reasoning track?

If we want to prevent a business from dumping a particular chemical in the water, there are all sorts of preventative measures we can take. I can do inspections, we can test water quality coming out of the business, we can regulate the chemical so we know if the business has it, we can mandate handling practices with that chemical that make accidents less likely. And fine the company if they don't comply with those regulations, even if their failures don't result in direct harm to anyone.

There are all sorts of measures that can be taken for environmental regulation to prevent hypothetical but plausible harm. Libertarians don't believe in regulation for business.

Period.

This is very true. We don't believe in that kind of "preventative" regulation for anyone.

I know its true. I have a pretty firm handle on libertarianism because I took the time to ask libertarians what they actually believe. Its not a unified philosophy, but there are some averages and relatively common tenets.......the abolishment of preventative regulation being one of them.

And I think that their dismissal of preventative regulation is foolish for the reasons I've offered. Its one of the many reasons that libertarianism is a poor fit for our society. And I try and point out the practical costs of libertarianism whenever the vague 'freedom and liberty' shellack is offered.

Libertarianism comes with costs most people don't want to pay when they learn of them.

Your belief that so-called "preventative regulation" actually prevents anything is utterly naive. The fact is the almost all government regulation is post hoc. That is, it's after the fact.

For example, a while back there was a plane called the DC-10 that had a number of mid-air crack-ups that were unexplained. When they finally tracked down that cause, it turned out to be a faulty design of the cargo bay door. So the government passed new regulations governing the design of cargo bay doors - that is, they did this after several hundred people died. That's after the fact. The idea that McDonnell Douglas or any other airframe manufacturer would continue to use this faulty design without the new regulation is simply absurd.

That's how the vast bulk of government regulations work: a disaster occurs and then the government passes regulations to prevent it. The regulation hasn't prevented jack.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I apparently think libertarians oppose regulation of private business. Which would include anti-discrimination and environmental regulation. And my evidence? Why a self proclaimed libertarian:

Yawn.

You keep yawning. I'll keep quoting libertarians backing my argument:

You haven't quoted anyone substantive -- you've made a bunch of straw arguments that you run away from when questioned about them.
How do I know this?
I've asked a a dozen or so questions about what you think libertarians will and wont do, and you refuse to get near them.

 

[Skull Pilot]

You people lie to list the most extreme points of the libertarian platform and then assume everyone who likes libertarian principles agrees with everything in that extreme example.

Sorry but it's not that simple.

I for one am a member of no party I rather have views that are am amalgamation of several different philosophies.

Unfortunately, we are a country so full of partisan sheep that any politician with a similar blending of political philosophies doesn't stand a chance because we are so unenlightened.

 

[PratchettFan]

The good of society is the primary goal of the Constitution. Morality is entirely subjective and should not even be a factor. Doing unto others is a wonderful sentiment, but I have seen so many things people are willing to do to others that I don't trust the concept much.

What holds us together is the law. Written down for all to see, interpreted and enforced in the light.

Of course. I'm saying nothing different. Except that we shouldn't endorse anything in the name of the law that we wouldn't feel justified doing personally. In other words, if I see someone attacking an old woman to steal her purse, or worse, I'd feel justified - even obligated - to use force if necessary to prevent it. And I'd want the law to do the same. But, even if I might feel personally obligated to help the poor, or the refugees in Iraq, or any other number of noble causes, I wouldn't feel justified in forcing my neighbors to join me. Likewise I don't think it's right for the law to do it on my behalf just because we had a vote.

And I do think it is not only right but necessary. Living in a country where abject poverty, starvation and disease are not rife is not free. If one wishes to live in such a country they should expect to have to help pay for it. But I am not naïve enough to think that most people will do this voluntarily. Some will, but it is not fair to expect them to carry the burden while others get a free ride. So I have absolutely no qualms about forcing my neighbor to join me whether they want to or not. Just as I have no qualms about forcing them to help pay for the military, fire services and sewer systems. It is the choice we make to live here. No one is forced to make that choice.

I don't buy "love it or leave it". Forcing one's will on another is "original sin" in my view. I don't expect other people to follow my orders, nor yours, regardless of whether those orders are supported by a majority. I appreciate that you don't see it this way, but this is the key to understanding libertarianism. It's essentially a qualified pacifism. We'll fight to defend ourselves, but not to bully others for the sake of convenience.

