The question libertarians just can’t answer

[dblack]

We agree on that. I was totally unimpressed. He seemed to me like a tertiary libertarian at best who wanted some attention, so he went to the party that nominated him for the attention. Second election in a row the "libertarians" did that. Bob Barr a Libertarian, right.

Libertarians telling me they couldn't vote Republican, so they voted for Republicans running as Libertarians are frankly for me hard to take seriously.

Really? You voted for Romney and you're willing to badmouth libertarians who voted for Johnson???

That's not what I said. Seriously, you just skim posts, you don't read them do you? I'm tired of repeating points that you don't read either. If you want to address what I actually said, I'm here.

I'd say I agreed with Johnson on approximately 90% of the issues. With Romney on approximately 10%. If you throw in the rest of the party platform and the fact that the party as a whole is still dominated by neocons - it's a no brainer.

You're a liberal who's a libertarian wanna be, so those percents sound about right. And Johnson's views become a lot more kosher when he changed what nomination he was seeking.

Fair enough. You're entitled to your opinion. And, apparently, your own custom definition of 'liberal'. In any case, given the way sellouts like you have betrayed the Libertarian movement by keeping it hopelessly mired in false Republican promises, I'll take your label happily. Meanwhile, you can enjoy being a 'neo-con'.

 

[flacaltenn]

To demonstrate:
WHO is a libertarian, and who is not? Names in the public discourse, please. Discuss.

Perpetual candidate/loser Gary Johnson.


...and that's it.

Not so fast Synthone.. I think most people identify John Stossel as a pretty pure sample.. A bunch of Noble Prize winners like Milton Friedman, Vernon Smith, Gary Becker.

Gary Johnson is the MOST actually qualified candidate that we've run.. His record as governor is BETTER than Romney's in a lot of ways.

Ron Paul IS a libertarian putting his principles in action. Conyers COULD be a closet libertarian because of his reliably consistent protection of freedom..

 

[Foxfyre]

Oddball and Kevin reject the concept of a community organizing itself to have a publicly funded school system or a publicly funded police force or a publicly funded fire district or a public water or sewer system in which all who are included in the incorporated area have equal right to benefit and all are expected to contribute to through their taxes or fees for service.

Perhaps they sees his local community requiring him to pay taxes or mandatory fees to fund city services as illegally coercive? Every one of those concepts is via social contract by consent of the majority of citizens who were there at the time they agreed to have the service.

It starts out with widely separated farms and ranches with undeveloped land filling in as more people take up farming. And then some enterprising soul figures out that opening a grocery store in the vicinity would be profitable as all the farmers would use it at least some of time rather than drive long distances to the nearest city. Then a hardware store, a gas station, barber shop, repair shop, etc. etc. etc., all driven by profit motive, start opening up. Eventually you have a small unincorporated community serving the area. Pretty soon you have enough folks to buy a fire truck and organize a volunteer fire department that brings down everybody's fire insurance premiums or allows them to get fire insurance at all. And then it makes sense to incorporate the village and have a city hall providing various necessary licenses and permits, etc. along with a public employee to handle the paperwork. They hire a cop to look after everybody's property and handle the drunk and disorderly.

Every step of the way it is mutual agreement, i.e. social contract, by a majority to better the quality of life, protect property, and improve security for all.

And every step of the way there are bound to be some who just don't want to do it.

There are no easy answers how to handle those who don't want to do it. Grandfathering out is one option and probably the one most utilized in the beginning. But should the unwillingness of some to agree to the social contract justify the others being unable to do it? And pass laws and rules beneficial to all? And is it coercive then to require newcomers to bend to the will of the majority already there?

Here is where Oddball and Kevin and I get crossways. In their mind he seems unable to separate the concept of social contract from mob rule and/or government dictatorship. And it is not the same thing.

And I seem to be failing miserably in explaining it to them.

You're correct that we see the social contract as nothing more than mob rule. Perhaps, however, it's Oddball and I that are failing to explain why that is to you.

