In a libertarian society...

[bldysabba]

@Naxos

Yes.

The drama of your descriptions is irrelevant to the ideology of Libertarianism, that supports an individual’s right to define value to other objects or other humans, and not have to be subjected to a social order of any kind.

Libertarianism supports the right of a human being to define the worth of his/her surroundings. They call it “freedom” and “liberty”, and they allow anything any human being would want to do, because if they can impose their will on others then they should because it’s their right to do so.

That’s Libertarianism.

It’s in the books.

Not a libertarian or anything close, but I think you’ll find that it supports every individual’s right to define value to other objects or other humans, and allows penalties for those who do so through force or fraud. Hence, no slavery.

[IdahoMauleMan]

@septimus

Flood control is a major purpose of many dams.

In Libertopia it’s easy for a fire-fighting crew to stand around and watch a house burn down because it didn’t subscribe to fire protection.

But how do we build a 90% flood control system, with 10% of landowners refusing to subscribe, and ensure the residual flooding affects only their land?

Similarly, on the matter of buying land for roads and canals without the power of eminent domain, how do we avoid paying millions of dollars per acre to the last landowning holdout? Or is his entrepreneurial cleverness in getting the millions just the sort of market event that libertarians find divinely beautiful?

Why would you live in a flood plain?

What did people do before the dam was built?

[furt]

@Nobody

OK, by that logic you can avoid payroll taxes by not getting a job.

Yep.

OK, I guess it’s not impossible to keep public schools, yet have no government interference in education.

Yep; or at least only minimal, local, influence.

[XT]

[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
Exactly. People would still be paying taxes for a public school system and would be paying taxes for a voucher system as well. How is that an argument for libertarianism?
[/QUOTE]

I didn’t say it was or wasn’t an argument for libertarianism. The reality is that if a libertarian government was voted into the US there wouldn’t be all that many fundamental changes (or none at all), since that’s not the way our system works.

Or are you saying we should close down the public school system? If so, will private schools be required to take up the slack and accept the problem students they don’t want to accept now? Or will we end up with a school system that costs just as much as our current system but educates fewer children?

I don’t think the public schools would be closed down, no. I see no reason why the voting public would stop wanting them, which is really the reason we have such a system. A libertarian president or even a majority libertarian house and senate would still have to abide by the will of the voting public, so my guess is any changes would be in the form of reform, not attempts at whole sale shutdown.

As for the second part of your question, I believe that like a lot of things we don’t get the biggest bang for our buck out of our current education system. No idea what a libertarian government would do differently, but there is only so much you can do within the constraints of our system, so it probably wouldn’t look all that much different than it looks today. Again, you have to think in terms of how our system actually works, if you assume a libertarian government would be voted in on par with Democrats or Republican governments voted in or out. If we are talking about a whole new society, composed of libertarians only with a scratch made government, then we are into completely theoretical fantasy land, so it could be whatever any given libertarian wants it to be…sort of on par with liberals or conservatives who wish they could get all of their agenda pushed through exactly as they want it, and make the country into what they want it to be.

-XT

[Fear_Itself]

@IdahoMauleMan

Can I answer a question with (3) questions:

1. Who do you want to do those things?

2. Why them?

3. Why do you think they will do a good job at it, relative to other alternatives?

He asked you first.

[Czarcasm]

@xtisme

Our local park is maintained by a private company, so I’d say ‘it depends’. Why would a libertarian government turn over public lands to private companies? Where in libertarian philosophy does it say that public lands can’t stay in public hands, and can’t be maintained by, well, the public?

Which ‘Libertarians’ have you heard say this stuff? Do you have a cite or link to some so we can look at the context?

From the Libertarian Party Platform:

2.4 Government Finance and Spending

All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution.

[Czarcasm]

For reference, the Libertarian Party platform.

[Little_Nemo]

@xtisme

A libertarian president or even a majority libertarian house and senate would still have to abide by the will of the voting public, so my guess is any changes would be in the form of reform, not attempts at whole sale shutdown.

That’s kind of begging the question, isn’t it? If a libertarian president and congressional majority have been elected, we can assume they do reflect the will of the voting public. So what laws would they pass? They’re asking us to vote for them now, so we should be able to ask them what laws they will enact or repeal if they held office. They don’t deserve anyone’s vote with only a promise to figure out what it is they stand for if they get elected.

[Little_Nemo]

All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution.

They specifically mention income tax. But I don’t see how you can justify a sales tax or any other form of tax under a platform of “All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor.”

So do they really mean no taxes? Or do they mean no taxes except for the taxes they decide to keep?

And a repeal of “all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution” - what does that mean? Shutting down public schools? Privatizing the interstate highway system?

Or do they notice that the Constitution gives the government the duty to “promote the general welfare”? And if that’s the case, then public education and environmental regulation and welfare and universal health care are all required under the U.S. Constitution.

[furt]

@Czarcasm

For reference, the Libertarian Party platform.

And as a contrast, a state party

The Wyoming LP advocates that the state of Wyoming shall take ownership of all federal land and federal mineral rights in Wyoming except for the National Parks and the Department of Defense properties.

and the foremost libertarian magazine

Some Californians oppose the sale and complete privatization of state parks. But under these public-private partnership leases, the state maintains complete ownership of the parks. Anything the state wants done at the park can be put into the contract, and if the private company fails to deliver it can be fired.

