The question libertarians just can’t answer

[TemplarKormac]

Debs was a socialist, not a Democrat. And by the way there's no such thing as the "Democrat Party". You just outed yourself.

Actually George H.W. Bush stole the word "liberal" in the '88 campaign. Not that it couldn't be done more than once...

Origins of the word "Liberal": Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin liberalis suitable for a freeman, generous, from liber free; perhaps akin to Old English lēodan to grow, Greek eleutheros free

First Known Use: 14th century

And guess again, Eugene Debs was a "Social Democrat"

Born: Eugene Victor Debs
November 5, 1855
Terre Haute, Indiana, U.S.

Died: October 20, 1926 (aged 70)
Elmhurst, Illinois, U.S.
Political party: Socialist

Other political affiliations: Social Democratic
Democratic

- Eugene V. Debs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The "Social Democratic" Party was not the Democratic Party. It was something Debs founded himself, after he had already become a Socialist (1895) and ran for President as a Socialist (1900) under a prior Socialist party coalition, the short-lived Social Democracy for America Party.

(/irrelevant)

The repeat of the word "Democratic" under his political affiliation was no typo. There was such a thing as a Democratic Party, as far back as 1860. Debs was a member of the Democratic party in the earlier part of his political career (1884). Fifteen years later, he split from the Democratic Party to form his own, the Social Democratic Party in 1896.

"In the early part of his political career, Debs was a member of the Democratic Party. He was elected as a Democrat to the Indiana General Assembly in 1884."

Eugene V. Debs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



(/disproven)

 

[Pogo]

Origins of the word "Liberal": Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin liberalis suitable for a freeman, generous, from liber free; perhaps akin to Old English lēodan to grow, Greek eleutheros free

First Known Use: 14th century

And guess again, Eugene Debs was a "Social Democrat"

Born: Eugene Victor Debs
November 5, 1855
Terre Haute, Indiana, U.S.

Died: October 20, 1926 (aged 70)
Elmhurst, Illinois, U.S.
Political party: Socialist

Other political affiliations: Social Democratic
Democratic

- Eugene V. Debs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The "Social Democratic" Party was not the Democratic Party. It was something Debs founded himself, after he had already become a Socialist (1895) and ran for President as a Socialist (1900) under a prior Socialist party coalition, the short-lived Social Democracy for America Party.

(/irrelevant)

The repeat of the word "Democratic" under his political affiliation was no typo. There was such a thing as a Democratic Party, as far back as 1860. Debs was a member of the Democratic party in the earlier part of his political career (1884). Fifteen years later, he split from the Democratic Party to form his own, the Social Democratic Party in 1896.

"In the early part of his political career, Debs was a member of the Democratic Party. He was elected as a Democrat to the Indiana General Assembly in 1884."

Eugene V. Debs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



(/disproven)

-- and in 1884 he would have turned twenty-nine years old, and from 1895 through the rest of his life, the part he's known for, Debs was an avowed and vocal Socialist. Dis-disproven.

You're not going to bullshit me on history, Jack.

Why are we doing this again?

 

[Foxfyre]

So he can either give up his property to the 9 others, his money, or he can leave his property, his home. How about just allowing him to keep all of his property?

A church is a voluntary organization, so your analogy doesn't work. A better analogy would be if your neighbors voted on what color carpet would be in your house, and, if you don't like their decision, you can move.

Social contract is not dependent on the status of the organization. Social contract is a concept, a means of organizating a society by mutual consent, a way of accomplishing common goals via a common effort.

In many circumstance the dissenting person can be allowed to opt out and neither contribute to or benefit from the project at hand. We see that a lot in rural communities who say want to put in a common sewer system. If most or many vote against it, it won't be done. If a few who are already there don't want to participate, they are grandfathered out rather than violate the original social contract. The new people moving into the area may not be offered the ability to opt out lest more and more septic systems contaminate everybody's drinking water. Just as if you move into a zoned area with an existing homeowner's assocaition, if you want to buy or build there, you are obligated to abide by the rules and regs and pay your dues to that homeowner's assocaition developed via social contract by homeowners who chose that means to protect property values for all. Zoning laws in towns and cities are for the same purpose.