You certainly are failing to explain it to me. If everybody must do his/her own thing and are disallowed by libertarianism to cooperate with each other to accomplish goals for mutual benefit, then I cannot be a libertarian. Because I strongly believe that the concept of unalienable rights includes such mutual cooperation as much as it protects individual rights.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

What is the 'libertarian' solution to pollution?

Private property rights. Pollution violates the private property rights that people have in their own bodies. As such, government schemes which allow some arbitrary percentage of pollution, or that allows companies to trade pollution certificates are actually less stringent regulations on pollution than libertarians would support.

Private property rights? Hey Kevin, WHAT CEO lives at his polluting factory? Or even in the same country? Does pollution respect 'property' boundaries? Does pollution respect state boundaries??

You need to come up with a plan for externalities.

I don't see how anything you said here disproves what I said.

 

[kaz]

I'm not going to pretend to be omniscient, sorry. Though the post you quoted is a separate discussion entirely from the one you're referring to.

That certainly would have taken my career a long way when I was in management and management consulting.

Interesting proposal kaz, what's your plan? How will that work?

What!?!? Do you think I'm omniscient? We just do it and then the solution will appear! It involves private security or something, how the heck am I supposed to know how it's going to work????

Now that I own my own company, I suppose I could approaching planning that way. I'm not going to though....

That's a fun straw-man.

You've offered nothing but vacuous questions you seem to think are clever supported by lots of hand waiving, that's the fact. If you had any actual ideas, I'd be totally open to them. I'm cutting every function of government back in my views to those that removal of would clearly reduce and not increase my liberty. However, I won't make the leap that a magic solution will appear, it has to make sense.

Once we remove government, bad people will buy lots of guns and band together. You're arguing that good people will cooperate and hire private security and you have no idea how the rest is going to work. My post is pretty darned accurate regarding your "plan."

 

[kaz]

Really? You voted for Romney and you're willing to badmouth libertarians who voted for Johnson???

That's not what I said. Seriously, you just skim posts, you don't read them do you? I'm tired of repeating points that you don't read either. If you want to address what I actually said, I'm here.

I'd say I agreed with Johnson on approximately 90% of the issues. With Romney on approximately 10%. If you throw in the rest of the party platform and the fact that the party as a whole is still dominated by neocons - it's a no brainer.

You're a liberal who's a libertarian wanna be, so those percents sound about right. And Johnson's views become a lot more kosher when he changed what nomination he was seeking.

Fair enough. You're entitled to your opinion. And, apparently, your own custom definition of 'liberal'. In any case, given the way sellouts like you have betrayed the Libertarian movement by keeping it hopelessly mired in false Republican promises, I'll take your label happily. Meanwhile, you can enjoy being a 'neo-con'.

Now we've uncovered another term you don't understand. "neocon." The list grows...

 

[flacaltenn]

Have the butler explain it to you. Tell him not to use the word bound pea brain definition. The words 'social contract' do not appear, but the concept is very clearly supported.


"If every person has the right to defend even by force — his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right."
Frédéric Bastiat

That's the tragedy of reading the Cliff Note version.. OR the results of willful editing..

FoxFyre had the relevent full quote a couple pages back....

"If every person has the right to defend -- even by force -- his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right -- its reason for existing, its lawfulness -- is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force -- for the same reason -- cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups."

Which was it BFgrn?? Willful editing or lazy vetting?

Clearly the conclusion aligns PERFECTLY with the non-initiation of force belief behind libertarians.. Pretty good swipe at your Dear Collectivism arguments.. Thanks for playing..

The added context does not change the premise AT ALL:

1) a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force.

2) Thus the principle of collective right -- its reason for existing, its lawfulness -- is based on individual right.

