The question libertarians just can’t answer

[TemplarKormac]

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?

You can't help but notice how he labels his new party after the party he left, so he never really stopped being a Democrat. At Democrat is a Democrat, no way to slice it.

Not trying to bullshit you on anything Pogo. And my name isn't "Jack." I am an exploratory debater. In the process of debating I pick a person's brain, win or lose, I have the tools to attain a solid argument the next time around.

Why are we doing what again? What were we doing? Are the cops coming? Quick, we'd better hide, Pogo!

 

[kaz]

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

Stumped you again, eh?

Having one's retirement funded, even when one doesn't save for oneself is a right, so using the force of guns to take it from someone else is the only logical answer that could occur to anyone. Yep, you got us, we're stumped. We can't think of anything else. Now run along and play...

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Exactly. Back to neighborhood management. We DID buy into a neighborhood with reasonable restrictions purely so that our property values had the best chance of being protected. Our last home before our present one was in a rural mountain area near but outside the Albuquerque City Limits. Though it was not a wealthy area by any means, we still wanted some security in our property values and bought in that neighborhood because it did have certain restrictions and requirements that preserved those property values. We looked at very fine,much nicer and cheaper homes in other areas out there that had no restrictions too. But the neighbors property looked like wrecking yards. That's why those fine, well maintained homes were worth a fraction of what they should have been valued.

So how do we balance that? Can the neighbors get together and form a social contract that contains some mutually agreed rules and regs that would allow them to double their property values? Should the few sloppy neighbors who don't give a damn about that have to comply? Kevin and Oddball would say no.

I would be really torn on that one. And would probably rule based on who was there first. There really is no easy solution for it.

But again, in most cases, I trust the collective wisdom of people who are seeking to cooperate with each other for mutual benefit far more than I trust government or any single dictator to make better decisions for us.

 

[Foxfyre]

Oh and for Oddball:

social contract
noun
1.
the voluntary agreement among individuals by which, according to any of various theories, as of Hobbes, Locke, or Rousseau, organized society is brought into being and invested with the right to secure mutual protection and welfare or to regulate the relations among its members.

2.
an agreement for mutual benefit between an individual or group and the government or community as a whole.
Social contract | Define Social contract at Dictionary.com

 

[TakeAStepBack]

If your approach is so great, why hasn’t any country anywhere in the world ever tried it?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkcY7SVBG-4]The Question Libertarians Just Can't Answer - Answered! - YouTube[/ame]

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Oh and for Oddball:

social contract
noun
1.
the voluntary agreement among individuals by which, according to any of various theories, as of Hobbes, Locke, or Rousseau, organized society is brought into being and invested with the right to secure mutual protection and welfare or to regulate the relations among its members.

2.
an agreement for mutual benefit between an individual or group and the government or community as a whole.
Social contract | Define Social contract at Dictionary.com

It's an agreement forced by being present. It's not voluntary and I never signed it. It's imposed as the contract that never was.

 

[Synthaholic]

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

Stumped you again, eh?

Having one's retirement funded, even when one doesn't save for oneself is a right, so using the force of guns to take it from someone else is the only logical answer that could occur to anyone. Yep, you got us, we're stumped. We can't think of anything else. Now run along and play...

Want to try answering my question or would you like to save time and admit FAILURE now?

 

[kaz]

Stumped you again, eh?

Having one's retirement funded, even when one doesn't save for oneself is a right, so using the force of guns to take it from someone else is the only logical answer that could occur to anyone. Yep, you got us, we're stumped. We can't think of anything else. Now run along and play...

Want to try answering my question or would you like to save time and admit FAILURE now?

Your premise is that it's my responsibility to fund their retirement. I have no answer for you that satisfies your premise because I reject your premise. That's what oddball meant when he said "adults" were conversing. You want to play games, you don't have the intellectual capacity to grasp the conversation. I'm not saying that to insult you, but recognize that as long as you don't understand the answer to your question, the fact is that is what you're demonstrating.

I do care and have views about supporting the elderly. However, I won't discuss them until the idiotic premise it's my responsibility to do so is removed.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

That rights can be violated does not mean they don't exist. Also, government is the greatest aggressor against property rights.

 

[Foxfyre]

Oh and for Oddball:

social contract
noun
1.
the voluntary agreement among individuals by which, according to any of various theories, as of Hobbes, Locke, or Rousseau, organized society is brought into being and invested with the right to secure mutual protection and welfare or to regulate the relations among its members.

2.
an agreement for mutual benefit between an individual or group and the government or community as a whole.
Social contract | Define Social contract at Dictionary.com

It's an agreement forced by being present. It's not voluntary and I never signed it. It's imposed as the contract that never was.

So you think you should be able to ignore the constitution because you never signed it? It is imposed on you without your consent? You should be able to ignore federal laws or state laws or your local laws because you never agreed to them?

Surely you can see what chaos would ensue if everybody took a point of view like that. Nobody would have any rights. It would be survival of the fittest all over again.

