The question libertarians just can’t answer

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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

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.

The problem here is that you don't really address where to draw the line, and how to do so in a way that isn't arbitrary. You give the example of people having sex on their front lawns as something that should obviously not be permitted, but where is the line? What about my flag example? There's a house not far from my own where they fly a Canadian flag. What if their neighbors got together, say on July 4th or something, and demanded that they take it down? What if somebody refused to buy somebody's house in that neighborhood on the basis that they don't want to look at a giant red maple leaf everyday? Should they be forced to remove their flag on the basis that it's bringing down property value?

Once you say that we can infringe on property rights for some things the only way you can draw the line is in an arbitrary fashion.

 

[kaz]

What I'm advocating could work with or without a government. Nor are libertarianism and anarchism mutually exclusive in general

Anarchy in theory doesn't conflict with libertarianism since in no way are they proposing anything which infringes on our right to pursue life, liberty or property. But in practice clearly anarchy would infringe on our rights as while they would not take those things from us, the result of their view is that we would lose all those things.

Anarchy could never exist anyway other than for an instant. Say we eliminate all government now. You and your neighbors being good men to protect yourselves from armed marauders would band together for self defense. You'd work out a system for sharing water, recognizing which of you owns what land. And you've just formed a government.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

What I'm advocating could work with or without a government. Nor are libertarianism and anarchism mutually exclusive in general

Anarchy in theory doesn't conflict with libertarianism since in no way are they proposing anything which infringes on our right to pursue life, liberty or property. But in practice clearly anarchy would infringe on our rights as while they would not take those things from us, the result of their view is that we would lose all those things.

Anarchy could never exist anyway other than for an instant. Say we eliminate all government now. You and your neighbors being good men to protect yourselves from armed marauders would band together for self defense. You'd work out a system for sharing water, recognizing which of you owns what land. And you've just formed a government.

Not really. Government can be defined as that organization with a monopoly on the use of violence within an arbitrarily defined territorial area. It is inherently coercive. People voluntarily coming together, with no coercion forcing them to do so if they'd rather not, for any purpose, such as self-defense in your example, is not a government. Anarchism doesn't preclude voluntary associations or organizations.

 

[kaz]

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

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.

The problem here is that you don't really address where to draw the line, and how to do so in a way that isn't arbitrary. You give the example of people having sex on their front lawns as something that should obviously not be permitted, but where is the line? What about my flag example? There's a house not far from my own where they fly a Canadian flag. What if their neighbors got together, say on July 4th or something, and demanded that they take it down? What if somebody refused to buy somebody's house in that neighborhood on the basis that they don't want to look at a giant red maple leaf everyday? Should they be forced to remove their flag on the basis that it's bringing down property value?

Once you say that we can infringe on property rights for some things the only way you can draw the line is in an arbitrary fashion.

I said there is no way to draw a lack of an arbitrary line. Which is why you want regulation to be as local as possible. However, I'm saying that just because while absolute property rights is a clear line, it's an unacceptable one. And I'm giving an extreme example why. I then concluded when someone has an answer which removes risk, say so. I also pointed out that while property rights are a libertarian principle, so is the right to have others not infringe on your rights.

You're not really proposing anything either. Unfortunately the nature of life is there are not always easy, unambiguous answers.

 

[kaz]

What I'm advocating could work with or without a government. Nor are libertarianism and anarchism mutually exclusive in general

Anarchy in theory doesn't conflict with libertarianism since in no way are they proposing anything which infringes on our right to pursue life, liberty or property. But in practice clearly anarchy would infringe on our rights as while they would not take those things from us, the result of their view is that we would lose all those things.

Anarchy could never exist anyway other than for an instant. Say we eliminate all government now. You and your neighbors being good men to protect yourselves from armed marauders would band together for self defense. You'd work out a system for sharing water, recognizing which of you owns what land. And you've just formed a government.

Not really. Government can be defined as that organization with a monopoly on the use of violence within an arbitrarily defined territorial area. It is inherently coercive. People voluntarily coming together, with no coercion forcing them to do so if they'd rather not, for any purpose, such as self-defense in your example, is not a government. Anarchism doesn't preclude voluntary associations or organizations.

You're still staying with the theory of anarchy. OK, so the associations are voluntary. Then they grow. People opt out and what does that mean when they don't recognize the communities property rights and aren't sharing access to things like water? The communities are going to grow and run into each other. The idea that we're going to live like western pilgrims in a town like on Bonanza and just work together and share is the endless naivete I've heard from any anarchist.

 

[AmazonTania]

I guess your butler wasn't paying attention.

Bfgrn Post #84

I am very big on liberty. My own personal beliefs on SOME issues are a libertarian as it gets. Issues like privacy, the absolute adherence to the presumption of innocence, hatred for the war on drugs, hatred for 'free speech zones' Bush used to crush free speech, hatred for SWAT teams and the belief you have to be breaking the fucking law to be pulled over by a fucking cop. I have much in common with and great respect for civil libertarians. People like the late Harry Browne and Barry Goldwater are among the people I have much agreement with.

