The question libertarians just can’t answer

[FA_Q2]

Of course, you never explain why the market can't take care of any of that. You merely state that it can't. Also, you only ever brought up police, and I did state that it would likely look a lot like private security agencies look now. That's not exactly difficult to conceive. Private fire departments already exist as well. They generally charge an annual or monthly fee to customers, and if somebody hasn't paid their fee prior to their house catching fire the department will put out the fire but charge them more for doing so. Limited resources are best "managed" by well-defined property rights, as any libertarian worth their salt should know. We also have widespread private courts, where two parties come together and mediate an issue rather than going through the public court system. This is big in the business world. Capturing criminals and coordination is easy, just put a reward up for their capture.

I would like to repeat, of course, that this is only speculation about how these things could operate. Unlike you, I don't pretend to be omniscient.

My choices are no idea and omniscience. Got it. To address the vague ones you brought up here.

"police, and I did state that it would likely look a lot like private security agencies look now"

- OK, on the Bonanza set, this makes sense. But in the real world when say inner city gangs with automatic weapons extort my neighbors and me, that we're going to end up doing this to this level is a bit lacking in scope to be a realistic defense. We're going to live in terror or we're going to be doing way more work than having a police force to manage it.

"Private fire departments already exist as well"

- While it's realistic in many places, it's not in cities. However, if fire departments were the only reason for government to exist, then I'd be OK doing away with it.

"Limited resources are best "managed" by well-defined property rights, as any libertarian worth their salt should know"

- Begging the question. The question is how there can be well-defined property rights when there is no general recognition of property rights. Different voluntary organizations recognize different boundaries, different water rights and other management of limited resources doesn't address how that works when they disagree.

"We also have widespread private courts, where two parties come together and mediate an issue rather than going through the public court system"

- On your Bonanza set fantasy world, sure. But if one person defrauds another person or destroys their property, Virginia, they aren't going to agree to arbitration. So what are you going to do?

"This is big in the business world. Capturing criminals and coordination is easy, just put a reward up for their capture."

This shows the childlike simplicity of the anarchist mind. Let's start with the most obvious. OK, so how does anyone know that bounties offered are for actual crimes? By that system, anyone could put a bounty on anyone for any reason. You're arguing well for why we DO need a government.

"Of course, you never explain why the market can't take care of any of that. You merely state that it can't"

- Actually I"m giving you the examples that I don't know how would be done, and asking you since your position is that we don't need government. That you're sitting there expecting me to prove your view explains the difficulty I'm having getting specfiics.

Inner city ghettos are a result of government interference in the first place. Allow these people to contract for real jobs without punishing them with minimum wage laws, or drug laws, and suddenly they have no reason to resort to violence. That said, there's no reason private security agencies, who have a profit motive to keep you and your property safe, would do any worse than police departments now, who don't have such a motive. Other than your little "Bonanza" quip, of course.

Here we go again. "Private fire departments aren't realistic in big cities." Why?

When there's a disagreement about property rights you go to the courts. Obviously.

It would be in everybody's interest to defend themselves in legitimate, reputable courts, lest they be branded criminals. Courts wouldn't require that you show up and defend yourself, but not doing so seems particularly foolhardy.

Responsible bounty hunters would only go through reputable bounty agencies. Otherwise they risk becoming criminals themselves.

No, you merely shoot down any explanation as not being "realistic" or as being "Bonanza" without explaining why they wouldn't work.

I don’t see where a private police force would be any better than the existing one. That type of service, the enforcement of the law, is right up the governments ally. It is exactly why the government exists. Same goes with private courts. That is a terrible example by the way as arbitration is corrupt as hell. Many companies require arbitration in their contracts because they KNOW that arbitration will go their way. That is not because they are in the right but because they have bought that service. A private police and court system would be no different than that with the biggest payer calling the shots. When it comes to the law, we must try as hard as possible to make it as blind as we can. That essentially requires a public system. One that is ran at the local lever preferably. I also do not see how they would perform any better. I don’t find that communal things like police are any violation of libertarian principals anyway. There is no reason that they are not run by the local governments as well.

I am confused by the view of all things public as an aberration. That is wrong in of itself. There are services that the government can and should provide. IF we set up a government that sticks with that principal and leave out the vague ‘general welfare’ crap then we can have a successful government.

As a side note: volunteer fire departments are a misnomer AFAIK. They are STILL publically funded. The fireman might not be paid but they still need to okay for the building, the trucks, maintenance and a host of equipment. There is no example of an actual fire department that is not currently dependent on government funds. If that is not the case, please link to one that has all volunteer force AND all donated equipment. The pay after model is also untenable. It is one of the problems that is faced in the medical world. If you do not turn people away, they are going to use the service and not pay for it. What do you do then? Go out of business.

 

[FA_Q2]

Same could be said then regarding healthcare.

I have to disagree here. Regulating the commons is a job for government. Healthcare isn't communal property. Air, water, etc... are, and as such it's within the bounds of properly limited government to regulate them.