There is no cut and dried way to handle any given issue. But in the process of social contract, a free people with realistic goals almost always manage to work it out.

Allowing people to opt out changes the scenario entirely. If I can choose not to pay the tax for education then that's no problem.

Allowing existing folks in a rural area to opt out is fairly easy to deal with in determining free or unfree, right or wrong, etc.

And as for education in the city, I still have the option to vote whether I consent to taking on more debt for our local school district because the bond issues appear on the ballot when I go vote. But 9 times out of 10, if I vote no, the yes votes prevail because most of the citizens will vote yes. And I will be obligated to pay the additional taxes.

This is the part of social contract that isn't so easily defined, and I often struggle to do so. Sometimes I honestly believe it does violate my rights, most especially when those who do not own property can vote for me to pay property taxes to support the schools that they benefit from too. I feel the same way nationally when those who pay little or no taxes can vote for those who will raise mine. If anybody is going to pay the taxes in both cases, everybody should.

But then there is the implied part of social contract that when we move into an area or when we join with others to incorporate a previously unincorporated area, we agree to abide by majority vote so that the community can function and there won't be anarchy. Or, if we organize a government to handle certain functions, it is with the understanding that those we elect will pass some laws that all are expected to obey.

It should always be the right and duty of the citizens to remove from office those who abuse their assigned powers or perform their duties incompetently. And there is always the fact that in the family, if things get oppressive, we move out. If the majority in our church congregation are behaving in ways that displease us, we leave. And if our local village or town or state becomes oppressive and we are in the minority, we pull up stakes and go to a place that we fit in better.

Unfortunately, at the national level, if the majority keep putting the worst kinds of people into government, the price of giving up our citizenship and joining another country may be too high. And that I think is why Jefferson, Lincoln, and other great leaders of our nation have always left open the door for revolution in case that should become necessary.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Social contract is not dependent on the status of the organization. Social contract is a concept, a means of organizating a society by mutual consent, a way of accomplishing common goals via a common effort.

In many circumstance the dissenting person can be allowed to opt out and neither contribute to or benefit from the project at hand. We see that a lot in rural communities who say want to put in a common sewer system. If most or many vote against it, it won't be done. If a few who are already there don't want to participate, they are grandfathered out rather than violate the original social contract. The new people moving into the area may not be offered the ability to opt out lest more and more septic systems contaminate everybody's drinking water. Just as if you move into a zoned area with an existing homeowner's assocaition, if you want to buy or build there, you are obligated to abide by the rules and regs and pay your dues to that homeowner's assocaition developed via social contract by homeowners who chose that means to protect property values for all. Zoning laws in towns and cities are for the same purpose.

There is no cut and dried way to handle any given issue. But in the process of social contract, a free people with realistic goals almost always manage to work it out.

Allowing people to opt out changes the scenario entirely. If I can choose not to pay the tax for education then that's no problem.

Allowing existing folks in a rural area to opt out is fairly easy to deal with in determining free or unfree, right or wrong, etc.

And as for education in the city, I still have the option to vote whether I consent to taking on more debt for our local school district because the bond issues appear on the ballot when I go vote. But 9 times out of 10, if I vote no, the yes votes prevail because most of the citizens will vote yes. And I will be obligated to pay the additional taxes.

This is the part of social contract that isn't so easily defined, and I often struggle to do so. Sometimes I honestly believe it does violate my rights, most especially when those who do not own property can vote for me to pay property taxes to support the schools that they benefit from too. I feel the same way nationally when those who pay little or no taxes can vote for those who will raise mine. If anybody is going to pay the taxes in both cases, everybody should.

But then there is the implied part of social contract that when we move into an area or when we join with others to incorporate a previously unincorporated area, we agree to abide by majority vote so that the community can function and there won't be anarchy. Or, if we organize a government to handle certain functions, it is with the understanding that those we elect will pass some laws that all are expected to obey.

It should always be the right and duty of the citizens to remove from office those who abuse their assigned powers or perform their duties incompetently. And there is always the fact that in the family, if things get oppressive, we move out. If the majority in our church congregation are behaving in ways that displease us, we leave. And if our local village or town or state becomes oppressive and we are in the minority, we pull up stakes and go to a place that we fit in better.