Where libertarians and I part ways is on economic issues. BIG time. That is where these 'laissez-faire' libertarians are more in line with Mussolini than Madison.

No, you're not big on liberty...You're big on authoritarian central control and coercion....Two things that are antithetical to the very foundations of libertarian philosophy.

You part with libertarians on just about every front....Your only agreements are nothing more than a blind squirrel finding a nut from time to time.

Well, I guess that is why 'libertarians' of your full blown absolutist doctrinaire ilk are viewed as immature, a cult, anarchists, social Darwinists Stalin-class and in your case a RETARD.

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Myths-Free-Market-Kenneth-Friedman/dp/0875862233"]Libertarianism[/ame] does not support democracy; taken to an extreme, it entails the law of the jungle. If government never interferes, we could all get away with murder. Alternatively, if the libertarian position is not to be taken to an extreme, where should it stop? What is the difference between no government and minimal government? Attempts to justify libertarianism, even a less than extreme position, have failed. Laissez faire, or free market economics, characterized by minimal or no government intervention, has a history that is long but undistinguished. Just as the negative effects of a high fever do not certify the health benefits of the opposite extreme, hypothermia, the dismal failure of communism, seeking complete government control of the economy, does not certify the economic benefits of the opposite extreme, total economic non-intervention.

It's very possible to have Rule of Law without Democracy.

Hong Kong does it very well...

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

#410

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.

The problem here is that you don't really address where to draw the line, and how to do so in a way that isn't arbitrary. You give the example of people having sex on their front lawns as something that should obviously not be permitted, but where is the line? What about my flag example? There's a house not far from my own where they fly a Canadian flag. What if their neighbors got together, say on July 4th or something, and demanded that they take it down? What if somebody refused to buy somebody's house in that neighborhood on the basis that they don't want to look at a giant red maple leaf everyday? Should they be forced to remove their flag on the basis that it's bringing down property value?

Once you say that we can infringe on property rights for some things the only way you can draw the line is in an arbitrary fashion.

I said there is no way to draw a lack of an arbitrary line. Which is why you want regulation to be as local as possible. However, I'm saying that just because while absolute property rights is a clear line, it's an unacceptable one. And I'm giving an extreme example why. I then concluded when someone has an answer which removes risk, say so. I also pointed out that while property rights are a libertarian principle, so is the right to have others not infringe on your rights.

You're not really proposing anything either. Unfortunately the nature of life is there are not always easy, unambiguous answers.

Unacceptable for you, perhaps. The risks inherent in absolute private property seem far less to me than those in infringing on property rights.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Anarchy in theory doesn't conflict with libertarianism since in no way are they proposing anything which infringes on our right to pursue life, liberty or property. But in practice clearly anarchy would infringe on our rights as while they would not take those things from us, the result of their view is that we would lose all those things.

Anarchy could never exist anyway other than for an instant. Say we eliminate all government now. You and your neighbors being good men to protect yourselves from armed marauders would band together for self defense. You'd work out a system for sharing water, recognizing which of you owns what land. And you've just formed a government.

Not really. Government can be defined as that organization with a monopoly on the use of violence within an arbitrarily defined territorial area. It is inherently coercive. People voluntarily coming together, with no coercion forcing them to do so if they'd rather not, for any purpose, such as self-defense in your example, is not a government. Anarchism doesn't preclude voluntary associations or organizations.

You're still staying with the theory of anarchy. OK, so the associations are voluntary. Then they grow. People opt out and what does that mean when they don't recognize the communities property rights and aren't sharing access to things like water? The communities are going to grow and run into each other. The idea that we're going to live like western pilgrims in a town like on Bonanza and just work together and share is the endless naivete I've heard from any anarchist.

Except that the idea that this would somehow eliminate conflict is a straw-man.

 

[kaz]

Unacceptable for you, perhaps. The risks inherent in absolute private property seem far less to me than those in infringing on property rights.

You ignore people's right to not have their right infringed on. Figures. People can have sex in their home. They want to do it in the front yard in front of all their neighbors and you claim the right to pick and choose rights. I pass on letting you do that. It's unacceptable for me personally not so much. Unacceptable being the father of two girls and a member of the community, yes. There are some real asses out there.

 

[kaz]

Not really. Government can be defined as that organization with a monopoly on the use of violence within an arbitrarily defined territorial area. It is inherently coercive. People voluntarily coming together, with no coercion forcing them to do so if they'd rather not, for any purpose, such as self-defense in your example, is not a government. Anarchism doesn't preclude voluntary associations or organizations.

You're still staying with the theory of anarchy. OK, so the associations are voluntary. Then they grow. People opt out and what does that mean when they don't recognize the communities property rights and aren't sharing access to things like water? The communities are going to grow and run into each other. The idea that we're going to live like western pilgrims in a town like on Bonanza and just work together and share is the endless naivete I've heard from any anarchist.

Except that the idea that this would somehow eliminate conflict is a straw-man.

Since I never said it would eliminate conflict, your reply is the straw man...