'Regulate' is a 'dogshit' word for we libertarians, because it's usually used to advance a statist agenda, but there is a place for it. And pollution of the commons seems, to me, an appropriate application. I don't think it's reasonable or necessary to rely on civil suits to prevent abuse.

It might not seem reasonable or necessary, but if you want a limited govt (something we havent figured out how to do) then it is necessary.
It's always used to further the State apparatus. It always starts out as just a little bit at first. Then tghe next thing you know you have the EPA, FDA, CDA, CDC, etc..etc...etc...

Only in tyhe world where the state can be effectively limited is this workable, and it's been proven it can not be limited. Therefore, it's absurd to grant these powers to government. We'd have to let them regulate commerce, environment, healthcare, etc..etc..etc..

And pollution of the commons is very arbitrarily decided. So it's ripe for abuse from the get go.

That is a misnomer though TASB. ALL governments degrade no matter how well you set it up. Libertarian government is going to be no different. Just because they are going to go astray at some point does not mean that you cannot set up a basic regulatory structure for those things that need to be regulated and put strict controls in place to ensure that your freedoms last as long as possible. Then, you add a system that allows the people te reign government back in if needed easily and you might have a system that stands to last awhile.

You cannot throw an entire concept out just because governments like to abuse them though. That is like reinventing the wheel and making it a square. Simply not effective and more destructive than what you started with.

Put in place REAL and STRICT safeguards and it can work.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I am confused by the view of all things public as an aberration. That is wrong in of itself. There are services that the government can and should provide. IF we set up a government that sticks with that principal and leave out the vague ‘general welfare’ crap then we can have a successful government.

Govt. will always look to expand its power. If not, the constitution would have actually worked. I didn't. It's the same argument as "if we only had a more efficient govt" line you here from peopel that advocate regulatory agencies and see their failures and say "we just need to do it better..."

It's not going to happen. Ever. You can not contain power when you give it government. The best you can do is absolutely and staunchly hold them to specific and well defined roles and never deviate from them.

As for public police not being in violation of libertarian principles, the only way that works is if funding is completely voluntary. Otherwise the act of theft for funding is against the NAP.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I have to disagree here. Regulating the commons is a job for government. Healthcare isn't communal property. Air, water, etc... are, and as such it's within the bounds of properly limited government to regulate them.

'Regulate' is a 'dogshit' word for we libertarians, because it's usually used to advance a statist agenda, but there is a place for it. And pollution of the commons seems, to me, an appropriate application. I don't think it's reasonable or necessary to rely on civil suits to prevent abuse.

It might not seem reasonable or necessary, but if you want a limited govt (something we havent figured out how to do) then it is necessary.
It's always used to further the State apparatus. It always starts out as just a little bit at first. Then tghe next thing you know you have the EPA, FDA, CDA, CDC, etc..etc...etc...

Only in tyhe world where the state can be effectively limited is this workable, and it's been proven it can not be limited. Therefore, it's absurd to grant these powers to government. We'd have to let them regulate commerce, environment, healthcare, etc..etc..etc..

And pollution of the commons is very arbitrarily decided. So it's ripe for abuse from the get go.

That is a misnomer though TASB. ALL governments degrade no matter how well you set it up. Libertarian government is going to be no different. Just because they are going to go astray at some point does not mean that you cannot set up a basic regulatory structure for those things that need to be regulated and put strict controls in place to ensure that your freedoms last as long as possible. Then, you add a system that allows the people te reign government back in if needed easily and you might have a system that stands to last awhile.

You cannot throw an entire concept out just because governments like to abuse them though. That is like reinventing the wheel and making it a square. Simply not effective and more destructive than what you started with.

Put in place REAL and STRICT safeguards and it can work.

I know. That's why if we're talking government, Im libertarian, if we're talking society, I'm a full blown anarcho-capitalist. Government and the State haev proven to be failures and yet, we just keep trying. The real failure is the idea of government in total. it will always corrupt because power corrupts and with that goes the rights we tried to secure.
The entire notion is a failure.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

My choices are no idea and omniscience. Got it. To address the vague ones you brought up here.

"police, and I did state that it would likely look a lot like private security agencies look now"

- OK, on the Bonanza set, this makes sense. But in the real world when say inner city gangs with automatic weapons extort my neighbors and me, that we're going to end up doing this to this level is a bit lacking in scope to be a realistic defense. We're going to live in terror or we're going to be doing way more work than having a police force to manage it.

"Private fire departments already exist as well"

- While it's realistic in many places, it's not in cities. However, if fire departments were the only reason for government to exist, then I'd be OK doing away with it.

"Limited resources are best "managed" by well-defined property rights, as any libertarian worth their salt should know"

- Begging the question. The question is how there can be well-defined property rights when there is no general recognition of property rights. Different voluntary organizations recognize different boundaries, different water rights and other management of limited resources doesn't address how that works when they disagree.