Unfortunately, at the national level, if the majority keep putting the worst kinds of people into government, the price of giving up our citizenship and joining another country may be too high. And that I think is why Jefferson, Lincoln, and other great leaders of our nation have always left open the door for revolution in case that should become necessary.

Voting doesn't legitimize anything. If I'm forced to pay for something that I don't use against my will then I'm being aggressed against. That a majority of people who voted decided this changes nothing.

 

[Foxfyre]

Allowing people to opt out changes the scenario entirely. If I can choose not to pay the tax for education then that's no problem.

Allowing existing folks in a rural area to opt out is fairly easy to deal with in determining free or unfree, right or wrong, etc.

And as for education in the city, I still have the option to vote whether I consent to taking on more debt for our local school district because the bond issues appear on the ballot when I go vote. But 9 times out of 10, if I vote no, the yes votes prevail because most of the citizens will vote yes. And I will be obligated to pay the additional taxes.

This is the part of social contract that isn't so easily defined, and I often struggle to do so. Sometimes I honestly believe it does violate my rights, most especially when those who do not own property can vote for me to pay property taxes to support the schools that they benefit from too. I feel the same way nationally when those who pay little or no taxes can vote for those who will raise mine. If anybody is going to pay the taxes in both cases, everybody should.

But then there is the implied part of social contract that when we move into an area or when we join with others to incorporate a previously unincorporated area, we agree to abide by majority vote so that the community can function and there won't be anarchy. Or, if we organize a government to handle certain functions, it is with the understanding that those we elect will pass some laws that all are expected to obey.

It should always be the right and duty of the citizens to remove from office those who abuse their assigned powers or perform their duties incompetently. And there is always the fact that in the family, if things get oppressive, we move out. If the majority in our church congregation are behaving in ways that displease us, we leave. And if our local village or town or state becomes oppressive and we are in the minority, we pull up stakes and go to a place that we fit in better.

Unfortunately, at the national level, if the majority keep putting the worst kinds of people into government, the price of giving up our citizenship and joining another country may be too high. And that I think is why Jefferson, Lincoln, and other great leaders of our nation have always left open the door for revolution in case that should become necessary.

Voting doesn't legitimize anything. If I'm forced to pay for something that I don't use against my will then I'm being aggressed against. That a majority of people who voted decided this changes nothing.

Then you wish to be an anachist in that regard and you should find you a place far away from any community where you can pretty much do your own thing without interference or expectations of anybody else. I know some folks right here in my own state who have done that very thing. They are happy. And they don't bother anybody else.

Me? I like having neighbors and thoroughly enjoy people, so a life of isolation from other is not for me. That doesn't mean that I can't resent it when the social contract fails and some are oppressed and I will go to my grave speaking out, trying to change hearts and minds, protesting, and fighting against that kind of thing. But I would resent just as much if they just shrugged and refused to pay for something they didn't vote for, and then enjoy the benefits of it along with everybody else.

We humans are imperfect and we're never going to do anything absolutely perfectly. The Founders understood that and gave us a Constitution that allowed us to correct our mistakes and figure out ways to do things better. Unfortunately, it also allows just enough wiggle room for those who would corrupt the whole system to gain foothold. And that is something we must ever be vigilant to fight against.

Meanwhile I know I don't have all the answers. But when it is allowed to work efficiently and without prejudice, I do trust the collective wisdom more than I trust any one person to decide what the better course of action.

 

[Oddball]

Allowing existing folks in a rural area to opt out is fairly easy to deal with in determining free or unfree, right or wrong, etc.

And as for education in the city, I still have the option to vote whether I consent to taking on more debt for our local school district because the bond issues appear on the ballot when I go vote. But 9 times out of 10, if I vote no, the yes votes prevail because most of the citizens will vote yes. And I will be obligated to pay the additional taxes.

This is the part of social contract that isn't so easily defined, and I often struggle to do so. Sometimes I honestly believe it does violate my rights, most especially when those who do not own property can vote for me to pay property taxes to support the schools that they benefit from too. I feel the same way nationally when those who pay little or no taxes can vote for those who will raise mine. If anybody is going to pay the taxes in both cases, everybody should.