And I do understand, it is just in error. If you walk into a store and intend to walk out with something you can expect to be required to pay for it. It is not optional. The same holds true for society. Paying for the benefits of society is not an option you can decide to forgo. It isn't an issue of "love it or leave it". It is a matter of paying for what you take.

I'm not sure what post your responding to, or what you consider to be "in error". I was describing libertarian values. Are you saying my description is wrong? We're opposed to the initiation of violence. How is that "in error"?

I was referring to your phrase "key to understanding libertarianism". I understand libertarianism, it just doesn't work. It is based upon the idea that human beings don't exist. That is in error.

 

[PratchettFan]

Unless you're an anarchist, your post doesn't make sense. Even a minarchist government needs some funds. How would you enforce collection of taxes, strongly worded notes?

I am an anarchist. Government is what doesn't make sense.

Human nature being both social and predatory at times proves that we will always need to band together for mutual aid and defense. Therefore, IMO, anarchism is what doesn't make sense.

Anarchism does not exist and will never exist. It is a pipe dream of people who have never grasped the idea that other people exist.

Anarchism is the default mode of society. The vast majority or our interactions occur with no reliance on state coercion.

No, it isn't. Not even a little bit. There is no society you can name in the entire history of humanity which did not have government, and religion for that matter. And every human interaction within a society falls under that authority whether you realize it or not. If you nod to me in the street, I can't just pull out my piece and shoot you in the chest. I have a limited number of responses I can use without government intervening. To call that interaction anarchist just because I don't go beyond those limitations is absurd.

Two people on their own may well work as a team only, but kick that number to five and one of them is going to become the leader and the rest followers. That isn't philosophy, it's the way human beings are. You can't change the system and expect the people to change.

 

[bripat9643]

Of course. I'm saying nothing different. Except that we shouldn't endorse anything in the name of the law that we wouldn't feel justified doing personally. In other words, if I see someone attacking an old woman to steal her purse, or worse, I'd feel justified - even obligated - to use force if necessary to prevent it. And I'd want the law to do the same. But, even if I might feel personally obligated to help the poor, or the refugees in Iraq, or any other number of noble causes, I wouldn't feel justified in forcing my neighbors to join me. Likewise I don't think it's right for the law to do it on my behalf just because we had a vote.

And I do think it is not only right but necessary. Living in a country where abject poverty, starvation and disease are not rife is not free. If one wishes to live in such a country they should expect to have to help pay for it. But I am not naïve enough to think that most people will do this voluntarily. Some will, but it is not fair to expect them to carry the burden while others get a free ride. So I have absolutely no qualms about forcing my neighbor to join me whether they want to or not. Just as I have no qualms about forcing them to help pay for the military, fire services and sewer systems. It is the choice we make to live here. No one is forced to make that choice.

I don't buy "love it or leave it". Forcing one's will on another is "original sin" in my view. I don't expect other people to follow my orders, nor yours, regardless of whether those orders are supported by a majority. I appreciate that you don't see it this way, but this is the key to understanding libertarianism. It's essentially a qualified pacifism. We'll fight to defend ourselves, but not to bully others for the sake of convenience.

And I do understand, it is just in error. If you walk into a store and intend to walk out with something you can expect to be required to pay for it. It is not optional. The same holds true for society. Paying for the benefits of society is not an option you can decide to forgo. It isn't an issue of "love it or leave it". It is a matter of paying for what you take.

I'm not sure what post your responding to, or what you consider to be "in error". I was describing libertarian values. Are you saying my description is wrong? We're opposed to the initiation of violence. How is that "in error"?

I was referring to your phrase "key to understanding libertarianism". I understand libertarianism, it just doesn't work. It is based upon the idea that human beings don't exist. That is in error.

You think liberalism works. Why would anyone accept your opinion as credible?

 

[bripat9643]

Unless you're an anarchist, your post doesn't make sense. Even a minarchist government needs some funds. How would you enforce collection of taxes, strongly worded notes?

I am an anarchist. Government is what doesn't make sense.

Human nature being both social and predatory at times proves that we will always need to band together for mutual aid and defense. Therefore, IMO, anarchism is what doesn't make sense.

Anarchism does not exist and will never exist. It is a pipe dream of people who have never grasped the idea that other people exist.