[Czarcasm]

@furt

And as a contrast, a state party

and the foremost libertarian magazine

It’s nice to know that, no matter how much research we do, a libertarian can easily find a cite that says something different.

[furt]

@Czarcasm

It’s nice to know that, no matter how much research we do, a libertarian can easily find a cite that says something different.

Yes; just as if you cite anything the Democratic or Republican parties say, one can easily find a cite for others of the same political persuasion that believe differently.

Schools of thought in any arena are identified and described in broad strains, not by rigid adherence to the exact same set of dictates. Christians don’t all believe the same thing, nor Stoics, nor Communists, nor Chomskyian linguists, nor Cognitive Psychologists. We identify the group by generalizing.

With Libertarianism alone, this is somehow discreditable.

[septimus]

@IdahoMauleMan

Why would you live in a flood plain?

This is wrong on so many grounds that, if we were in BBQ Pit, I’d accuse you of being a libertarian!

1. Flood plains tend to be the most fertile land. (For example, Thailand is experiencing a once-in-a-lifetime flood as I write … right smack in one of the world’s major rice-production zones.)

2. Let’s ignore your ignorance about agriculture, and pretend you have a point. It’s still wrong. Google inelasticity, fixed factors, and imperfect information to learn a little more about economics.

Setting aside your erroneous understanding of both agriculture and economics, your “Let the stupid be damned … I got mine … Ha Ha Ha!” attitude will stand you in good stead with other “thinkers” of the libertarian ilk.

[Mapache]

@xtisme

Do you have cites for that incredible line of horseshit you just posted, Naxos? Libertarians believe it’s ok to enslave and torture? Slavery is A-Ok? I assume wife beating is also on the approved list? Yes?

-XT

There used to be a particularly fanatic (and at one time eponymous) libertarian who many times claimed that anyone who won an unpayable judgment against another person could both enslave and torture the losing party. You just couldn’t rape them.
Most of you know who I’m referring to; search for his name and “slavery” and you’ll see what I mean.

[Czarcasm]

@furt

Yes; just as if you cite anything the Democratic or Republican parties say, one can easily find a cite for others of the same political persuasion that believe differently.

Schools of thought in any arena are identified and described in broad strains, not by rigid adherence to the exact same set of dictates. Christians don’t all believe the same thing, nor Stoics, nor Communists, nor Chomskyian linguists, nor Cognitive Psychologists. We identify the group by generalizing.

With Libertarianism alone, this is somehow discreditable.

Then let there be no more posts from Libertarians decrying the ignorance of those who ask questions about what Libertarianism is all about, or who say things about Libertarianism that supposedly aren’t true. I was asked for a cite pertaining to the abolishment of government ownership of parks, and I cited the official Libertarian Party platform itself.
And that just wasn’t good enough for you.
You provided cites from smaller Libertarian groups that said something different, as if that invalidated the research I did, but all you really did was point out that asking for cites to show if others really understand what Libertarianism is all about means absolutely nothing.

[furt]

@Mapache

There used to be a particularly fanatic (and at one time eponymous) libertarian who many times claimed that anyone who won an unpayable judgment against another person could both enslave and torture the losing party. You just couldn’t rape them.
Most of you know who I’m referring to; search for his name and “slavery” and you’ll see what I mean.

Just did and found nothing.

But surely you’re not proposing that the words of one addled individual on the SDMB are fairly ascribed others? Whatever Lib said, I’m confident you can find worse buried in the archives of Daily Kos or Free Republic.

[Czarcasm]

@furt

Just did and found nothing.

But surely you’re not proposing that the words of one addled individual on the SDMB are fairly ascribed others? Whatever Lib said, I’m confident you can find worse buried in the archives of Daily Kos or Free Republic.

But if there isn’t an authoritative source of all matters Libertarian, why should we dismiss what he says on the subject?

[septimus]

Since “eminent domain” seems to be a big issue for the Libertarians, I’m still curious about the answer to this:

@septimus

Similarly, on the matter of buying land for roads and canals without the power of eminent domain, how do we avoid paying millions of dollars per acre to the last landowning holdout? Or is his entrepreneurial cleverness in getting the millions just the sort of market event that libertarians find divinely beautiful?

Any responses? Big-L or Little-L?

[Little_Nemo]

Okay so some libertarians want to abolish all taxes and some libertarians don’t. Some libertarians want to abolish all government property and services and some libertarians don’t. Some libertarians insist on unanimous consent and some libertarians don’t. Some libertarians want an absolute policy of no coercive force and some libertarians don’t. Some libertarians want to be called Libertarians and some libertarians don’t.

At what point do you concede that libertarian is a meaningless label devoid of any content? Or is there some point that defines a libertarian? Something that all libertarians agree on that separates them from non-libertarians?

[Czarcasm]

@septimus

Since “eminent domain” seems to be a big issue for the Libertarians, I’m still curious about the answer to this:

Any responses? Big-L or Little-L?

Try to imagine what our freeways, bridge systems and railway lines would look like if it weren’t for eminent domain. The cost of diverting those systems would be astronomical.