OK --- Now i'm guessing intentional densitude is the problem.. The key concept of that paragraph is that there is NO JUSTIFICATION for the collective right to use force and coercion to reduce or "destroy the person, liberty or property of individuals and groups"..
Even tho the RIGHT to organize collectively is clearly in order, the DEMANDS and ENFORCEMENTS of that collective are limited IDENTICALLY to the individual level.

Pure libertarian thought. You are with us and perhaps you didn't know it? Who woulda thunk??? ?

 

[dblack]

That's not what I said. Seriously, you just skim posts, you don't read them do you? I'm tired of repeating points that you don't read either. If you want to address what I actually said, I'm here.



You're a liberal who's a libertarian wanna be, so those percents sound about right. And Johnson's views become a lot more kosher when he changed what nomination he was seeking.

Fair enough. You're entitled to your opinion. And, apparently, your own custom definition of 'liberal'. In any case, given the way sellouts like you have betrayed the Libertarian movement by keeping it hopelessly mired in false Republican promises, I'll take your label happily. Meanwhile, you can enjoy being a 'neo-con'.

Now we've uncovered another term you don't understand. "neocon." The list grows...

When it comes to politics, you are what you vote for. I voted Libertarian. You?

 

[Foxfyre]

As for Gary Johnson, under massive protests from the state's horse racing industry and the Coalition against Gambling, that included most of our religious groups--they were protesting with different motives but were allies in the process--negotiated compacts with our state Indian tribes and several had their casinos up and running before the courts rules the compacts illegal.

Back to the negotiating table again with overwhelming objection from most people. The horse racing folks didn't want the competition. The anti-gambling folks didn't want the moral pollution. And the others objecting didn't want the Indians to get all the privileges while nobody else would be allowed to participate.

By 2001, I think it was, Johnson had renegotiated the compacts with the tribes and this time it passed muster with the courts. So the Indians have benefitted from some jobs--as they put it they still live in poor adobe homes but they at least have new roofs--the state has enjoyed precious little benefit--and the suppliers of slot machines, all based elsewhere, have made out like bandits. And the non-Indian citizens are stuck with the ravages of gambling excess and are unable to profit from it.

Was this a libertarian deal? I have a tough time seeing it as one.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Oddball and Kevin reject the concept of a community organizing itself to have a publicly funded school system or a publicly funded police force or a publicly funded fire district or a public water or sewer system in which all who are included in the incorporated area have equal right to benefit and all are expected to contribute to through their taxes or fees for service.

Perhaps they sees his local community requiring him to pay taxes or mandatory fees to fund city services as illegally coercive? Every one of those concepts is via social contract by consent of the majority of citizens who were there at the time they agreed to have the service.

It starts out with widely separated farms and ranches with undeveloped land filling in as more people take up farming. And then some enterprising soul figures out that opening a grocery store in the vicinity would be profitable as all the farmers would use it at least some of time rather than drive long distances to the nearest city. Then a hardware store, a gas station, barber shop, repair shop, etc. etc. etc., all driven by profit motive, start opening up. Eventually you have a small unincorporated community serving the area. Pretty soon you have enough folks to buy a fire truck and organize a volunteer fire department that brings down everybody's fire insurance premiums or allows them to get fire insurance at all. And then it makes sense to incorporate the village and have a city hall providing various necessary licenses and permits, etc. along with a public employee to handle the paperwork. They hire a cop to look after everybody's property and handle the drunk and disorderly.

Every step of the way it is mutual agreement, i.e. social contract, by a majority to better the quality of life, protect property, and improve security for all.

And every step of the way there are bound to be some who just don't want to do it.

There are no easy answers how to handle those who don't want to do it. Grandfathering out is one option and probably the one most utilized in the beginning. But should the unwillingness of some to agree to the social contract justify the others being unable to do it? And pass laws and rules beneficial to all? And is it coercive then to require newcomers to bend to the will of the majority already there?

Here is where Oddball and Kevin and I get crossways. In their mind he seems unable to separate the concept of social contract from mob rule and/or government dictatorship. And it is not the same thing.