Social contract is how people organize themselves to provide mutual protection and security and quality of life. Nobody should be able to tax us or coerce us for any indiviual's benefit. But for mutual benefit, social contract protects freedoms and quality of life and cultural values by collectively agreeing to forego legal right to exercise other freedoms. Such as public nudity or child pornography or defecating in the street or dumping your trash in the city park.

The key is by mutual agreement and not via dictate by some authority figure.

 

[Oddball]

Oh and for Oddball:

social contract
noun
1.
the voluntary agreement among individuals by which, according to any of various theories, as of Hobbes, Locke, or Rousseau, organized society is brought into being and invested with the right to secure mutual protection and welfare or to regulate the relations among its members.

2.
an agreement for mutual benefit between an individual or group and the government or community as a whole.
Social contract | Define Social contract at Dictionary.com

Yup...Just like I said earlier...An adhesion contract.

adhesion contract (contract of adhesion) n. a contract (often a signed form) so imbalanced in favor of one party over the other that there is a strong implication it was not freely bargained.

Adhesion Contract legal definition of Adhesion Contract. Adhesion Contract synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

Such "contracts" are regularly deemed by courts to be invalid ab initio (as though they never existed from day one).

 

[kaz]

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

That rights can be violated does not mean they don't exist. Also, government is the greatest aggressor against property rights.

While your statement about government is true, that doesn't address the true point that without government, there are no property rights. If Steve says your house is his and there is no way to work it out other than by your shooting each other up, the one with the most might wins, not the one who most has the right to the property.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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

That rights can be violated does not mean they don't exist. Also, government is the greatest aggressor against property rights.

While your statement about government is true, that doesn't address the true point that without government, there are no property rights. If Steve says your house is his and there is no way to work it out other than by your shooting each other up, the one with the most might wins, not the one who most has the right to the property.

The question is whether or not the right exists, and the answer to that is obvious. That somebody can come in and steal my property doesn't mean that my right to that property is nonexistent. In that scenario, the anarchist would say that you either defend your property yourself, as you have the right to do, or you hire somebody to defend your property for you.

 

[Oddball]

Oh and for Oddball:

It's an agreement forced by being present. It's not voluntary and I never signed it. It's imposed as the contract that never was.

So you think you should be able to ignore the constitution because you never signed it? It is imposed on you without your consent? You should be able to ignore federal laws or state laws or your local laws because you never agreed to them?

As I mentioned earlier, the Constitution imparts no obligation upon We the People...It is the politicians and bureaucrats who have the compact with us.

There's a vast difference in the flow chart on that one.

Surely you can see what chaos would ensue if everybody took a point of view like that. Nobody would have any rights. It would be survival of the fittest all over again.

Straw man argument all over again....Just because you see the ruination of the entire world doesn't mean that it would in fact happen.

Social contract is how people organize themselves to provide mutual protection and security and quality of life. Nobody should be able to tax us or coerce us for any indiviual's benefit. But for mutual benefit, social contract protects freedoms and quality of life and cultural values by collectively agreeing to forego legal right to exercise other freedoms. Such as public nudity or child pornography or defecating in the street or dumping your trash in the city park.

The key is by mutual agreement and not via dictate by some authority figure.

But there is no mutual agreement...Your "social contract" is imposed upon the populace by coercive authority of the mob....Contracts, by their very definition, imply a volitional relationship between the principals, which would exclude any coercion.

 

[kaz]

That rights can be violated does not mean they don't exist. Also, government is the greatest aggressor against property rights.

While your statement about government is true, that doesn't address the true point that without government, there are no property rights. If Steve says your house is his and there is no way to work it out other than by your shooting each other up, the one with the most might wins, not the one who most has the right to the property.

The question is whether or not the right exists, and the answer to that is obvious. That somebody can come in and steal my property doesn't mean that my right to that property is nonexistent. In that scenario, the anarchist would say that you either defend your property yourself, as you have the right to do, or you hire somebody to defend your property for you.

OK, I understand what you're arguing now. But you are splitting hairs. The statement that property rights don't exist didn't mean there isn't a right in the way you are arguing it, it was that you'll spend all your time sitting with a gun looking for bad guys trying to take it and won't benefit from your ownership.

You can't sell it, you can't leave it or someone will squat, you can't get borders which are recognized, you have no remedy if someone torches your house. It's the right to benefit from your ownership by having it recognized which allows to to genuinely utilize it and prosper.

Seriously, read the de Soto book I recommended.

 

[Foxfyre]

Oh and for Oddball:

social contract
noun
1.
the voluntary agreement among individuals by which, according to any of various theories, as of Hobbes, Locke, or Rousseau, organized society is brought into being and invested with the right to secure mutual protection and welfare or to regulate the relations among its members.

2.
an agreement for mutual benefit between an individual or group and the government or community as a whole.
Social contract | Define Social contract at Dictionary.com

Yup...Just like I said earlier...An adhesion contract.

adhesion contract (contract of adhesion) n. a contract (often a signed form) so imbalanced in favor of one party over the other that there is a strong implication it was not freely bargained.

