Uncensored2008
Libertarian Radical
How?
My neighbor sits on his front porch and smokes. If I have my front windows open, it drifts into the house.
I came up with a clever idea on how to handle this; when he's smoking, I close the windows.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
How?
Nobody forces you to patronize a business that allows smoking.False equivalence, dude.
I'm obviously not smart enough to get what you're saying here.
Could you dumb it down just bit?
OTOH, nobody can escape second-hand factory or automotive exhaust.
Nobody forces you to patronize a business that allows smoking.False equivalence, dude.
I'm obviously not smart enough to get what you're saying here.
Could you dumb it down just bit?
OTOH, nobody can escape second-hand factory or automotive exhaust.
Prove it. Be sure to use current examples.
Be happy to.
BP
Pacific Gas & Electric
Skadden Arps
General Electric
Exxon
Ford
GM
Chrysler
Pfizer
Eli Lilly
Kaiser
Blue Cross
Most of the Fortune 100
Which of those countries has been found guilty in a court of law, for harming or killing people.
Multiple times.
All of them.
Which did the Magial Market make disappear?
None of them.
I look forward to your fact-filled and civil response.
Thank you for your service, btw.
So none of the examples you cited had any government oversight?
It was strictly the market regulating itself?
I think not.
At what point does smoke stack and automobile emissions infringe on a person's health and well being?![]()
Pollution is an issue where reasonable regulation is necessary. Protecting the commons is a legitimate function of government.
Is that a yes or a no?![]()
Can you read?
I can. And I still don't see a yes or a no.
Did you understand the question?
Can you read?
I can. And I still don't see a yes or a no.
Did you understand the question?
Your problem IS that you wish Government to tell people what they can and can't do...probobly a huge supporter of the EPA as well? No?
Where does the Nanny-State end at the expense of liberty?
How?
My neighbor sits on his front porch and smokes. If I have my front windows open, it drifts into the house.
I came up with a clever idea on how to handle this; when he's smoking, I close the windows.
Depends upon how you're defining the famously nebulous terms "...impacts another person's property value infringes on that person's health and well being".I'm also not clear on whether something done that negatively impacts another person's property value infringes on that person's health and well being. What does libertarian philosophy say about that?
You need a new jump to conclusions mat, the one you've got is failing you miserably.
I'm just asking questions here skippy, questions that obviously make you uncomfortable.
How?
My neighbor sits on his front porch and smokes. If I have my front windows open, it drifts into the house.
I came up with a clever idea on how to handle this; when he's smoking, I close the windows.
That's one approach. I actually ran into a similar situation a couple of years ago. My neighbor got sick of closing their windows in the summertime when I had my bbq smoker running. So they asked me to move it. I did. Situation resolved. If I'd been a jackass about it, he could have sued. I can't imagine a judge or jury would have found in my favor.
Depends upon how you're defining the famously nebulous terms "...impacts another person's property value infringes on that person's health and well being".I'm also not clear on whether something done that negatively impacts another person's property value infringes on that person's health and well being. What does libertarian philosophy say about that?
For anyone paying attention, the conversation Paulie and I are having touches upon the core issue as to why libertarian philosophy is no more sustainable than any other. It relies on a nearly universal agreement about wildly subjective superlatives that is simply unattainable. So what happens in practice is those with the power to legislate protect the liberties they cherish and shit on the ones they don't. Eventually those guys are replaced with new guys with a different set of priorities vis-a-vis liberties that matter. And with each successive crank of the wheel, liberties are eroded, it's just a fact of existence. Libertarianism doesn't solve that riddle in the slightest. As for the small government element to the philosophy, I got a bridge to sell ya. That's asking way too much from one man intoxicated with the power to legislate, let alone most of them. Libertarianism is a beautiful utopian dream, it's not a solution to anything, unfortunately.
I'm also not clear on whether something done that negatively impacts another person's property value infringes on that person's health and well being. What does libertarian philosophy say about that?
My neighbor sits on his front porch and smokes. If I have my front windows open, it drifts into the house.
I came up with a clever idea on how to handle this; when he's smoking, I close the windows.
That's one approach. I actually ran into a similar situation a couple of years ago. My neighbor got sick of closing their windows in the summertime when I had my bbq smoker running. So they asked me to move it. I did. Situation resolved. If I'd been a jackass about it, he could have sued. I can't imagine a judge or jury would have found in my favor.
I can, quite easily actually. Are you aware of any real life examples of this kind of lawsuit?
I'm also not clear on whether something done that negatively impacts another person's property value infringes on that person's health and well being. What does libertarian philosophy say about that?
Depends upon how you're defining the famously nebulous terms "...impacts another person's property value infringes on that person's health and well being".I'm also not clear on whether something done that negatively impacts another person's property value infringes on that person's health and well being. What does libertarian philosophy say about that?
Exactly.
Please refer back to this post:
For anyone paying attention, the conversation Paulie and I are having touches upon the core issue as to why libertarian philosophy is no more sustainable than any other. It relies on a nearly universal agreement about wildly subjective superlatives that is simply unattainable. So what happens in practice is those with the power to legislate protect the liberties they cherish and shit on the ones they don't. Eventually those guys are replaced with new guys with a different set of priorities vis-a-vis liberties that matter. And with each successive crank of the wheel, liberties are eroded, it's just a fact of existence. Libertarianism doesn't solve that riddle in the slightest. As for the small government element to the philosophy, I got a bridge to sell ya. That's asking way too much from one man intoxicated with the power to legislate, let alone most of them. Libertarianism is a beautiful utopian dream, it's not a solution to anything, unfortunately.
That's one approach. I actually ran into a similar situation a couple of years ago. My neighbor got sick of closing their windows in the summertime when I had my bbq smoker running. So they asked me to move it. I did. Situation resolved. If I'd been a jackass about it, he could have sued. I can't imagine a judge or jury would have found in my favor.