And I seem to be failing miserably in explaining it to them.

You're correct that we see the social contract as nothing more than mob rule. Perhaps, however, it's Oddball and I that are failing to explain why that is to you.

You certainly are failing to explain it to me. If everybody must do his/her own thing and are disallowed by libertarianism to cooperate with each other to accomplish goals for mutual benefit, then I cannot be a libertarian. Because I strongly believe that the concept of unalienable rights includes such mutual cooperation as much as it protects individual rights.

That's not what libertarianism says at all. People voluntarily coming together, at every level, for their mutual benefit is absolutely wonderful, and necessary for the working of the market. What we're saying is that nobody, regardless of their intentions or numbers, has the right to force anybody to do anything against their will with their own property. So when you say that somebody can be forced to pay for the education of others against their will, that constitutes aggression and a violation of property rights. If that person wants to pay for somebody else's education, however, that's another story. But even if 99.9% of his neighbors say that he has to, it is still a violent act and a violation of property rights.

 

[flacaltenn]

That certainly would have taken my career a long way when I was in management and management consulting.

Interesting proposal kaz, what's your plan? How will that work?

What!?!? Do you think I'm omniscient? We just do it and then the solution will appear! It involves private security or something, how the heck am I supposed to know how it's going to work????

Now that I own my own company, I suppose I could approaching planning that way. I'm not going to though....

That's a fun straw-man.

You've offered nothing but vacuous questions you seem to think are clever supported by lots of hand waiving, that's the fact. If you had any actual ideas, I'd be totally open to them. I'm cutting every function of government back in my views to those that removal of would clearly reduce and not increase my liberty. However, I won't make the leap that a magic solution will appear, it has to make sense.

Once we remove government, bad people will buy lots of guns and band together. You're arguing that good people will cooperate and hire private security and you have no idea how the rest is going to work. My post is pretty darned accurate regarding your "plan."

That's why libertarians can't organize. It's a grudge match to the end with more than 2 in the room..

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

That certainly would have taken my career a long way when I was in management and management consulting.

Interesting proposal kaz, what's your plan? How will that work?

What!?!? Do you think I'm omniscient? We just do it and then the solution will appear! It involves private security or something, how the heck am I supposed to know how it's going to work????

Now that I own my own company, I suppose I could approaching planning that way. I'm not going to though....

That's a fun straw-man.

You've offered nothing but vacuous questions you seem to think are clever supported by lots of hand waiving, that's the fact. If you had any actual ideas, I'd be totally open to them. I'm cutting every function of government back in my views to those that removal of would clearly reduce and not increase my liberty. However, I won't make the leap that a magic solution will appear, it has to make sense.

Once we remove government, bad people will buy lots of guns and band together. You're arguing that good people will cooperate and hire private security and you have no idea how the rest is going to work. My post is pretty darned accurate regarding your "plan."

No, your post is conjecture and speculation. I merely say that people would be free to defend their property as they see fit. What form that takes I can't possibly say.

 

[flacaltenn]

What is the 'libertarian' solution to pollution?

Private property rights. Pollution violates the private property rights that people have in their own bodies. As such, government schemes which allow some arbitrary percentage of pollution, or that allows companies to trade pollution certificates are actually less stringent regulations on pollution than libertarians would support.

Private property rights? Hey Kevin, WHAT CEO lives at his polluting factory? Or even in the same country? Does pollution respect 'property' boundaries? Does pollution respect state boundaries??

You need to come up with a plan for externalities.

not difficult.. You just need to prove damages in a court.. Individual or Class Action -- take your pick.. With the army of bureaucrats in the EPA and libraries full of regs --- the GOOD STUFF always gets done by some private ECO-Lawyer group looking to raise funds..

It's the same solution that gives the BEST result today...

 

[Bfgrn]

Heh... some truth to that.

Of course, liberals have their own 'dogshit' words ('individual', 'freedom', etc..)