"We also have widespread private courts, where two parties come together and mediate an issue rather than going through the public court system"

- On your Bonanza set fantasy world, sure. But if one person defrauds another person or destroys their property, Virginia, they aren't going to agree to arbitration. So what are you going to do?

"This is big in the business world. Capturing criminals and coordination is easy, just put a reward up for their capture."

This shows the childlike simplicity of the anarchist mind. Let's start with the most obvious. OK, so how does anyone know that bounties offered are for actual crimes? By that system, anyone could put a bounty on anyone for any reason. You're arguing well for why we DO need a government.

"Of course, you never explain why the market can't take care of any of that. You merely state that it can't"

- Actually I"m giving you the examples that I don't know how would be done, and asking you since your position is that we don't need government. That you're sitting there expecting me to prove your view explains the difficulty I'm having getting specfiics.

Inner city ghettos are a result of government interference in the first place. Allow these people to contract for real jobs without punishing them with minimum wage laws, or drug laws, and suddenly they have no reason to resort to violence. That said, there's no reason private security agencies, who have a profit motive to keep you and your property safe, would do any worse than police departments now, who don't have such a motive. Other than your little "Bonanza" quip, of course.

Here we go again. "Private fire departments aren't realistic in big cities." Why?

When there's a disagreement about property rights you go to the courts. Obviously.

It would be in everybody's interest to defend themselves in legitimate, reputable courts, lest they be branded criminals. Courts wouldn't require that you show up and defend yourself, but not doing so seems particularly foolhardy.

Responsible bounty hunters would only go through reputable bounty agencies. Otherwise they risk becoming criminals themselves.

No, you merely shoot down any explanation as not being "realistic" or as being "Bonanza" without explaining why they wouldn't work.

I don’t see where a private police force would be any better than the existing one. That type of service, the enforcement of the law, is right up the governments ally. It is exactly why the government exists. Same goes with private courts. That is a terrible example by the way as arbitration is corrupt as hell. Many companies require arbitration in their contracts because they KNOW that arbitration will go their way. That is not because they are in the right but because they have bought that service. A private police and court system would be no different than that with the biggest payer calling the shots. When it comes to the law, we must try as hard as possible to make it as blind as we can. That essentially requires a public system. One that is ran at the local lever preferably. I also do not see how they would perform any better. I don’t find that communal things like police are any violation of libertarian principals anyway. There is no reason that they are not run by the local governments as well.

I am confused by the view of all things public as an aberration. That is wrong in of itself. There are services that the government can and should provide. IF we set up a government that sticks with that principal and leave out the vague ‘general welfare’ crap then we can have a successful government.

As a side note: volunteer fire departments are a misnomer AFAIK. They are STILL publically funded. The fireman might not be paid but they still need to okay for the building, the trucks, maintenance and a host of equipment. There is no example of an actual fire department that is not currently dependent on government funds. If that is not the case, please link to one that has all volunteer force AND all donated equipment. The pay after model is also untenable. It is one of the problems that is faced in the medical world. If you do not turn people away, they are going to use the service and not pay for it. What do you do then? Go out of business.

A private police force would be better because it would have the profit motive to incentivize it to do a good job. Public police forces have no such incentive, and thus can essentially get away with doing whatever they want. That's why there is so much police abuse.

I'm not referring to volunteer fire departments, I'm referring to actual private for profit fire departments.

Rural/Metro Fire Department is a private company providing high-quality, cost-effective fire service. Rural/Metro Fire Department is not funded by tax dollars. We are a subscription based fire department supported through annual fees by a yearly membership.

https://www.ruralmetrofire.com/

 

[kaz]

You don't have to, but if you leave my name in the quotes it'll be easier to see you replied. Else I might miss it.

Someone dumping their raw sewage in my water or blowing their smoke onto my property IS infringing on my rights.

Someone owning a gun isn't. Someone shooting a gun and it and hitting my cow is. Therefore, the apples to apples comparison is they are responsible for shooting my cow is where they infringed on my rights and what they should be accountable for.

Apples to oranges. Obviously pouring sewage in teh water is an infringement of your rights. Obviously having sewage is not infringing on your rights. That's the whoel point, dude. Shoud the government tell Dick how to deal with his sewage? Should there be an enforcement team that comes by and makes sure Dick is following procedure with the sewage, or is it a matter of arbitration IF Dick is found dumping in the water, then you take dick to court.[/color]

In the red above, correct. Again, the original question was to libertarians, so that's the standard I'm discussing. No one said anything about regulating sewage on their property. If it's not seeping on my property, and I don't see it or smell it and in no way is it affecting me, it's not my business. It's when it DOES affect me it becomes actionable, just like having a gun versus shooting my cow. It's when it affects me it becomes actionable.

Same applies with the gun. Owning one is not an infringement of your right. Same with sewage. Shooting one off where your property has been damaged is an infringement and therefore, the courts arbitrate as such and enforce the outcome of the proceedings.

This is based on your misunderstanding I was advocating pre-emptive sewage action.

