There was the question of whether libertarianism applied to animals. I explained that it is a political philosophy, and as such (the word “politics” comes from the Greek [symbol]politika[/symbol]) applies only to people. It was then asked whether libertarianism would apply to any creatures, such as aliens, who have the same sentience as man. I said that it would. I was then asked what would happen in Libertaria if giant sentient squids who used to live on land were to arise from the ocean floor to reclaim their ancient property that was stolen from them. For that thread, it was a rather typical hypothetical.
Many libertarian think tanks, like the Cato Institute have addressed this matter thoroughly. The roads could work like the Autobahn, which Germany announced in 1993 that it was selling. They could be paid for by the users either with tolls or with yearly invoicings. They could be paid for by the businesses that they lead to. They could be paid for by corporations (although in Libertaria, they would not have the luxury of "limited liability). They could be paid for by local, regional, and national cooperatives, much as many utility companies (including the one that I get my own power from) do. And there are any number of other ways. See the link I gave you as a starting point for very many articles on this matter.
LNY is acting as a proxy (or agent) for Fred. In essence, it does whatever Fred would do himself were he capable. His beef (and his government’s) is with Stricker, not Sally. LNY is not exempt from ethics just because it is a government, anymore than Fred is. In fact, it represents the culmination of decent ethical behavior. LLA may rightfully demand that LNY make Sally whole, just as it may if Fred did the damage himself.
The libertarian government does not have “such little power”. In fact, its military might must of necessity be on par with any in the world. The powers that it lacks are legislative in nature. There is no Senator Fatcat to return a favor to Mr. Tycoon by writing a special law. That said, however, a libertarian government is as susceptible to corruption as any.
Guns.
Lordy. You think I’m tight now, you should have seen me before! Of course, if you’ll examine the dates, you’ll see that the MPSIMS thread came just when I decided no longer to bear the ridicule from Dewey. It dawned on me then that it just isn’t worth it. I think I explained the matter rather sufficiently in the linked thread.
For judgeships, sheriffs, and that sort of thing, the Republicans will be hurt. For tax collectors, auditors, treasurers and so on, the Democrats will be hurt. For president, it depends — the further right wing he is, the more it will hurt the Republicans, while the further left wing he is, the more it will hurt the Democrats.
Libertarians tend to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative.
Yes, I do. I think that Libertarian candidates come across as intellectual fops. They don’t communicate well either, otherwise you wouldn’t be thinking that they want to eliminate drunk driving laws.
A “moderate libertarian” who might appeal to you would likely be Ron Paul, the current Congressman from Texas, and former Libertarian Party candidate for president.
Lib,
at my monthly Birch meeting last night, the guy (there were only 3 there) gave me a pamphlet on Libertarianism.
He is sortof one, I think, unless i misunderstand.
They seem to be in agreement with your party, do you see anything to agree wtih them about?
Libertarian, thank you for your answers. I have a follow-up to #2:
You feel that guns will deter the majority from violating the rights of the minority. I’d be interested in hearing you explain the how and why of that.
And on a related note, what about people who have a religious or moral objection to carrying firearms? Or, for that matter, people who just don’t like guns? Would it be fair to say they’re essentially screwed in Libertarian society? It seems to me that in Libertaria, you either carry a gun or you live or die at the whim of your well-armed neighbors. Would I be employing fallacious logic if I said “I don’t want to live in Libertaria because if I did, I’d have to carry a gun”?
But why, exactly, is LNY liable to Sally or LLA? Neither LLA nor Sally are contracting parties to LNY. Why wouldn’t LNY simply say “we are only obligated to those in privity of contract with us, so get bent?”
You are banking on LNY (and its constituent citizens) to act ethically even though doing so is not in their self-interest. And that is a big problem with a pure libertarian state.
You miss the point. What you are effectively saying is that there will be no lighthouses in Libertopia.
Lighthouses are the quintessential public good (at least in the absence of new technology like GPS systems). They are set up for the benefit of the seafaring public. There is no way to collect on their use – the light is there, for all to see.
How do ships navigate at night in a pre-satellite era Libertopia?
You are given a mind at birth either by God or nature. It is yours to use. There is no natural or moral law that authorizes some other man to use it for you, and bend your will to his own. Your consent belongs to you.
I don’t know what you mean by private versus public coercion, but coercion is the initiation — initiation — of force or fraud. That is what you’re guaranteed freedom from. Defensive or retaliatory force, i.e. responsive force, is not coercive.
I’m not really sure what you mean by economic coercion, either. Do you mean something like, “I’ll offer you a million dollars for your wristwatch.”?
Of course, if you’ll examine the dates, you’ll see that the MPSIMS thread came just when I decided no longer to bear the ridicule from Dewey. It dawned on me then that it just isn’t worth it. I think I explained the matter rather sufficiently in the linked thread.