Adhesion Contract legal definition of Adhesion Contract. Adhesion Contract synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

Such "contracts" are regularly deemed by courts to be invalid ab initio (as though they never existed from day one).

The gospel according to Oddball? Or are you assuming to dictate a definition that Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau up there would never consent to and certainly didn't use when they explained the concept?

How do you get around a tyranny of the minority if the one is allowed to trash his yard and thereby reduce property values of the other nine?

 

[Oddball]

Oh and for Oddball:

Yup...Just like I said earlier...An adhesion contract.

adhesion contract (contract of adhesion) n. a contract (often a signed form) so imbalanced in favor of one party over the other that there is a strong implication it was not freely bargained.

Adhesion Contract legal definition of Adhesion Contract. Adhesion Contract synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

Such "contracts" are regularly deemed by courts to be invalid ab initio (as though they never existed from day one).

The gospel according to Oddball? Or are you assuming to dictate a definition that Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau up there would never consent to?

How do you get around a tyranny of the minority if the one is allowed to trash his yard and thereby reduce property values of the other nine?

I'm going by legal and historical definitions.

Contracts are voluntary arrangements between specifically named principals, have terms and conditions for fulfillment or default, have defined time frames, have terms for recourse should either party default, etcetra.

That last item is a big one...What do you get when you gubmint doesn't hold up its end of the deal, as it so often doesn't?...Do you get a refund, credit or any other recompense for their inefficiency and bungling, our do you just get "that's the way the cookie crumbles...deal with it"?...What other entity could stay in operation like that, without a monopoly on the use of force to keep them in operation?

 

[Synthaholic]

Having one's retirement funded, even when one doesn't save for oneself is a right, so using the force of guns to take it from someone else is the only logical answer that could occur to anyone. Yep, you got us, we're stumped. We can't think of anything else. Now run along and play...

Want to try answering my question or would you like to save time and admit FAILURE now?

Your premise is that it's my responsibility to fund their retirement. I have no answer for you that satisfies your premise because I reject your premise. That's what oddball meant when he said "adults" were conversing. You want to play games, you don't have the intellectual capacity to grasp the conversation. I'm not saying that to insult you, but recognize that as long as you don't understand the answer to your question, the fact is that is what you're demonstrating.

I do care and have views about supporting the elderly. However, I won't discuss them until the idiotic premise it's my responsibility to do so is removed.

False. I am asking what your solution is for people who have fallen on hard times.

Perhaps they had a serious illness which left them broke.
Perhaps they developed mental impairments which preclude them from being employed.

There are many possible reasons why they are destitute, and not all of them are their fault.

So my question is: what is the Libertarian solution? Let them live and die on the street? Maybe contract and spread diseases?

What?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Oh and for Oddball:

It's an agreement forced by being present. It's not voluntary and I never signed it. It's imposed as the contract that never was.

So you think you should be able to ignore the constitution because you never signed it? It is imposed on you without your consent? You should be able to ignore federal laws or state laws or your local laws because you never agreed to them?

Well, all politicians believe they can ignore it. So it's a one way street where it should be two. That's right, no consent. I shouldn't have to ignore such laws. They are immoral.

Surely you can see what chaos would ensue if everybody took a point of view like that. Nobody would have any rights. It would be survival of the fittest all over again.

Rights exist before enforcement of them. Just because people violate a right doesn't mean it doesn't exist. People work together because it actually WORKS. Voluntary participation is the best insurance that living standards increase.

Social contract is how people organize themselves to provide mutual protection and security and quality of life. Nobody should be able to tax us or coerce us for any indiviual's benefit. But for mutual benefit, social contract protects freedoms and quality of life and cultural values by collectively agreeing to forego legal right to exercise other freedoms. Such as public nudity or child pornography or defecating in the street or dumping your trash in the city park.

Force only proves to incur more force. Once you start mob force, you'll get another and then question changes to how much force is ok. None. In my opinion.

The key is by mutual agreement and not via dictate by some authority figure.

Mutual requires voluntary measure, not force. Thats he whole point here.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

While your statement about government is true, that doesn't address the true point that without government, there are no property rights. If Steve says your house is his and there is no way to work it out other than by your shooting each other up, the one with the most might wins, not the one who most has the right to the property.

The question is whether or not the right exists, and the answer to that is obvious. That somebody can come in and steal my property doesn't mean that my right to that property is nonexistent. In that scenario, the anarchist would say that you either defend your property yourself, as you have the right to do, or you hire somebody to defend your property for you.

OK, I understand what you're arguing now. But you are splitting hairs. The statement that property rights don't exist didn't mean there isn't a right in the way you are arguing it, it was that you'll spend all your time sitting with a gun looking for bad guys trying to take it and won't benefit from your ownership.

You can't sell it, you can't leave it or someone will squat, you can't get borders which are recognized, you have no remedy if someone torches your house. It's the right to benefit from your ownership by having it recognized which allows to to genuinely utilize it and prosper.

Seriously, read the de Soto book I recommended.

And why do I need the state to have my property right recognized?