No, it's not. That something could be used to infringe on my rights is an entirely different argument that could be applied to anything, and is meaningless. A book can be used to infringe on my rights. You've taken a clear standard and turned it into a murky one. There is no comparison.

That's the point. You're the one not being consistent here. Yes, a book, like sewage, could infringe on your rights. Thats why we have courts to make determinations who is liable and at what cost they are liable. The only difference you're arguing here is that you think govt should regulate the use of land to pre-emptively curtail any POTENTIAL infringement, while the same standard isnt applied to guns or books.

Ding, ding, ding, this is the apples to apples standard. In the pollution, they were not accountable for the potential to infringe on my rights, they were responsible for infringing on my rights.

Yet, you said it's the govt job to regulate pollution. So which is it. Do you want them to arbitrate the act of infringing or to pre-emptively regulate so that we may curtail a potential infringement. You're the one not being clear here.

I don't believe I used the word "regulate." Not technically wrong, but the connotation is how you interpret it. But the laws I would not say what they can or can't do, it would be regarding what they can put in public air, public water, the smell they can generate leaving their property, that sort of thing. So for example, I would say the smell of burning rubber from a neighbor's property cannot exceed a certain level. They could accomplish that by not burning rubber, or by having a system that contains the smell. As long as it doesn't affect others, it's not a job for government.

 

[kaz]

Same could be said then regarding healthcare.

I have to disagree here. Regulating the commons is a job for government. Healthcare isn't communal property. Air, water, etc... are, and as such it's within the bounds of properly limited government to regulate them.

'Regulate' is a 'dogshit' word for we libertarians, because it's usually used to advance a statist agenda, but there is a place for it. And pollution of the commons seems, to me, an appropriate application. I don't think it's reasonable or necessary to rely on civil suits to prevent abuse.

Healthcare costs are certainly communal, when people without insurance go to emergency rooms for minor ailments.

Here's another game to play, here's another thing to say. Argument of the left. We need to give you one liberal solution because you painted yourself in the corner with another and it's our job to let you off the hook.

You want the death tax, but gay couples shouldn't have to pay it, ergo we have to give you gay marriage.

You want free access to America for illegal aliens, so we need to give you a higher minimum wage because they are driving down wages.

You want to force medical facilities to treat anyone, including illegal aliens and people who can't pay, so we need to give you socialized medicine.

Actually, we don't...

 

[dblack]

I have to disagree here. Regulating the commons is a job for government. Healthcare isn't communal property. Air, water, etc... are, and as such it's within the bounds of properly limited government to regulate them.

'Regulate' is a 'dogshit' word for we libertarians, because it's usually used to advance a statist agenda, but there is a place for it. And pollution of the commons seems, to me, an appropriate application. I don't think it's reasonable or necessary to rely on civil suits to prevent abuse.

Healthcare costs are certainly communal, when people without insurance go to emergency rooms for minor ailments.

Thanks for bringing in the LOLberal argument for me. See, dblack? This is why the line has to be extremely clear upon which powers belong to the government over the individual. If not, it quickly turns into these types of arguments about communal property. Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

People like synth here, can sway the average 90 or less IQ citizen to see that as rational and therefore, get govt. involved in regulating or downright taking over things such as healthcare.

Yeah... I hear you. But I don't know that it really helps to let the nitwits push us into radical arguments we can't defend. Taking up extreme positions only alienates people who might otherwise join our cause. I've seen this pattern soooo many times in my work with the Libertarian party. We shoot ourselves in the foot by responding to the idiots, or the unscrupulous authoritarians, instead of reaching out to people who are otherwise intelligent, but are justifiably reticent to accept radical solutions at face value.

 

[flacaltenn]

Wikipedia is usually up to date on people.

Donald Leon "Don" Blankenship (born March 14, 1950) was Chairman and CEO of Massey Energy Co., the sixth largest coal company (by 2008 production) in the United States He served in those roles from November 30, 2000, until December 31, 2010.

Blankenship is an active financial backer of the Republican party and participant in local and state politics, especially in his home state of West Virginia. He has frequently spoken out publicly about politics, the environment, unions, and coal production.

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings show Blankenship was paid $17.8 million in 2009, the highest in the coal industry. His 2009 pay represents a $6.8 million raise over 2008 and almost double his compensation package in 2007. Blankenship also received a deferred compensation package valued at $27.2 million in 2009.

On December 3, 2010, Blankenship announced that he was retiring as CEO at the end of the year, and would be succeeded by Massey President Baxter F. Phillips Jr.

