The question libertarians just can’t answer

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

And anyone can go find a post of yours that "verifies" their interpretation of you.

 

[Bfgrn]

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.

Oh, so we just have to be nice to polluters and then they will stop. Why didn't I think of that.

Maybe we should try the same tact with murderers, rapists and child molesters?

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Oh, so we just have to be nice to polluters and then they will stop. Why didn't I think of that.

Maybe we should try the same tact with murderers, rapists and child molesters?

If that is what you got out of my post, you have more problems, including reading comprehension, that I am prepared to deal with today.

 

[Bfgrn]

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

OMG Kevin, this thread verifies the demagogic definitions.

And anyone can go find a post of yours that "verifies" their interpretation of you.

I welcome it. Because I am very secure in what I believe and why I believe it. I am a liberal who has a lot of common beliefs with civil libertarians. Where I part ways is on economic issues. In that area libertarians are no different that far right wing conservatives.

ZERO human capital in their 'solutions'

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

Oh, so we just have to be nice to polluters and then they will stop. Why didn't I think of that.

Maybe we should try the same tact with murderers, rapists and child molesters?

Uhhh, no. You take them to court and sue them for violating your property. If they don't want to take massive losses they stop. Period.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

OMG Kevin, this thread verifies the demagogic definitions.

And anyone can go find a post of yours that "verifies" their interpretation of you.

I welcome it. Because I am very secure in what I believe and why I believe it. I am a liberal who has a lot of common beliefs with civil libertarians. Where I part ways is on economic issues. In that area libertarians are no different that far right wing conservatives.

ZERO human capital in their 'solutions'

You can be as secure as you want. Doesn't mean somebody can't come along and demagogue everything you say.

 

[Bfgrn]

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.

Oh, so we just have to be nice to polluters and then they will stop. Why didn't I think of that.

Maybe we should try the same tact with murderers, rapists and child molesters?

Uhhh, no. You take them to court and sue them for violating your property. If they don't want to take massive losses they stop. Period.

HOLY FUCK. How do we PREVENT pollution? Your idea of freedom and liberty is creating a pile of corpses.

 

[Bfgrn]

And anyone can go find a post of yours that "verifies" their interpretation of you.

I welcome it. Because I am very secure in what I believe and why I believe it. I am a liberal who has a lot of common beliefs with civil libertarians. Where I part ways is on economic issues. In that area libertarians are no different that far right wing conservatives.

ZERO human capital in their 'solutions'

You can be as secure as you want. Doesn't mean somebody can't come along and demagogue everything you say.

They do it every day Kevin. I am regularly called a 'Marxist', yet in the over 6 decades I've been on this planet, I have yet to read one word written by Marx.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Oh, so we just have to be nice to polluters and then they will stop. Why didn't I think of that.

Maybe we should try the same tact with murderers, rapists and child molesters?

Uhhh, no. You take them to court and sue them for violating your property. If they don't want to take massive losses they stop. Period.

HOLY FUCK. How do we PREVENT pollution? Your idea of freedom and liberty is creating a pile of corpses.

1+1=/=3.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I welcome it. Because I am very secure in what I believe and why I believe it. I am a liberal who has a lot of common beliefs with civil libertarians. Where I part ways is on economic issues. In that area libertarians are no different that far right wing conservatives.

ZERO human capital in their 'solutions'

You can be as secure as you want. Doesn't mean somebody can't come along and demagogue everything you say.

They do it every day Kevin. I am regularly called a 'Marxist', yet in the over 6 decades I've been on this planet, I have yet to read one word written by Marx.

And you're doing it right now.

 

[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 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.

That is exactly how I have been defining social contract all along. It is indeed a mutually beneficial promotion of/agreement for mutual convenience. And it is that definition that Kevin and Oddball consistently have rejected.

Unless freedom allows cooperation with each other to achieve mutually beneficial goals, there is no freedom. Instead. some dictatorial authority would demand that we each be an island unto himself.