But then there is the implied part of social contract that when we move into an area or when we join with others to incorporate a previously unincorporated area, we agree to abide by majority vote so that the community can function and there won't be anarchy. Or, if we organize a government to handle certain functions, it is with the understanding that those we elect will pass some laws that all are expected to obey.

It should always be the right and duty of the citizens to remove from office those who abuse their assigned powers or perform their duties incompetently. And there is always the fact that in the family, if things get oppressive, we move out. If the majority in our church congregation are behaving in ways that displease us, we leave. And if our local village or town or state becomes oppressive and we are in the minority, we pull up stakes and go to a place that we fit in better.

Unfortunately, at the national level, if the majority keep putting the worst kinds of people into government, the price of giving up our citizenship and joining another country may be too high. And that I think is why Jefferson, Lincoln, and other great leaders of our nation have always left open the door for revolution in case that should become necessary.

Voting doesn't legitimize anything. If I'm forced to pay for something that I don't use against my will then I'm being aggressed against. That a majority of people who voted decided this changes nothing.

Then you wish to be an anachist in that regard and you should find you a place far away from any community where you can pretty much do your own thing without interference or expectations of anybody else. I know some folks right here in my own state who have done that very thing. They are happy. And they don't bother anybody else.

Problem being that the mob mentality just can't leave people be, no matter where they may go....People like Randy Weaver and the Branch Davidians followed that course and look what happened to them.

Me? I like having neighbors and thoroughly enjoy people, so a life of isolation from other is not for me. That doesn't mean that I can't resent it when the social contract fails and some are oppressed and I will go to my grave speaking out, trying to change hearts and minds, protesting, and fighting against that kind of thing. But I would resent just as much if they just shrugged and refused to pay for something they didn't vote for, and then enjoy the benefits of it along with everybody else.

False dichotomy.

Also, if someone, in your opinion, "benefited" from something that was forced upon them, then it's at least arguable that the "benefit" is of dubious value to them.

Alsoplustoo, as has also been pointed out, the "social contract" exists only in your mind.

We humans are imperfect and we're never going to do anything absolutely perfectly. The Founders understood that and gave us a Constitution that allowed us to correct our mistakes and figure out ways to do things better. Unfortunately, it also allows just enough wiggle room for those who would corrupt the whole system to gain foothold. And that is something we must ever be vigilant to fight against.

Straw man argument, again...Nobody ever claimed that perfection was an option.

Meanwhile I know I don't have all the answers. But when it is allowed to work efficiently and without prejudice, I do trust the collective wisdom more than I trust any one person to decide what the better course of action.

Problem being that there is no efficiency or wisdom in coercion....Mobs are are almost always run by the prejudices brought about by emotional response.

 

[Foxfyre]

Voting doesn't legitimize anything. If I'm forced to pay for something that I don't use against my will then I'm being aggressed against. That a majority of people who voted decided this changes nothing.

Problem being that the mob mentality just can't leave people be, no matter where they may go....People like Randy Weaver and the Branch Davidians followed that course and look what happened to them.



False dichotomy.

Also, if someone, in your opinion, "benefited" from something that was forced upon them, then it's at least arguable that the "benefit" is of dubious value to them.

Alsoplustoo, as has also been pointed out, the "social contract" exists only in your mind.


Straw man argument, again...Nobody ever claimed that perfection was an option.

Meanwhile I know I don't have all the answers. But when it is allowed to work efficiently and without prejudice, I do trust the collective wisdom more than I trust any one person to decide what the better course of action.

Problem being that there is no efficiency or wisdom in coercion....Mobs are are almost always run by the prejudices brought about by emotional response.

Despite your comments being mostly non sequitur to my stated opinion in its full context, I will respectfully agree to disagree. I don't think anything I have described as social contract has anything to do with 'mob mentality' or the situation with the Branch Davidians or anything similar. I have been specific about the weaknesses I observe in implementation of social contract, and that I can see the issues you and Kevin are focused on, and those difficult areas that have no easy answers to deal with them.

I do know I recognize and appreciate the benefits and value in social contract and I consider myself libertarian. The Constitution itself is social contract. Do you think there is any chance that received 100% approval when it was made the supreme law of the land?

But let me give one more example.