Upper Big Branch Explosion

On April 5, 2010, an explosion at Massey's Upper Big Branch mine killed 29 miners. It was the worst U.S. coal mining disaster since 1970, when an explosion killed 38 in Hyden, Kentucky. In 2006, a fatal accident at Aracoma Alma (also owned by Massey Coal Co.) was one of the explosions prompting Congress to upgrade federal mine safety laws for the first time since 1977. As Blankenship came under increased scrutiny, a Business Week article said that he had a reputation for resistance to spending money, willingness to litigate, and personally going into mines to persuade workers to abandon union organizing efforts. On April 12, New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli, the sole trustee of the New York State Common Retirement Fund which holds 303,550 shares of Massey stock worth about $14.1 million, called for Blankenship to resign immediately. "Massey's cavalier attitude toward risk and callous disregard for the safety of its employees has exacted a horrible cost on dozens of hard-working miners and their loved ones," DiNapoli said in a public statement reported by Reuters and others. "This tragedy was a failure both of risk management and effective board oversight. Blankenship must step down and make room for more responsible leadership at Massey." On April 22, Massey Energy's lead independent director Bobby R. Inman announced that "Blankenship has the full support and confidence of the Massey Energy Board of Directors." On April 25, President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, and state officials paid tribute to the 29 coal miners at a memorial service in Beckley, WV.

The former superintendent of a U.S. mine at the time of explosion at Massey's Upper Big Branch mine pleaded guilty Thursday March 29, 2011 to a federal fraud charge. "Prosecutors said May manipulated the ventilation system during inspections of the Upper Big Branch mine to fool safety officials and disabled a methane monitor on a cutting machine a few months before the explosion on April 5, 2010.... ...Prosecutors have refused to say whether they are targeting former Massey CEO Don Blankenship, whose company was cited for violations so frequently that union critics accused him of regarding fines as simply the cost of doing business....

In March 2013, at a plea hearing in a federal court, Blankenship was directly implicated in conspiring to skirt safety regulations. A former Massey Energy official accused Blankenship for conspiring and plotting to hide safety violations from federal safety inspectors. The implication was that Blankenship would order his officials to warn mine operators when the federal inspectors were coming for "surprise" visits, and to quickly cover up any safety violations.

What? THIS isn't good enough for you? The HEAD of the subsidiary going to jail??

Guilty Plea in Case Tied to Massey Mine Blast - WSJ.com

Make ya a deal.. When I see POTUS getting tied to ANY of the direlection of duty scandals that we're seeing now and he apologizes or faces sanctions --- I'll reconsider going all the way to the top in the Massey case..

I guess I'm hearing that your "bar" for bad bureaucratic behaviour is taking bribes. Mere shitty performance, lack of motivation to excel, and inattention to the big safety picture, is just OK with you.. Dead miners shouldn't cause any shake-up or wake-up back in the office of MINE SAFETY.. Should it??

Here's a libertarian tale for you.. Elevator CRASHES.. 2 killed... Found excessive wear on the cables and emergency brakes.. Whose heads are gonna roll? The inspector who works for the CITY and has HIS NAME INSIDE THE DAMN car? Or the manufacturer??

Who would you rather trust INSPECT that car? The City guy with no consequences if things go wrong? Or some independent private agency that will be working out of a Starbucks after the lawsuits??

That's a real softball for you Comrade..

I already said: "If inspectors took bribes they should be prosecuted"

And your 'bar' is for the President of the United States to publicly apologize for phony charges created by right wing partisan hacks? Shouldn't we set the bar at REAL POTUS crimes, like war crimes and torture? Or crimes like this?

Ex-Bush Official Willing to Testify Bush, Cheney Knew Gitmo Prisoners Innocent

Did you READ any of the charges you posted, or the charges being made against Massey and Don Blankenship?

"Prosecutors said May manipulated the ventilation system during inspections of the Upper Big Branch mine to fool safety officials and disabled a methane monitor on a cutting machine a few months before the explosion on April 5, 2010.... ...Prosecutors have refused to say whether they are targeting former Massey CEO Don Blankenship, whose company was cited for violations so frequently that union critics accused him of regarding fines as simply the cost of doing business....

In March 2013, at a plea hearing in a federal court, Blankenship was directly implicated in conspiring to skirt safety regulations. A former Massey Energy official accused Blankenship for conspiring and plotting to hide safety violations from federal safety inspectors. The implication was that Blankenship would order his officials to warn mine operators when the federal inspectors were coming for "surprise" visits, and to quickly cover up any safety violations.

OR how about having Darrell Issa investigate into how the Bush administration castrated the Clean Water Act to allow Massey and other corporate thugs to dump waste and garbage into our waterways.

Or if bribes went on here?

Peabody Coal and Massey Coal, which had given millions of dollars to the Bush White House, met in the White House, and the White House rewrote one word of the Clean Water Act. Their new definition of the word fill changed 30 years of statutory interpretation to make it legal today in every state in the United States to dump rock, debris, rubble, construction, garbage, any kind of solid waste into any waterway without a Clean Water Act permit. All you need is a rubber-stamp permit from the Corps of Engineers that, in many cases, you can get through the mail. It has none of the safeguards that the Clean Water Act provides. This is not just a battle to save the environment. This is the subversion of our democracy.

Bush Administration Approves Most Damaging Change to Clean Water Act in Decades

Comrade? REALLY?

That is really funny, and ironic. I and other liberals are the ones who want to restore free-market capitalism in America by forcing actors in the marketplace to pay the true cost of bringing their product to market.