 

[Foxfyre]

What I'm advocating could work with or without a government. Nor are libertarianism and anarchism mutually exclusive in general

Anarchy in theory doesn't conflict with libertarianism since in no way are they proposing anything which infringes on our right to pursue life, liberty or property. But in practice clearly anarchy would infringe on our rights as while they would not take those things from us, the result of their view is that we would lose all those things.

Anarchy could never exist anyway other than for an instant. Say we eliminate all government now. You and your neighbors being good men to protect yourselves from armed marauders would band together for self defense. You'd work out a system for sharing water, recognizing which of you owns what land. And you've just formed a government.

You call it government. I call it social contract which is cooperation for mutual benefit.

Anarchy is unacceptable to me, and it was unacceptable for the Founders, because it respects no rights other than what any individual wants to do. The Founders intended a government/social contract by which our unalienable rights would be secured by the federal government, and then we would be left strictly alone to form whatever sort of society we wish to have. Or in other words, a libertarian concept.

True libertarianism allows people to be as persnickety, tightass, up tight, opinionated, self righteous, religious, non religious, crude or whatever they want to be short of violating the unalienable rights of others. That is why the Founders did not lift a finger to disband or control the few little judgmental, narrow minded theocracies that still existed among the colonies at the time the Constitution was signed. And if a town wanted to be as lawless and loose as say Deadwood was in its hellfire days, that was the people's right also.

 

[Oddball]

Out of curiosity, are you actually an anarchist oddball?

Absolutely not.

I believe in the Constitution, insofar as it was set forth as a collectivized way to protect the rights of the individual...Ways that would not be illegal or immoral for an individual to do.....Therefore I believe it also to be completely lawful and moral to have state and local police forces, fire departments and militia, even though, in my opinion, the system of property and other taxes is but a marginally effective way to fund such operations.

I've never seen you say you are, but I've never seen anything to indicate you are not.

BTW, absence of evidence in not evidence of absence.

 

[Erand7899]

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.

Property rights do not exist without government. Otherwise, property belongs to whoever has the power to take and hold it.

 

[kaz]

Out of curiosity, are you actually an anarchist oddball?

Absolutely not.

I believe in the Constitution, insofar as it was set forth as a collectivized way to protect the rights of the individual...Ways that would not be illegal or immoral for an individual to do.....Therefore I believe it also to be completely lawful and moral to have state and local police forces, fire departments and militia, even though, in my opinion, the system of property and other taxes is but a marginally effective way to fund such operations.

I've never seen you say you are, but I've never seen anything to indicate you are not.

BTW, absence of evidence in not evidence of absence.

On the second part, I agree, which is why I just asked. And it was a good answer, thanks!

 

[Oddball]

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?

Strictly speaking, the Constitution is a compact between the politicians and We the People....It confers only limited powers for the politicians and bureaucrats to act on the behalf of the people within its constraints, meanwhile it imparts no obligation whatsoever upon the people....We the People take no oath to preserve and protect the Constitution, the politicians and bureaucrats do.

Now, how you can conflate that model into a mythical "social contract" that imparts obligations upon people to pay for the choices of others, for no better reason than the fact of their mere existence, is beyond me.

Most of our personal net worth is tied up in our property value.

Yes....The mob rule bunch is counting on that.

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.

That's protecting the value of your property....Not forcing single and childless couples to pony up to defray the costs for people who have kids.

It's at least marginally arguable that an individual or group of people diminishing your property value is a form of aggression....Of course, you could always move, couldn't ya?

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.

Tell ya what...When you can dig up that social contract, complete wit all the things that make contracts contracts, including but not limited to; specific denotation of the willing principals, time frame by which the contract is in effect (i.e. not open-ended), terms and conditions for fulfillment or default, terms for liquidated damages should either party not hold up their end of the deal, signatures of those upon whom said contract is binding, then you come get me and let me give it the once-over.

 

[Oddball]

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.

Property rights do not exist without government. Otherwise, property belongs to whoever has the power to take and hold it.

The right to property precedes gubmint...The protection of those property rights being but one of gubmint's very few rationale for existing at all.

 

[Synthaholic]

Here we see that the author doesn't really have a firm grasp on libertarianism. Privatized Social Security and school vouchers are not libertarian-approved policies. A libertarian would not privatize Social Security, a libertarian would abolish Social Security and let people prepare for their own retirements in any way that they choose to do so.

The problem is that Libertarians live in a dream world.

OK - you abolish SS. What is your solution to old people, disabled people, or the mentally impaired dying on the streets?

As for this, my question is: Can the author point out to us one absolutely liberal or progressive country, and one absolutely conservative country? There are no such countries.

Sweden/Afghanistan

 

[kaz]

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.

Property rights do not exist without government. Otherwise, property belongs to whoever has the power to take and hold it.

You pulled the pin that causes anarchy to implode into itself. Everything they argue starts with property rights. However, without recognition of property rights, there aren't any. There is no wealth and no security.

A great book is "The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else" by Hernando de Soto. Basically it's about evolution of property rights in the west, which is what enabled everything else we accomplished economically.

 

[Oddball]

Adults are conversing Synthia....Go troll one of your own threads.

 

[Synthaholic]

Adults are conversing Synthia....Go troll one of your own threads.

Stumped you again, eh?