Oh. I see, the extremism of libertarians must be explained away as everyone else is also extreme. Liberals do not subscribe to the right wing definitions applied to them. Liberals have no problem with 'individual' or 'freedom'. As a matter of fact liberals strongly believe in individual excellence, personal distinction and freedom.

I look forward to a world which will be safe not only for democracy and diversity but also for personal distinction.
President John F. Kennedy

The Greek definition of happiness is full use of ones powers along the lines of excellence.
President John F. Kennedy

Live and let live. Stay out of my shit and I'll stay out of yours. Everyone has the right to do what they want as long as they don't infringe on other's rights. Government should not take people's property by force. Government should not tell us what to do with our bodies. The military should just defend the US and not get involved in other people's business.

If you think about it libertarians are actually the moderates.

I'll ask you the same question I asked Kevin. What is the libertarian answer to pollution?

Because pollution gets into 'my shit'. It infringes on my rights, it infringes on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

That's a fun straw-man.

You've offered nothing but vacuous questions you seem to think are clever supported by lots of hand waiving, that's the fact. If you had any actual ideas, I'd be totally open to them. I'm cutting every function of government back in my views to those that removal of would clearly reduce and not increase my liberty. However, I won't make the leap that a magic solution will appear, it has to make sense.

Once we remove government, bad people will buy lots of guns and band together. You're arguing that good people will cooperate and hire private security and you have no idea how the rest is going to work. My post is pretty darned accurate regarding your "plan."

That's why libertarians can't organize. It's a grudge match to the end with more than 2 in the room..

It's certainly not a grudge match. I have no interest in attacking him.

 

[Bfgrn]

Private property rights. Pollution violates the private property rights that people have in their own bodies. As such, government schemes which allow some arbitrary percentage of pollution, or that allows companies to trade pollution certificates are actually less stringent regulations on pollution than libertarians would support.

Private property rights? Hey Kevin, WHAT CEO lives at his polluting factory? Or even in the same country? Does pollution respect 'property' boundaries? Does pollution respect state boundaries??

You need to come up with a plan for externalities.

not difficult.. You just need to prove damages in a court.. Individual or Class Action -- take your pick.. With the army of bureaucrats in the EPA and libraries full of regs --- the GOOD STUFF always gets done by some private ECO-Lawyer group looking to raise funds..

It's the same solution that gives the BEST result today...

So nothing proactive. Just satisfaction knowing the death of your loved one was an egregious violation of their basic human rights.

 

[Swagger]

Oddball and Kevin reject the concept of a community organizing itself to have a publicly funded school system or a publicly funded police force or a publicly funded fire district or a public water or sewer system in which all who are included in the incorporated area have equal right to benefit and all are expected to contribute to through their taxes or fees for service.

Perhaps they sees his local community requiring him to pay taxes or mandatory fees to fund city services as illegally coercive? Every one of those concepts is via social contract by consent of the majority of citizens who were there at the time they agreed to have the service.

It starts out with widely separated farms and ranches with undeveloped land filling in as more people take up farming. And then some enterprising soul figures out that opening a grocery store in the vicinity would be profitable as all the farmers would use it at least some of time rather than drive long distances to the nearest city. Then a hardware store, a gas station, barber shop, repair shop, etc. etc. etc., all driven by profit motive, start opening up. Eventually you have a small unincorporated community serving the area. Pretty soon you have enough folks to buy a fire truck and organize a volunteer fire department that brings down everybody's fire insurance premiums or allows them to get fire insurance at all. And then it makes sense to incorporate the village and have a city hall providing various necessary licenses and permits, etc. along with a public employee to handle the paperwork. They hire a cop to look after everybody's property and handle the drunk and disorderly.

Every step of the way it is mutual agreement, i.e. social contract, by a majority to better the quality of life, protect property, and improve security for all.

And every step of the way there are bound to be some who just don't want to do it.