You are the one defending polluters AGAIN. What Massey Coal and all polluters do is use political clout to escape the discipline of the free market and to force the public to pay their costs.

Comrade? REALLY?

Why is it if we follow liberal ideas we get free market capitalism and a clean environment. And if we follow your right wing regressive 'libertarian' ideas we would get an environmental landscape that would look identical to the environmental catastrophe that was called the Soviet Union?

Explain THAT, Comrade?

OK comrade... You are the epitome of a Free-Market Capitalist Libertarian.. And you harbor NO anti-corporate bias on every issue.. And you ACCEPT science and Legal proceedings more than you own personal biases and stereotypes.

How could I not LOVE you???

BTW: I defended NOTHING about what the tobacco industry DID in the 50s and 60s.. I merely questioned the SCIENCE and rigorousness of the propaganda used to push smokers to the margins. AND I pointed out to you that --- all the time the tobacco companiies were "misbehaving" and "lying" about smoking ----- that DOCTORS were still prescribing cigarettes to asthmatics.. And you didn't hate the doctors did ya? You really need to STOP READING and START THINKING...

 

[flacaltenn]

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..

But there can be and is an enforcement clause. As Oddball emphasized earlier today, a contract is a legally binding document. There is no point in social contract unless it is legally binding on those who enter into it. But again social contract, by libertarian standards, is organizing and cooperating for MUTUAL benefit. For instance a volunteer fire department that benefits all, rich and poor alike.

The social contract I am speaking of has nothing to do with welfare mothers whether ring nosed or tattooed or not. Social contract does not coerce any citizen for the benefit of another. It is a mutual agreement for the benefit of all. Anyhow, coercive welfare is abhorrent to libertarianism and violates everything it stands for.

FoxFyre:

I know YOU aren't doing it. You presented a couple very libertarian arguments for "a social contract".. Like volunteer fire..

BUT -- Almost every time I've had Social Contract shoved in my face, it's from some leftist trying to ENROLL ME into some HUGE govt altruism program.. You gotta admit --- to THEM it IS about welfare moms and NOT volunteer fire and private welfare orgs. Johnny fails in school not because his teacher is underpaid --- but because his crack mom won't sign his report card or show up for PTA night. I don't WANT to COERCE a contract with her.

But if I wanted an excuse to have the GOvt play saint --- I'd require that the crack mom keep her kids in school til HS graduation --- or face losing welfare.. THAT'S a social contract.

 

[Ravi]

That means that, as of now, I have no choice but to pay taxes for these roads.

Who is forcing you to live in the community?

I own my property, so why should I be forced out of the community?

Did someone force you to buy the property in that particular community?

 

[Foxfyre]

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..

But there can be and is an enforcement clause. As Oddball emphasized earlier today, a contract is a legally binding document. There is no point in social contract unless it is legally binding on those who enter into it. But again social contract, by libertarian standards, is organizing and cooperating for MUTUAL benefit. For instance a volunteer fire department that benefits all, rich and poor alike.

The social contract I am speaking of has nothing to do with welfare mothers whether ring nosed or tattooed or not. Social contract does not coerce any citizen for the benefit of another. It is a mutual agreement for the benefit of all. Anyhow, coercive welfare is abhorrent to libertarianism and violates everything it stands for.

FoxFyre:

I know YOU aren't doing it. You presented a couple very libertarian arguments for "a social contract".. Like volunteer fire..

BUT -- Almost every time I've had Social Contract shoved in my face, it's from some leftist trying to ENROLL ME into some HUGE govt altruism program.. You gotta admit --- to THEM it IS about welfare moms and NOT volunteer fire and private welfare orgs. Johnny fails in school not because his teacher is underpaid --- but because his crack mom won't sign his report card or show up for PTA night. I don't WANT to COERCE a contract with her.

But if I wanted an excuse to have the GOvt play saint --- I'd require that the crack mom keep her kids in school til HS graduation --- or face losing welfare.. THAT'S a social contract.

Yes, I think you and some other get it though your closing analogy is flawed here..

Social contract is NOT taking property or rights from one citizen in order to benefit another. Social contract is a MUTUAL agreement for MUTUAL benefit. Any time one group of people will benefit while others do not but are required to shoulder the burden, it is not social contract but is moving into the area of marxist or facist totalitarianism.

There is a way to dispense benevolence via social contract. Many a not-for-profit organization is a social contract of individuals who formally band together for the purpose of dispensing benevolence. But, unless they solicit government funding, they coerce nobody. Once they start taking tax money to operate, however, it is no longer social contract but coercive theft.

I objected to President Bush's faith based initiatives on that principle. If the government was going to dispense the money anyway, it made sense to do it through organizations that already had staff and infrastructure in place. But doing it at all was, in my libertarian mind, an illegal use of the taxpayer monies.