Anarchism is the default mode of society. The vast majority or our interactions occur with no reliance on state coercion.

No, it isn't. Not even a little bit. There is no society you can name in the entire history of humanity which did not have government, and religion for that matter. And every human interaction within a society falls under that authority whether you realize it or not. If you nod to me in the street, I can't just pull out my piece and shoot you in the chest. I have a limited number of responses I can use without government intervening. To call that interaction anarchist just because I don't go beyond those limitations is absurd.

Two people on their own may well work as a team only, but kick that number to five and one of them is going to become the leader and the rest followers. That isn't philosophy, it's the way human beings are. You can't change the system and expect the people to change.

You have, once again, defined government as any collection of more than one human being. That makes the word meaningless.


Society existed for 10,000 years prior to the creation of the first government. There were cities in Sumer prior to any King. There were cities in Egypt prior to any Pharaoh. There were cities in China prior to any Emperor.

 

[dblack]

I was referring to your phrase "key to understanding libertarianism". I understand libertarianism, it just doesn't work. It is based upon the idea that human beings don't exist. That is in error.

Then the error is yours. It's not based on that idea.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

The idea that cases should be paid by the lose is not something that I necessarily endorse (or a real tenant of libertarianism if you ask me) but your train of thought on this does not actually support your argument. Every single point can be made in our current system and even more so. The poor cannot even hire an attorney and therefore get ZERO chance to bring a case no matter how strong. Even when they are able the attorneys essentially take the lions share of the judgement making the case a loose loose for those without the money.
We have a pay to play system right now. Even when representation is a requirement in the constitution it is no longer provided in all cases. The current system is completely broke.

That last statement is a kicker as well. Not only do libertarians completely understand that any concentration of power will be abused – it is the fundamental building block that the entire philosophy is built upon. The key difference here is that you don’t seem to understand that the true power of business is not gained by evading the government or getting rid of regulations. It is directly gained through cooperation with government – a cooperation that grants business powers that are simply impossible without that relationship.

 

[kaz]

The idea that cases should be paid by the lose is not something that I necessarily endorse (or a real tenant of libertarianism if you ask me)

I have never met a libertarian who did not support loser pays. I do think it should be capped. If you sue a business for $5,000 for medical bills for an injury, they should not be able to spend $100,000 to defend it to intentionally bankrupt you as a point to anyone else to not sue them. It should be say max 1/3 the suit amount or something like that. Obviously if they spend the amount they would have to pay if they lose or anywhere close to it, they are doing it as a point, not a defense. Which is fine, but the loser shouldn't have to pay for the point, just the defense.

As for it restricting the poor's access to lawyers, I disagree. Lawyers who have legitimate cases and clients who can't pay can work into the deal they will pay if they lose. That will further restrict lawyers taking what the fuck chances or ridiculous cases and is for that reason a great idea. The courts should be for legitimate cases with actual damages where reasonable settlements cannot be made. The system we have is ridiculous and is destroying us. When you go to the doctor, a huge part of your bill is to pay for frivolous lawsuits. The cost of everything is so greatly inflated because of embedded costs for our out of control tort system. We also lose quality, like a decent cup of ... hot ... coffee

 

[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.

The idea that cases should be paid by the lose is not something that I necessarily endorse (or a real tenant of libertarianism if you ask me) but your train of thought on this does not actually support your argument. Every single point can be made in our current system and even more so.

Not at all in some cases. And not to the same degree.

First off, there's the massive risk of financial ruin if you lose your case. That is an enormous disincentive to pursue one's rights as the cost of failure is equally enormous. With the accompanying elimination of punitive damages, the benefit of pursuing one's rights is also diminished.

That doesn't exist now. The risk is far lower. The benefits higher. Both encourage a person to pursue their rights to a far greater degree than in a libertarian 'pay to play' court system where the loser pays for everything and a judge must be hired.

The poor cannot even hire an attorney and therefore get ZERO chance to bring a case no matter how strong.

Many attorneys will work on a contingency. Meaning that you don't pay a penny unless you win. Something the poor can definitely afford. The threshold for contingency cases will be much, much higher....as punitive damages are removed. Reducing the judgment awards and with it the fees that contingency lawyers can collect. And the likelihood of taking the case. Meaning that under the libertarian court system the poor would find representation even harder to find.