Most of our personal net worth is tied up in our property value. We live in a neighborhood that is not overly oppressive with rules and regs, but enough exist that no neighbor can manage or utilize his/her property in such a way that would significantly reduce the value of mine.

The guy who wants to put his car up on blocks in the front yard, or use his yard as a junk yard, or raise livestock on his property, may feel like his rights are being violated because he can't do any of those things with his property. But even though he does not interfere with us or our use of our property in any way, if he has ability to use his property however he want to use it, he hurts us all.

I would definitely be in the majority of those who voted for a social contract that puts reasonable limits on how we can use our property. I would oppose any attempt by our neighborhood to force others to follow our example, however.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Allowing existing folks in a rural area to opt out is fairly easy to deal with in determining free or unfree, right or wrong, etc.

And as for education in the city, I still have the option to vote whether I consent to taking on more debt for our local school district because the bond issues appear on the ballot when I go vote. But 9 times out of 10, if I vote no, the yes votes prevail because most of the citizens will vote yes. And I will be obligated to pay the additional taxes.

This is the part of social contract that isn't so easily defined, and I often struggle to do so. Sometimes I honestly believe it does violate my rights, most especially when those who do not own property can vote for me to pay property taxes to support the schools that they benefit from too. I feel the same way nationally when those who pay little or no taxes can vote for those who will raise mine. If anybody is going to pay the taxes in both cases, everybody should.

But then there is the implied part of social contract that when we move into an area or when we join with others to incorporate a previously unincorporated area, we agree to abide by majority vote so that the community can function and there won't be anarchy. Or, if we organize a government to handle certain functions, it is with the understanding that those we elect will pass some laws that all are expected to obey.

It should always be the right and duty of the citizens to remove from office those who abuse their assigned powers or perform their duties incompetently. And there is always the fact that in the family, if things get oppressive, we move out. If the majority in our church congregation are behaving in ways that displease us, we leave. And if our local village or town or state becomes oppressive and we are in the minority, we pull up stakes and go to a place that we fit in better.

Unfortunately, at the national level, if the majority keep putting the worst kinds of people into government, the price of giving up our citizenship and joining another country may be too high. And that I think is why Jefferson, Lincoln, and other great leaders of our nation have always left open the door for revolution in case that should become necessary.

Voting doesn't legitimize anything. If I'm forced to pay for something that I don't use against my will then I'm being aggressed against. That a majority of people who voted decided this changes nothing.

Then you wish to be an anachist in that regard and you should find you a place far away from any community where you can pretty much do your own thing without interference or expectations of anybody else. I know some folks right here in my own state who have done that very thing. They are happy. And they don't bother anybody else.

Me? I like having neighbors and thoroughly enjoy people, so a life of isolation from other is not for me. That doesn't mean that I can't resent it when the social contract fails and some are oppressed and I will go to my grave speaking out, trying to change hearts and minds, protesting, and fighting against that kind of thing. But I would resent just as much if they just shrugged and refused to pay for something they didn't vote for, and then enjoy the benefits of it along with everybody else.

We humans are imperfect and we're never going to do anything absolutely perfectly. The Founders understood that and gave us a Constitution that allowed us to correct our mistakes and figure out ways to do things better. Unfortunately, it also allows just enough wiggle room for those who would corrupt the whole system to gain foothold. And that is something we must ever be vigilant to fight against.

Meanwhile I know I don't have all the answers. But when it is allowed to work efficiently and without prejudice, I do trust the collective wisdom more than I trust any one person to decide what the better course of action.

Why should I go off and live in the woods, or whatever it is you're suggesting? I'm already living on my own property, and certainly don't bother anybody else. I like my neighbors and society too, but that doesn't mean they have the right to form a group and force me to pay for things that they want just because they outnumber me.

"I do trust the collective wisdom more than I trust any one person to decide what the better course of action."

Why?

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H. L. Mencken

 

[Foxfyre]

Voting doesn't legitimize anything. If I'm forced to pay for something that I don't use against my will then I'm being aggressed against. That a majority of people who voted decided this changes nothing.

Then you wish to be an anachist in that regard and you should find you a place far away from any community where you can pretty much do your own thing without interference or expectations of anybody else. I know some folks right here in my own state who have done that very thing. They are happy. And they don't bother anybody else.