But back to local benevolence, another example of social contract was in a Kansas town in which a number of us were working for private agencies who were being inundated with the same people going from place to place milking the system. And so many of these were doing so unethically we held a meeting to see what we could do about it. And we came to an agreement that we would each help support and staff a central clearing house where people could go for food, gas, cash or whatever provided they would identify themselves, sign up for the relief, and be willing to be checked out for need, etc. The city gave us a vacant space they weren't using and the police agreed to do the background checks. Worked like a charm. Before long it was only the truly needy who were receiving our limited resources. That is social contract at its best.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Social contract is a MUTUAL agreement for MUTUAL benefit.

Is it voluntary?

 

[Synthaholic]

I have to disagree here. Regulating the commons is a job for government. Healthcare isn't communal property. Air, water, etc... are, and as such it's within the bounds of properly limited government to regulate them.

'Regulate' is a 'dogshit' word for we libertarians, because it's usually used to advance a statist agenda, but there is a place for it. And pollution of the commons seems, to me, an appropriate application. I don't think it's reasonable or necessary to rely on civil suits to prevent abuse.

Healthcare costs are certainly communal, when people without insurance go to emergency rooms for minor ailments.

Thanks for bringing in the LOLberal argument for me. See, dblack? This is why the line has to be extremely clear upon which powers belong to the government over the individual. If not, it quickly turns into these types of arguments about communal property. Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

People like synth here, can sway the average 90 or less IQ citizen to see that as rational and therefore, get govt. involved in regulating or downright taking over things such as healthcare.

Why should I pay for someone's ER visit? Why should you?

Personal responsibility. I know it's a foreign concept to you wingnuts.

 

[flacaltenn]

But there can be and is an enforcement clause. As Oddball emphasized earlier today, a contract is a legally binding document. There is no point in social contract unless it is legally binding on those who enter into it. But again social contract, by libertarian standards, is organizing and cooperating for MUTUAL benefit. For instance a volunteer fire department that benefits all, rich and poor alike.

The social contract I am speaking of has nothing to do with welfare mothers whether ring nosed or tattooed or not. Social contract does not coerce any citizen for the benefit of another. It is a mutual agreement for the benefit of all. Anyhow, coercive welfare is abhorrent to libertarianism and violates everything it stands for.

FoxFyre:

I know YOU aren't doing it. You presented a couple very libertarian arguments for "a social contract".. Like volunteer fire..

BUT -- Almost every time I've had Social Contract shoved in my face, it's from some leftist trying to ENROLL ME into some HUGE govt altruism program.. You gotta admit --- to THEM it IS about welfare moms and NOT volunteer fire and private welfare orgs. Johnny fails in school not because his teacher is underpaid --- but because his crack mom won't sign his report card or show up for PTA night. I don't WANT to COERCE a contract with her.

But if I wanted an excuse to have the GOvt play saint --- I'd require that the crack mom keep her kids in school til HS graduation --- or face losing welfare.. THAT'S a social contract.

Yes, I think you and some other get it though your closing analogy is flawed here..

Social contract is NOT taking property or rights from one citizen in order to benefit another. Social contract is a MUTUAL agreement for MUTUAL benefit. Any time one group of people will benefit while others do not but are required to shoulder the burden, it is not social contract but is moving into the area of marxist or facist totalitarianism.

There is a way to dispense benevolence via social contract. Many a not-for-profit organization is a social contract of individuals who formally band together for the purpose of dispensing benevolence. But, unless they solicit government funding, they coerce nobody. Once they start taking tax money to operate, however, it is no longer social contract but coercive theft.

I objected to President Bush's faith based initiatives on that principle. If the government was going to dispense the money anyway, it made sense to do it through organizations that already had staff and infrastructure in place. But doing it at all was, in my libertarian mind, an illegal use of the taxpayer monies.

But back to local benevolence, another example of social contract was in a Kansas town in which a number of us were working for private agencies who were being inundated with the same people going from place to place milking the system. And so many of these were doing so unethically we held a meeting to see what we could do about it. And we came to an agreement that we would each help support and staff a central clearing house where people could go for food, gas, cash or whatever provided they would identify themselves, sign up for the relief, and be willing to be checked out for need, etc. The city gave us a vacant space they weren't using and the police agreed to do the background checks. Worked like a charm. Before long it was only the truly needy who were receiving our limited resources. That is social contract at its best.

All that is well and good with me as long as:

1) Nobody attempts to pass a phoney contract based on charity or altruism. ESPECIALLY when the govt is involved.

2) The social contract doesn't violate the principles of paying for common services.

3) I don't have to go to intermittable meetings to defend my part of the contract and the scope is generally accepted and patently obvious..

I actually didn't support Faith based initiatives, but my heart did. Because I know that local PERSONAL help is the most valuable altruistic currency.. What Bush NEEDED to do -- was to help CREATION of new local programs, not fund existing ones. And even that -- stretches my libertarian spine to pain..

BTW: Gore also supported them. And made some bible thumping statements that most of his party animals would find "primatively religious".

 

[TakeAStepBack]

You're in the wrong wing of the ward, synth. This one is for people looking to discuss the topic of personal responsibility, private property and self ownership. Down the hall to the left, is the room for immature grown ups that need daddy govt. to take care of them.