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

I know, I know.. Justice is not ENOUGH.. We want revenge.. Perhaps we could bring back the rack and stoning.. Nice theatrics..

It's EXACTLY how externalities REALLY get fixed today.. No whimpy EPA fines and a wink.. Some 3rd party hauls your polluting ass into court and beats you up for money.. So that the pack of lawyers can dine on that 'til they spot their next victim....

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

That is exactly how I have been defining social contract all along. It is indeed a mutually beneficial promotion of/agreement for mutual convenience. And it is that definition that Kevin and Oddball consistently have rejected.

Unless freedom allows cooperation with each other to achieve mutually beneficial goals, there is no freedom. Instead. some dictatorial authority would demand that we each be an island unto himself.

I accept that there is a social contract. However, I dont think its sufficient to accomplish all that people ascribed to it --- because there is not and cant be an enforcement clause..

I've got time and money to work with the poor in my community.. But I don't waste either of those if the "conversion" rate isn't good. To fulfill the GOALS of these lofty social contracts, you need to MONITOR and MEASURE your investments. Because having a purple-haired tatooed single mom with a nose-ring on welfare is big contract in itself. And there's NO GUARANTEE that she's even "gonna sign" for her part... And I can't MAKE her do that..

 

[Oddball]

Oh, so we just have to be nice to polluters and then they will stop. Why didn't I think of that.

Maybe we should try the same tact with murderers, rapists and child molesters?

Uhhh, no. You take them to court and sue them for violating your property. If they don't want to take massive losses they stop. Period.

HOLY FUCK. How do we PREVENT pollution? Your idea of freedom and liberty is creating a pile of corpses.

Wow...Big scary straw man attacks again!

 

[Ragnar]

.

I'm very glad they're around, and I absolutely love it when they piss off both "major" parties at the same time.

We'll never have a Libertarian system, because we're far too dependent on government now. But I want them around to remind us of the Constitution and to challenge us to not turn to the government for every goddamn problem.

.

I don't need anyone to remind me of the Constitution. The people who we elected to office were put there as per the laws stipulated in the Constitution and they must adhere to those laws while in office.

I got a flat tire today. Huge screw that I picked up somewhere. You know what I did? I plugged the damned thing and filled it with the little compressor that I keep in the van and went on my way. Goddamned problem......and I didn't call the government. But......the road I was on had a nice, wide shoulder that I was able to pull over onto and do the job safely. For that, I thank the government.

 

[Contumacious]

.

I'm very glad they're around, and I absolutely love it when they piss off both "major" parties at the same time.

We'll never have a Libertarian system, because we're far too dependent on government now. But I want them around to remind us of the Constitution and to challenge us to not turn to the government for every goddamn problem.

.

I don't need anyone to remind me of the Constitution. The people who we elected to office were put there as per the laws stipulated in the Constitution and they must adhere to those laws while in office.

I got a flat tire today. Huge screw that I picked up somewhere. You know what I did? I plugged the damned thing and filled it with the little compressor that I keep in the van and went on my way. Goddamned problem......and I didn't call the government. But......the road I was on had a nice, wide shoulder that I was able to pull over onto and do the job safely. For that, I thank the government.

Damn.

was his dad a CEO of KBR, Halliburton or any other war profiteer?

.

 

[Pogo]

You really have no concept of the ground-breaking work done by Libertarian Party do you?

We have CONSISTENTLY been the only staunch defenders of Civil Liberty.. Opposing (for instance the Patriot Act, Asset Forfeiture, eminent domain seizures, and the War on Drugs.

We have fought for ballot access rules to be taken from the partisians and democratized.

We WORK HARD to put candidates on the ballots in all 50 states.

We champion CHOICE on everything consistently.. Especially in your choice of schools, medical care, and consumption..

We INVENTED Med Savings accounts and "cap and trade" and "congestion pricing" for decreasing traffic jams..

We've opposed MOST of America's badly chosen projections of power..

But yet --- you want to ATTEMPT to equate all that CONVICTION AND PRINCIPLE with Halloween custumes and Ayn Rand..

