Yes. That is why I am all for people voluntarily forming associations within which they would practice whatever form of government they choose. Voluntarily. Signed contracts where the obligations of the person and his rights are fully and explicitly defined, and the same for the government. Let a thousand flowers bloom, stars shine, or whatever.
Throughout history, they have…and it seems that none so far have chosen Libertarianism.
No. Throughout history, there were no such associations. Read what I posted again.
That was not my question. I did not ask you if she wants clients.
I asked if she thought that antibiotics should be freely available at any time, over the counter, to people who were not diagnosed as needing them. Does she think that this is a good idea for public health?
Well, speaking for myself, I’ve probably not personally “won over” many supporters who are now against libertarianism. But then again, I’ve probably not personally convinced many people to not put red hot needles in their eyes. It’s self-evident to most folks.
And these contracts remain immutable, static and unchanging, from the moment this society is conceived? Or do you envision some process for gaining the consent of the governed to make changes when unanticipated conflicts between personal freedoms arise? And at what age would children sign these contracts? What if they refuse?
I like how you quote me and still manage to “misunderstand” what I said.
FTR, I have nothing against responsible private gun ownership. From my conversations with gun rights advocates I feel confident in saying that’s not their primary goal.
Of course she thinks it’s a good idea for public health. So do I. I just think since it restricts people’s freedom it should not be done. My wife is not a libertarian.
Yes. You know how contracts are changed? With the consent of both parties.
At the age of consent. And if they refuse, they don’t live in that community and do not follow those rules. Just like anyone else. What’s the age of consent? That would have to be set by the whole society, since it is part of the “inalienable rights” thing - they only fully apply at that age and higher.
But in Libertopia, you don’t have just two parties. What happens when one man’s individual liberty conflicts with another man’s individual liberty? How can you change the contract and preserve the liberty of both?
So they would be exiled?
Libertarian society is not an anarchy. There would be an overarching authority, which would be responsible for enforcing the individual’s rights (again, rights as I explained them before) are not trampled. It would also enforce the contracts. And yes, they would be “exiled” from that particular community if they cannot agree with how the community is run.
So there is no situation you could imagine where one man’s individual liberty conflicts with another man’s individual liberty? One of them is going to get trampled.
So if a community agrees to a set of laws (let’s call it a constitution), and a new adult refuses to agree to those terms, he can be exiled??
Of course there is. That’s what the court system is fo.
Yes. Of course, what you call “exile” and what I call “exile” may be two completely different things. You probably think about forceful expulsion. I am thinking of not being able to participate in the community’s benefits because only contract-signers can do so.
So, it is acceptable to trample on a man’s individual liberty, if the court says so?
Things like driving on public roads, or using the public broadcast spectrum?
Unless you want anarchy, you have to resolve conflicts between rights. What you consider “rights”, though, the libertarian society wouldn’t.
As for “driving on public roads” as an example - yes. The residents would do that for free (if that is how the society is set up). The visitors would pay the use fees. Or the community may feel magnanimous and allow visitors to use it for free as well.
In Libertopia, who owns the radio frequency spectrum?
The guy with the most powerful transmitter?
So…
You seem to understand that unfettered access to antibiotics would lead to poor public health outcomes.
So your ideology of “freedom” would trump the public’s overall health. The freedom for you to take whatever medication you feel like (even if it does you no good) would trump my right to health and life.
This is truly setting ideology above common sense.
What Lobohan said.
You keep trying the “gotcha” stuff. No, this is not a “gotcha”. After a few “frequency turf wars”, things will get sorted out. Because completely unusable radio frequency spectrum is not worth anything to anyone.
The term for that is “Dead Right”.