For the record, I am not a member of the Libertarian Party. I once was, until I discovered that it was infested with statists.
Well, that’s a problem with any state, so I don’t know why you would single out libertarianism to count it as a strike against. Nothing can guarantee that a government will act ethically. The only thing that helps in this case is that its governed will see its unethical behavior and may respond by withholding their consent to renew its governorship, and giving consent to a competing government that, in their view, is more likely to effect their safety and happiness.
Yes, but that doesn’t answer my question.
I know a man right now who would build a lighthouse if he could because he loves them. Unfortunately, he gave up the attempt after encountering a labyrinth of conflicting regulations and jurisdictions.
But love is not the only motivation. The owner of a dock or harbor might have good reason to offer a lighthouse, since if he failed to while his competitor offered one, he would feel the economic crunch.
I don’t know enough about the Birch Party to answer your question. I can tell you what libertarian principles are, and then hopefully you can answer it yourself. Libertarianism is, by definition, opposition to the initiation of force or fraud. Is that a principle that the Birch Party embraces?
We believe that a republic is the best form of government, and thats what it was intended to be in America.
Less government, the better.
Check out the website.
Then I would say that the principles are not the same, but not necessarily incompatible.
Libertarianism is not a form of government, but rather an ethical context in which a government operates. A libertarian government can be a democracy, a republic, a monarchy — whatever, just so long as it suppresses coercion. A libertarian government may even be communist, so long as all are volunteers.
But why would the citizens of LNY withhold their consent? After all, LNY is looking out for their interests. LNY is “effect[ing] their safety and happiness.” Why should the citizens of LNY give a rip about the citizens of LLA?
A well-functioning government does not depend on the ideological purity of its citizens to operate. The beauty of western-style constitutional democracy is that it establshes a good framework that endures even if some group of short-sighted citizens decides they don’t want to “renew” that governorship.
Irrelevant. It may be the case that there is too much bureacracy in building regulation. It may be the case that all such regulations should be scrapped. It does not, however, have any bearing on the question posed: how do ships navigate in pre-satellite Libertopia?**
Good thing. Can we stipulate that the number of lighthouse lovers willing to build them pro bono (and who have the resources to staff and maintain them) is insufficient to meet the coastal navigation needs of the shipping community? I don’t think that is a farfetched assumption to make. Lighthouses aren’t Linux, after all. **
Of course, if his competitor offered one (and assuming they are reasonably close to one another – a fair assumption if both harbors are competing for the same set of shippers), he can sponge off his competitor’s capital investment. Hardly an incentive for either party to build a lighthouse.
Plus, lighthouses aren’t just used at harbors. They are also built on points and other places where coastal navigation would be dangerous at night without a visual reference. Where do these lighthouses come from in Libertopia?
Libertarian, ever read “A Market for Liberty” by Morris and Linda Tanahill? It was out of print for a while but came back. It details every aspect of how a completely libertarian society would work, including national defense. I was once a pretty hardcore “compassionate” Libertarian but have since waned. A market has to exist for it to be efficient and the infrastructure for some markets can be built quicker by a public sector. However, it’s often a good move to privatize what has been built by the public sector. Whoops, gotta go. More later.
So what was the answer?
you use that arguement alot, do you belive it? whenever anyone come up with a “what if (someone did something greedy)” you answer that someone would fix it out of charity?
do you REALLY think the idea of a government where some problems can only be solved if someone happens to be local and charitable is a good idea?
Here’s a pair:
Why don’t you yourself (and many other libertarians) actually embrace the principle of non-initiation of force which you keep saying would create a utopia? (For example, would Libertaria do anything to me if a citizen/contractee of Libertaria was accidentally injured while initiating force against me? What if I used responsive force against a citizen/contractee of Libertaria who initiated force against me and Libertaria felt my responsive force was inappropriate? Libertarians in general appear to be quite willing to ditch the core principle of Libertarianism in those circumstances).
Why do you so often choose to engage in wackiness instead of debate? For example, you’ve in the past accused me of wanting to murder you rather than actually adress the basic issues I was raising. (I probably should make a side bet with someone about whether or not you’re going to accuse me of something in this thread.)
If a libertarian society was instituted but wouldn’t work and would lead in an authoritarian, statist backlash, would you still support libertarianism?
Speaking for myself, if I see for a fact that a government will tyrannize you, I cannot trust that it will not tyrannize me.
Just to remind you, a libertarian government can be a “western-style constitutional democracy”, so long as what it does (and only what it does) is suppress coercion. I think that in considering the “beauty” of a governorship, one ought to consider its effect upon every one of its citizens, even a “short-sighted” minority group. I think Jefferson recognized this when he said, “The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society.”
You seem to be debating, and this is a question and answer forum. Would it be an imposition to ask you to hold to the intent of the thread and the forum? Thanks.
With respect to whether proximity or likeness is necessary as an incentive to build a lighthouse, I don’t see why it should be. After all, McDonalds is not generally in the business of children’s hospitals.
Boston Harbor lighthouse was built by the collection of duties from vessels. Sandy Hook lighthouse was built by merchants. Cape Henlopen was built by businessmen. The federal government did not seize all lighthouses until August 7, 1789.
No I haven’t, sorry.
The answer (short version) was yes.
Hmm… That’s pretty loaded, I think.
First of all, I don’t say that problems will be fixed. In fact, I say the opposite: that libertarianism does not fix any problems, but merely provides a context of peace and honesty in which people can fix their own.
I’m not sure how “charitable” a government is when it seizes property by force, keeps a substantial chunk for itself, and then doles the remainder out to people whom it deems to be worthy. Nor do I see how it is local when it operates from a central bureaucratic office that might be thousands of miles away.
DC is not close to Wyoming, for example.
In this context (LNY vs. LLA), sure you can. You’re a contracting party to LNY; you are paying LNY fees to look after your own interests. You can be relatively sure that LNY won’t act against you because LNY won’t want to bite the hands that feed it. LNY has no such interest with contracting parties to LLA.