Me? I like having neighbors and thoroughly enjoy people, so a life of isolation from other is not for me. That doesn't mean that I can't resent it when the social contract fails and some are oppressed and I will go to my grave speaking out, trying to change hearts and minds, protesting, and fighting against that kind of thing. But I would resent just as much if they just shrugged and refused to pay for something they didn't vote for, and then enjoy the benefits of it along with everybody else.

We humans are imperfect and we're never going to do anything absolutely perfectly. The Founders understood that and gave us a Constitution that allowed us to correct our mistakes and figure out ways to do things better. Unfortunately, it also allows just enough wiggle room for those who would corrupt the whole system to gain foothold. And that is something we must ever be vigilant to fight against.

Meanwhile I know I don't have all the answers. But when it is allowed to work efficiently and without prejudice, I do trust the collective wisdom more than I trust any one person to decide what the better course of action.

Why should I go off and live in the woods, or whatever it is you're suggesting? I'm already living on my own property, and certainly don't bother anybody else. I like my neighbors and society too, but that doesn't mean they have the right to form a group and force me to pay for things that they want just because they outnumber me.

"I do trust the collective wisdom more than I trust any one person to decide what the better course of action."

Why?

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H. L. Mencken

But again your expressed point of view is not libertarian and is much closer to anarchy. Do I trust the collective wisdom of my neighbors more than I trust a dictator to determine what is best for all of us? Yes I do. Do I see value in cooperation and goals for mutual benefit. Yes I do.

But if you want a neighborhood with declining property values because of your neighbors have complete freedom to do whatever they wish with their property, that is also your right. I can refer you to a lot of neighborhoods here in New Mexico that practice that concept.

 

[kaz]

The guy who wants to put his car up on blocks in the front yard, or use his yard as a junk yard, or raise livestock on his property, may feel like his rights are being violated because he can't do any of those things with his property. But even though he does not interfere with us or our use of our property in any way, if he has ability to use his property however he want to use it, he hurts us all.

I would definitely be in the majority of those who voted for a social contract that puts reasonable limits on how we can use our property. I would oppose any attempt by our neighborhood to force others to follow our example, however.

Once again, I'll have to be the moderate on this one. I see both your points here. If I were oddball, I'd argue next that if you want that sort of protection from your neighbors use of their land, then you should buy in a community with the rules you want to see. Since you didn't and it's their property, MYOB. Besides, first it's cars on cinder blocks. Politicians are by nature power driven and corrupt, then they're passing laws regulating your maintenance of your yard and what bushes you can plant. Then bam, one day they declare you live in a "historic" district and they can tell you what color to paint your house.

Then I'd come back as Foxfyre and point out that absolute property right would mean they could do intentionally obscene things like have sex on the front yard, which does impact others no matter how you slice it. Once you decide there are limits, then it's just a matter of drawing the line. You can't draw it and then declare other uses off limits to discuss.

Though oddball would probably still stick to the no limit policy. I am in the end with you. Even though it's clearly a slippery slope. You have to limit rules to the most local of governments. When anyone comes up with a risk free proposal, we can do that. In the mean time, we have to just limit it the best we can.

 

[kaz]

But again your expressed point of view is not libertarian and is much closer to anarchy

Out of curiosity, are you actually an anarchist oddball? I've never seen you say you are, but I've never seen anything to indicate you are not.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Then you wish to be an anachist in that regard and you should find you a place far away from any community where you can pretty much do your own thing without interference or expectations of anybody else. I know some folks right here in my own state who have done that very thing. They are happy. And they don't bother anybody else.

Me? I like having neighbors and thoroughly enjoy people, so a life of isolation from other is not for me. That doesn't mean that I can't resent it when the social contract fails and some are oppressed and I will go to my grave speaking out, trying to change hearts and minds, protesting, and fighting against that kind of thing. But I would resent just as much if they just shrugged and refused to pay for something they didn't vote for, and then enjoy the benefits of it along with everybody else.

We humans are imperfect and we're never going to do anything absolutely perfectly. The Founders understood that and gave us a Constitution that allowed us to correct our mistakes and figure out ways to do things better. Unfortunately, it also allows just enough wiggle room for those who would corrupt the whole system to gain foothold. And that is something we must ever be vigilant to fight against.