Down the hall to the left.

 

[Foxfyre]

FoxFyre:

I know YOU aren't doing it. You presented a couple very libertarian arguments for "a social contract".. Like volunteer fire..

BUT -- Almost every time I've had Social Contract shoved in my face, it's from some leftist trying to ENROLL ME into some HUGE govt altruism program.. You gotta admit --- to THEM it IS about welfare moms and NOT volunteer fire and private welfare orgs. Johnny fails in school not because his teacher is underpaid --- but because his crack mom won't sign his report card or show up for PTA night. I don't WANT to COERCE a contract with her.

But if I wanted an excuse to have the GOvt play saint --- I'd require that the crack mom keep her kids in school til HS graduation --- or face losing welfare.. THAT'S a social contract.

Yes, I think you and some other get it though your closing analogy is flawed here..

Social contract is NOT taking property or rights from one citizen in order to benefit another. Social contract is a MUTUAL agreement for MUTUAL benefit. Any time one group of people will benefit while others do not but are required to shoulder the burden, it is not social contract but is moving into the area of marxist or facist totalitarianism.

There is a way to dispense benevolence via social contract. Many a not-for-profit organization is a social contract of individuals who formally band together for the purpose of dispensing benevolence. But, unless they solicit government funding, they coerce nobody. Once they start taking tax money to operate, however, it is no longer social contract but coercive theft.

I objected to President Bush's faith based initiatives on that principle. If the government was going to dispense the money anyway, it made sense to do it through organizations that already had staff and infrastructure in place. But doing it at all was, in my libertarian mind, an illegal use of the taxpayer monies.

But back to local benevolence, another example of social contract was in a Kansas town in which a number of us were working for private agencies who were being inundated with the same people going from place to place milking the system. And so many of these were doing so unethically we held a meeting to see what we could do about it. And we came to an agreement that we would each help support and staff a central clearing house where people could go for food, gas, cash or whatever provided they would identify themselves, sign up for the relief, and be willing to be checked out for need, etc. The city gave us a vacant space they weren't using and the police agreed to do the background checks. Worked like a charm. Before long it was only the truly needy who were receiving our limited resources. That is social contract at its best.

All that is well and good with me as long as:

1) Nobody attempts to pass a phoney contract based on charity or altruism. ESPECIALLY when the govt is involved.

2) The social contract doesn't violate the principles of paying for common services.

3) I don't have to go to intermittable meetings to defend my part of the contract and the scope is generally accepted and patently obvious..

I actually didn't support Faith based initiatives, but my heart did. Because I know that local PERSONAL help is the most valuable altruistic currency.. What Bush NEEDED to do -- was to help CREATION of new local programs, not fund existing ones. And even that -- stretches my libertarian spine to pain..

BTW: Gore also supported them. And made some bible thumping statements that most of his party animals would find "primatively religious".

I understand your heart being with the faith based programs--as I said, if the government was going to distribute the money that way anyway, it made sense going through existing infrastructure and staff. I disagree that the federal government should have set up even more agencies to do that though. The libertarian view is that charity begins at home and a moral society does take care of the truly helpless. But in order to respect unalienable rights, charity must always be voluntary or via social contract, and never the government confiscating wealth from one person and giving it to another.

Each time ballot initiatives to support city run homeless shelters comes up, I always vote yes. But I can justify that because the money comes out of the sales taxes and fees that we pay rather than extracted from our income. So theoretically nobody has to pay the sales taxes if they don't buy anything. And when you get out there and look, the city does a much poorer and less compassionate job of it than do the private charities, thrift shops, soup kitchens, and homeless shelters. And those get a large chunk of my charitable giving.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Who is forcing you to live in the community?

I own my property, so why should I be forced out of the community?

Did someone force you to buy the property in that particular community?

If your neighbor dumped his trash on your lawn would you say, "Well, nobody forced me to live here"? Of course not. The fact that it's my property means that I shouldn't be forced to vacate just because a group of my neighbors want to force me to pay for stuff that they want.

 

[Foxfyre]

I own my property, so why should I be forced out of the community?

Did someone force you to buy the property in that particular community?

If your neighbor dumped his trash on your lawn would you say, "Well, nobody forced me to live here"? Of course not. The fact that it's my property means that I shouldn't be forced to vacate just because a group of my neighbors want to force me to pay for stuff that they want.

But does your right to your property allow you to lower the property value and quality of life for your neighbors?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Did someone force you to buy the property in that particular community?

If your neighbor dumped his trash on your lawn would you say, "Well, nobody forced me to live here"? Of course not. The fact that it's my property means that I shouldn't be forced to vacate just because a group of my neighbors want to force me to pay for stuff that they want.

But does your right to your property allow you to lower the property value and quality of life for your neighbors?

Personally, I think one house determining the value of the houses adjacent to it is a flawed real estate practice. What's wrong with the real value of the house? Your car isn't priced by the cars you drive past on the highway, is it? See what I'm getting at?