Worse, when middle class folks are trying to hire an attorney, an attorney asssesses their ability to pay when deciding to take the case. And the risk of paying all legal fees for both sides if they lose the case will dramatically impair any middle class person's ability to pay their own attorney. There are indeterminate and potentially catastrophic financial costs for clients that any attorney they try and hire must weight them when deciding if they'll take the case.

Higher risk and higher liability than exists now means that many more lawyers will refuse to take cases from middle class clients than refuse to do so now. Meaning that even middle class individuals will find it more difficult to find representation in a pay to play, loser pays for everything case.

In terms of absolutes, your argument has merit. In terms of the practical realities that we actually live in, it fails on issues of degree and the dramatically higher risk of a 'loser pays for everything' legal system that doesn't exist now.

That last statement is a kicker as well. Not only do libertarians completely understand that any concentration of power will be abused – it is the fundamental building block that the entire philosophy is built upon.

Not when the party accumulating and exercising power is a private individual, business or cartel. Libertarians only recognize or are concerned with government power. And do not consider it the job of government to check or limit in any significant way the accumulation and exercise of private power. Or to even regulate business.

Despite the fact that ANY significant concentration of power will inevitably be abused. There are no checks for it, nor are there any intended to be in the libertarian system. Its their vast and epic blind spot.

Which is just foolish. Our own history demonstrates the kind of inevitable and corrosive influence of unchecked personal power concentrated in the hands of too few individuals can have on politics, competition, the economy, and the lives of ordinary citizens.

And Libertarianism can do nothing about it, nor believe they should.

 

[FA_Q2]

Well now you have met one though to be honest I really have not given that particualr aspect of libertarian thought a whole lot of time untill now.

I, personally, think that the entire system needs to be reworked and the end result might not even matter as far as looser paying. The idea that I have to expend massive amounts of money to defend my rights or persue those that have broken them just smacks of corruption to me. I would definately support a loser pays system in blatant cases but I am not so sure if the case is legitamately muddy.

 

[kaz]

Well now you have met one though to be honest I really have not given that particualr aspect of libertarian thought a whole lot of time untill now.

That's why I phrased it the way I did. I was not making a True Scotsman claim, I stated the fact I've never met a libertarian who didn't support loser pays. Or as you say, until now. Loser pays is one solution, so I think it's clearly a True Scotsman fallacy to say a libertarian has to support that specific solution.

However, the right to be made whole when you are wronged is a clear libertarian value. Whether or not loser pays is the specific solution, I don't see how a libertarian would not support the ability to in some way sue back for a frivolous or malicious lawsuit. I see three hypothetical options:

1) Loser pays - automatic
2) Follow on trial after verdict to determine if and how much loser will pay. Sort of like after a murder trial there can be a follow on trial attached to determine whether or not to have the death penalty
3) Loser can file a separate lawsuit.

I would have a hard time processing that a libertarian would reject the idea of losers pursuing compensation with the burden shifting to them to prove the lawsuit was not filed with honest intent

I, personally, think that the entire system needs to be reworked and the end result might not even matter as far as looser paying. The idea that I have to expend massive amounts of money to defend my rights or persue those that have broken them just smacks of corruption to me. I would definately support a loser pays system in blatant cases but I am not so sure if the case is legitamately muddy.

So from this, I would guess you support option 2?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I am an anarchist. Government is what doesn't make sense.

Human nature being both social and predatory at times proves that we will always need to band together for mutual aid and defense. Therefore, IMO, anarchism is what doesn't make sense.

Anarchism does not exist and will never exist. It is a pipe dream of people who have never grasped the idea that other people exist.

Anarchism is the default mode of society. The vast majority or our interactions occur with no reliance on state coercion.

No, it isn't. Not even a little bit. There is no society you can name in the entire history of humanity which did not have government, and religion for that matter. And every human interaction within a society falls under that authority whether you realize it or not. If you nod to me in the street, I can't just pull out my piece and shoot you in the chest. I have a limited number of responses I can use without government intervening. To call that interaction anarchist just because I don't go beyond those limitations is absurd.

Two people on their own may well work as a team only, but kick that number to five and one of them is going to become the leader and the rest followers. That isn't philosophy, it's the way human beings are. You can't change the system and expect the people to change.

You have, once again, defined government as any collection of more than one human being. That makes the word meaningless.