Meanwhile I know I don't have all the answers. But when it is allowed to work efficiently and without prejudice, I do trust the collective wisdom more than I trust any one person to decide what the better course of action.

Why should I go off and live in the woods, or whatever it is you're suggesting? I'm already living on my own property, and certainly don't bother anybody else. I like my neighbors and society too, but that doesn't mean they have the right to form a group and force me to pay for things that they want just because they outnumber me.

"I do trust the collective wisdom more than I trust any one person to decide what the better course of action."

Why?

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H. L. Mencken

But again your expressed point of view is not libertarian and is much closer to anarchy. Do I trust the collective wisdom of my neighbors more than I trust a dictator to determine what is best for all of us? Yes I do. Do I see value in cooperation and goals for mutual benefit. Yes I do.

But if you want a neighborhood with declining property values because of your neighbors have complete freedom to do whatever they wish with their property, that is also your right. I can refer you to a lot of neighborhoods here in New Mexico that practice that concept.

As libertarianism is based on property rights, it is absolutely a libertarian position I'm taking and has nothing to do with anarchism. What I'm advocating could work with or without a government. Nor are libertarianism and anarchism mutually exclusive in general.

Regardless, your dictator vs. the collective wisdom of your neighbors argument has nothing to do with anything. The simple fact here is that your neighbors, in forcing you to fund an educational system that you do not want or use, are acting as the dictators.

 

[kaz]

As libertarianism is based on property rights, it is absolutely a libertarian position I'm taking and has nothing to do with anarchism. What I'm advocating could work with or without a government. Nor are libertarianism and anarchism mutually exclusive in general.

Regardless, your dictator vs. the collective wisdom of your neighbors argument has nothing to do with anything. The simple fact here is that your neighbors, in forcing you to fund an educational system that you do not want or use, are acting as the dictators.

While I agree with the property rights point, there's a conflict here with another libertarian position of the right to not have your rights infringed upon by others. When neighbors are doing things which impact other people because they are in plain view from people on surrounding properties, there's a conflict of libertarian principles. You can't take one and ignore the other.

If they are doing things on their own property not in view from neighbors and not affecting them. Then we can take the property rights perspective as the only relevant one. Knowing there are gays in the house and OMG, they might be fornicating is a 100% different thing then their doing it on their front lawn, which clearly infringes on their neighbors rights.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

As libertarianism is based on property rights, it is absolutely a libertarian position I'm taking and has nothing to do with anarchism. What I'm advocating could work with or without a government. Nor are libertarianism and anarchism mutually exclusive in general.

Regardless, your dictator vs. the collective wisdom of your neighbors argument has nothing to do with anything. The simple fact here is that your neighbors, in forcing you to fund an educational system that you do not want or use, are acting as the dictators.

While I agree with the property rights point, there's a conflict here with another libertarian position of the right to not have your rights infringed upon by others. When neighbors are doing things which impact other people because they are in plain view from people on surrounding properties, there's a conflict of libertarian principles. You can't take one and ignore the other.

If they are doing things on their own property not in view from neighbors and not affecting them. Then we can take the property rights perspective as the only relevant one. Knowing there are gays in the house and OMG, they might be fornicating is a 100% different thing then their doing it on their front lawn, which clearly infringes on their neighbors rights.

Taking this claim to its logical conclusion, however, would mean that just about anything I put on my lawn can be challenged by my neighbors. Perhaps they don't like the flag I choose to hang, can they tell me to remove it?

 

[dblack]

I have to say, I'm to the point where I find all the hair-splitting over the subtle philosophical implications of libertarianism excruciatingly dull. Maybe three decades of indulging such debate has soured me on it, but it just seems irrelevant and counter-productive - especially when exhibited in a public forum. Relative to the status quo, we all want the same thing and it seems our energies might be better spent focusing on the the broad themes.

I'm certainly not trying to silence anyone, but "live and let live" and "mind your own business" seem to represent our ethos better than the long treatise on property rights and social contract theory.

 

[kaz]

As libertarianism is based on property rights, it is absolutely a libertarian position I'm taking and has nothing to do with anarchism. What I'm advocating could work with or without a government. Nor are libertarianism and anarchism mutually exclusive in general.