Bet you dont even know that Rand EXCORIATED AND SHUNNED the infant Lib Party.. She told us that "we were not judgemental enough" in our pursuit of freedoms. That we should toss our morals and ethics into the mix..

That was really really weak dude..

"We"? Who's "we"? There's an organization now? I thought this thread was about the abstract theory of 'libertarianism', thus what I was talking about was the label "libertarian", period.

I'm sure there's an actual party using the name somewhere, just as there are other democratic and republican and socialist and communist parties but I thought we were talking about the label and the concept. That's all I was talking about -- the use of the label. From what I've read in this thread, interested parties can't even agree on what libertarianism is, so what some third party advocates really isn't relevant, since the very label isn't defined. That's why I opined on the label. It's the only quantifiable element here.

Au Contrare -- it's EXTREMELY relevant to point to the authorized political party that represents "libertarians".. I can tell EXACTLY where WE (yes there is a we) have stood on the Patriot Act since it's birth. YOU on the other hand would have a hell of challenge telling me where YOUR sorry ass party representation stands on most ANY issue..

Point is --- should be well - known what we've done and stand for. It doesn't change election cycle to cycle.

Not only is there a REAL 3rd party behind that label.. There are MANY outstanding think tanks and organizations (like Cato, Reason, IJustice) that are world class BROADCASTERS of libertarian thought.

You can "try" to arrive at "what a libertarian thinks" from anectdotes or stereotypes or silly references to Halloween costumes, -- or you can go the sources of the OPENLY libertarian institutions that we have BUILT with our money and time...

I WOULD indeed have a CHALLENGE, since I DON'T have a PARTY.
SAY this ALLCAPSING every third WORD is da BOMB. LOT of WORK though.

What gives you the idea I have a "party" anyway? Again I posted nothing about any "parties". I didn't think it was part of the topic.
Actually I think parties are as useless as labels...

 

[Bfgrn]

Uhhh, no. You take them to court and sue them for violating your property. If they don't want to take massive losses they stop. Period.

HOLY FUCK. How do we PREVENT pollution? Your idea of freedom and liberty is creating a pile of corpses.

1+1=/=3.

So, you have no libertarian plan? No way of preventing pollution, nothing proactive? Even though without litigation we know the catastrophic effects on human, fish and foul of carcinogens, mercury, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, lead, cadmium, arsenic being spewed every day by coal burning power plants?

It's REALLY ironic that people who claim they are all about freedom and liberty, and really all about freedom and liberty of polluters to exterminate people, and there is never a PEEP about everyone's absolute right to breath clean air, drink clean water and eat foods raised in healthy soil.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

HOLY FUCK. How do we PREVENT pollution? Your idea of freedom and liberty is creating a pile of corpses.

1+1=/=3.

So, you have no libertarian plan? No way of preventing pollution, nothing proactive? Even though without litigation we know the catastrophic effects on human, fish and foul of carcinogens, mercury, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, lead, cadmium, arsenic being spewed every day by coal burning power plants?

It's REALLY ironic that people who claim they are all about freedom and liberty, and really all about freedom and liberty of polluters to exterminate people, and there is never a PEEP about everyone's absolute right to breath clean air, drink clean water and eat foods raised in healthy soil.

Do you want to explain why everybody exercising their property rights and suing polluters is somehow not proactive, or do you just want to continue pretending like no argument has been made at all?

 

[Contumacious]

So, you have no libertarian plan? No way of preventing pollution, nothing proactive? Even though without litigation we know the catastrophic effects on human, fish and foul of carcinogens, mercury, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, lead, cadmium, arsenic being spewed every day by coal burning power plants?

It's REALLY ironic that people who claim they are all about freedom and liberty, and really all about freedom and liberty of polluters to exterminate people, and there is never a PEEP about everyone's absolute right to breath clean air, drink clean water and eat foods raised in healthy soil.

Shit.

I had no fucking idea that the Libertarian Party changed its platform to support polluting the environment.

Show me.

.