There are no easy answers how to handle those who don't want to do it. Grandfathering out is one option and probably the one most utilized in the beginning. But should the unwillingness of some to agree to the social contract justify the others being unable to do it? And pass laws and rules beneficial to all? And is it coercive then to require newcomers to bend to the will of the majority already there?

Here is where Oddball and Kevin and I get crossways. In their mind they seem unable to separate the concept of social contract from mob rule and/or government dictatorship. And it is not the same thing.

And I seem to be failing miserably in explaining it to them.

Whilst I don't disagree with how you've outlined urban growth (and the profit-driven motives behind it), the social contract you talk about could easily be interpreted as a mutually beneficial promotion of convenience.

 

[Foxfyre]

Oh. I see, the extremism of libertarians must be explained away as everyone else is also extreme. Liberals do not subscribe to the right wing definitions applied to them. Liberals have no problem with 'individual' or 'freedom'. As a matter of fact liberals strongly believe in individual excellence, personal distinction and freedom.

I look forward to a world which will be safe not only for democracy and diversity but also for personal distinction.
President John F. Kennedy

The Greek definition of happiness is full use of ones powers along the lines of excellence.
President John F. Kennedy

Live and let live. Stay out of my shit and I'll stay out of yours. Everyone has the right to do what they want as long as they don't infringe on other's rights. Government should not take people's property by force. Government should not tell us what to do with our bodies. The military should just defend the US and not get involved in other people's business.

If you think about it libertarians are actually the moderates.

I'll ask you the same question I asked Kevin. What is the libertarian answer to pollution?

Because pollution gets into 'my shit'. It infringes on my rights, it infringes on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The libertarian point of view is that no person has the right to unreasonably pollute the air, water, soil, or aesthetic enjoyment of his neighbor. The sticky wicket is the 'unreasonable' part. The smoke from my fireplace may go into my neighbor's air space, but that could be ruled as reasonable. Water vapor could be considered pollution by some, but it's emission as steam from a factory could be ruled as reasonable, etc. A certain amount of heat released into a river from a nuclear reactor could be considered reasonble, but not beyond a specific point. etc. The normal noise resulting from property maintenance and living our lives is reasonable--hours of blaring rap music from outdoor quadraphonic speakers is not.

There should be severe and certain civil and legal consequences for one person polluting another person's space.

Libertarians are okay with that.

What they aren't okay with is some authority telling them by what means they must stop polluting their neighbor's space rather than allowing them to use the means that is best for them.

 

[Bfgrn]

Heh... some truth to that.

Of course, liberals have their own 'dogshit' words ('individual', 'freedom', etc..)

Oh. I see, the extremism of libertarians must be explained away as everyone else is also extreme. Liberals do not subscribe to the right wing definitions applied to them. Liberals have no problem with 'individual' or 'freedom'. As a matter of fact liberals strongly believe in individual excellence, personal distinction and freedom.

I look forward to a world which will be safe not only for democracy and diversity but also for personal distinction.
President John F. Kennedy

The Greek definition of happiness is full use of ones powers along the lines of excellence.
President John F. Kennedy

And libertarians do not subscribe to your demagogic definitions applied to them, either.

OMG Kevin, this thread verifies the demagogic definitions.

 

[Bfgrn]

BTW, Rousseau was a socialist prototype.

If you want to talk French revolutionaries, my views much more reflect Frédéric Bastiat than Rousseau, whom Bastiat also believed to be all wet.

I recommend this brief (novella length), highly informative and absorbing read....

The Law, by Frederic Bastiat

Great, except almost everything you are arguing is refuted by Frédéric Bastiat.

Hey Jethro, I thought Friedrich von Hayek was your 'jesus'?

Nothing I have said is refuted by Bastiat....And I worship no man.

For someone who accuses others of being infantile, you appear to be the one here who needs to grow the hell up, junior.

Hey Jethro, what about Friedrich von Hayek? Or is he now a fart in church?