Regardless, your dictator vs. the collective wisdom of your neighbors argument has nothing to do with anything. The simple fact here is that your neighbors, in forcing you to fund an educational system that you do not want or use, are acting as the dictators.

While I agree with the property rights point, there's a conflict here with another libertarian position of the right to not have your rights infringed upon by others. When neighbors are doing things which impact other people because they are in plain view from people on surrounding properties, there's a conflict of libertarian principles. You can't take one and ignore the other.

If they are doing things on their own property not in view from neighbors and not affecting them. Then we can take the property rights perspective as the only relevant one. Knowing there are gays in the house and OMG, they might be fornicating is a 100% different thing then their doing it on their front lawn, which clearly infringes on their neighbors rights.

Taking this claim to its logical conclusion, however, would mean that just about anything I put on my lawn can be challenged by my neighbors. Perhaps they don't like the flag I choose to hang, can they tell me to remove it?

I made and addressed the same point a few posts ago in the discussion.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

While I agree with the property rights point, there's a conflict here with another libertarian position of the right to not have your rights infringed upon by others. When neighbors are doing things which impact other people because they are in plain view from people on surrounding properties, there's a conflict of libertarian principles. You can't take one and ignore the other.

If they are doing things on their own property not in view from neighbors and not affecting them. Then we can take the property rights perspective as the only relevant one. Knowing there are gays in the house and OMG, they might be fornicating is a 100% different thing then their doing it on their front lawn, which clearly infringes on their neighbors rights.

Taking this claim to its logical conclusion, however, would mean that just about anything I put on my lawn can be challenged by my neighbors. Perhaps they don't like the flag I choose to hang, can they tell me to remove it?

I made and addressed the same point a few posts ago in the discussion.

You'll have to forgive me for not reading every single post in this thread. It has gotten unwieldy and ridiculous throughout much of it. If you quote and/or link me to the post you're referring to I'd be happy to address it.

 

[kaz]

I have to say, I'm to the point where I find all the hair-splitting over the subtle philosophical implications of libertarianism excruciatingly dull. Maybe three decades of indulging such debate has soured me on it, but it just seems irrelevant and counter-productive - especially when exhibited in a public forum. Relative to the status quo, we all want the same thing and it seems our energies might be better spent focusing on the the broad themes.

I'm certainly not trying to silence anyone, but "live and let live" and "mind your own business" seem to represent our ethos better than the long treatise on property rights and social contract theory.

The thread topic is clearly labeled and the discussion is clearly about the topic. Instead of posting that you're not interested in the discussion, maybe you should not click the link to discussions you're not interested in at all. Ya think?

 

[kaz]

taking this claim to its logical conclusion, however, would mean that just about anything i put on my lawn can be challenged by my neighbors. Perhaps they don't like the flag i choose to hang, can they tell me to remove it?

i made and addressed the same point a few posts ago in the discussion.

you'll have to forgive me for not reading every single post in this thread. It has gotten unwieldy and ridiculous throughout much of it. If you quote and/or link me to the post you're referring to i'd be happy to address it.

#410

 

[dblack]

I have to say, I'm to the point where I find all the hair-splitting over the subtle philosophical implications of libertarianism excruciatingly dull. Maybe three decades of indulging such debate has soured me on it, but it just seems irrelevant and counter-productive - especially when exhibited in a public forum. Relative to the status quo, we all want the same thing and it seems our energies might be better spent focusing on the the broad themes.

I'm certainly not trying to silence anyone, but "live and let live" and "mind your own business" seem to represent our ethos better than the long treatise on property rights and social contract theory.

The thread topic is clearly labeled and the discussion is clearly about the topic. Instead of posting that you're not interested in the discussion, maybe you should not click the link to discussions you're not interested in at all. Ya think?

Sure. As I said, I'm not trying to silence anyone. But the topic of the thread is specifically in regard to libertarianism as an alternative to that status quo. It's an attack on the broad themes of the philosophy, and it seems like our interests would be better served by addressing it as such. I've just seen so much of this, and I know from experience that nothing turns outsiders off more than a bunch of eggheads infighting over subtle nuances of philosophy.