Society existed for 10,000 years prior to the creation of the first government. There were cities in Sumer prior to any King. There were cities in Egypt prior to any Pharaoh. There were cities in China prior to any Emperor.

It's not 10,000 years ago.

Good or bad, right or wrong, we live in the here and now – there's no 'going back,' there's no idealized Utopia of the past to 'resurrect'; this is a fact you and other reactionary libertarians refuse to accept, and this is why reactionary libertarianism is a failed Utopian dogma devoid of merit.

 

[kaz]

It's not 10,000 years ago.

Good or bad, right or wrong, we live in the here and now – there's no 'going back,' there's no idealized Utopia of the past to 'resurrect'; this is a fact you and other reactionary libertarians refuse to accept, and this is why reactionary libertarianism is a failed Utopian dogma devoid of merit.

Libertarians want to keep the socialist edifice leftists have erected in this country?

This word you keep using "reactionary," I do not think it means what you think it means....

LOL, all pomp, zero substance. Learn the English language at least

 

[Carla_Danger]

Human nature being both social and predatory at times proves that we will always need to band together for mutual aid and defense. Therefore, IMO, anarchism is what doesn't make sense.

Anarchism does not exist and will never exist. It is a pipe dream of people who have never grasped the idea that other people exist.

Anarchism is the default mode of society. The vast majority or our interactions occur with no reliance on state coercion.

No, it isn't. Not even a little bit. There is no society you can name in the entire history of humanity which did not have government, and religion for that matter. And every human interaction within a society falls under that authority whether you realize it or not. If you nod to me in the street, I can't just pull out my piece and shoot you in the chest. I have a limited number of responses I can use without government intervening. To call that interaction anarchist just because I don't go beyond those limitations is absurd.

Two people on their own may well work as a team only, but kick that number to five and one of them is going to become the leader and the rest followers. That isn't philosophy, it's the way human beings are. You can't change the system and expect the people to change.

You have, once again, defined government as any collection of more than one human being. That makes the word meaningless.


Society existed for 10,000 years prior to the creation of the first government. There were cities in Sumer prior to any King. There were cities in Egypt prior to any Pharaoh. There were cities in China prior to any Emperor.

It's not 10,000 years ago.

Good or bad, right or wrong, we live in the here and now – there's no 'going back,' there's no idealized Utopia of the past to 'resurrect'; this is a fact you and other reactionary libertarians refuse to accept, and this is why reactionary libertarianism is a failed Utopian dogma devoid of merit.

Sarah Palin thinks it was 5,000 years ago. LOL!

 

[bripat9643]

Human nature being both social and predatory at times proves that we will always need to band together for mutual aid and defense. Therefore, IMO, anarchism is what doesn't make sense.

Anarchism does not exist and will never exist. It is a pipe dream of people who have never grasped the idea that other people exist.

Anarchism is the default mode of society. The vast majority or our interactions occur with no reliance on state coercion.

No, it isn't. Not even a little bit. There is no society you can name in the entire history of humanity which did not have government, and religion for that matter. And every human interaction within a society falls under that authority whether you realize it or not. If you nod to me in the street, I can't just pull out my piece and shoot you in the chest. I have a limited number of responses I can use without government intervening. To call that interaction anarchist just because I don't go beyond those limitations is absurd.

Two people on their own may well work as a team only, but kick that number to five and one of them is going to become the leader and the rest followers. That isn't philosophy, it's the way human beings are. You can't change the system and expect the people to change.

You have, once again, defined government as any collection of more than one human being. That makes the word meaningless.


Society existed for 10,000 years prior to the creation of the first government. There were cities in Sumer prior to any King. There were cities in Egypt prior to any Pharaoh. There were cities in China prior to any Emperor.

It's not 10,000 years ago.

Good or bad, right or wrong, we live in the here and now – there's no 'going back,' there's no idealized Utopia of the past to 'resurrect'; this is a fact you and other reactionary libertarians refuse to accept, and this is why reactionary libertarianism is a failed Utopian dogma devoid of merit.

That isn't the question, numbnuts. The claim that society can't exist without government is obviously false. Now the only question is why would we want to keep government around?

Government is evil. It's the monopoly on the use of force. There's nothing good about monopolies or using force against innocent people. The idea that government can be kept minimal has failed. It's time to wipe the slate clean and start over.