My impression of Libertarians is that they want the freedom to do what they want, when they want, and nobody has the right to make them do otherwise. They seem to favour a ‘pay-as-you-go’ philosophy. That is, if they want something, they’ll pay for it. If not, they see no reason why they should.
And yet we don’t see many of them calling for making all roads toll roads, having by-subscription fire-and-rescue services, and so forth. They want to make use of the myriad things governments provide, but they don’t want to pay for them.
I suggest for them a new motto: ‘Libertarianism: All the Freedom, and none of the Responsibility’
The right to travel is a human right. I don’t believe in toll roads, and I don’t believe in traffic laws, as long as you don’t hurt somebody or damage their property.
Fire coverage is mandatory because, if your house burns down, and you don’t have coverage, it will spread to others’ homes and damage their property.
Though I’m not sure what you’re trying to imply in this thread. Anarchism is not the same as Libertarianism.
Actually I wouldn’t mind if all roads became toll roads (it would get at least some morons out of their cars) and come to think of it, a general visitors tax for out-of-towners coming to a Steelers game would be sort of cool. As for “by-subscription fire-and-rescue services”, I’m still paying my yearly dues to my old community fire/rescue/VFD even though I moved in 1977. But then again, I’m more old school – in everything.
Which is exactly my point. Libertarians want to exercise their right to travel. But they balk at having to pay the taxes that build and maintain the roads they are free to use.
Who’s going to mandate it? Isn’t that an intrusion onto one’s property rights by the government?
If the government can mandate fire coverage to protect the safety and property of others, then why can’t it have traffic laws to do the same?
Yes, I suppose you could see it that way. But owning a house is not a human right, travelling is. You cannot own a house without restrictions, you CAN travel without restrictions. When you buy a house, you agree to abide by the restrictions set forth. The same cannot be said for buying a car, because travelling is a human right.
Though, the argument could be made that, since travelling is a human right, we should not have to pay taxes to maintain our roads, and they should be privatized. But, again, in order to fund their roads, they’d probably have to have tolls, which would essentially be a tax.
It’s not perfect, but there’s no realistic way to maintain roads without paying for them. Travel is a topic that interests me greatly, as I am not sure if you can maintain the roads without infringing on your human right to travel.
I won’t pretend I know the answer to this problem, but one thing we CAN do is eliminate traffic laws.
1 - Walk? Sure! Ride a bicycle? Could be. Drive or ride in a car? Never heard that called a human right before and I doubt you’ll be able to make that one stand.
2 - Former VFD from PA here. Most of our state is covered by volunteers. Did I fight harder to save a subscriber than a cheapskate freeloading little snot? No. But like Publishers Clearinghouse, enough people weren’t 100% sure of that so the bills got paid. Mandatory? I would debate that a little. Some places are just too rural or too poor to have coverage. And volunteerism is waning for things like that. Area companies can cover but often by that time the house fire has become a forest fire and more the state or county problem. And I recall a fire once that was isolated enough and dangerous enough that we stood back and waited most of it out. Isolated the fire to one property to protect the neighbors but didn’t attack the “principle source” for quite a bit.
Sure - on paper every inch is “covered” - assigned to someone. Same with police. But when first responder time is 45 minutes and not necessarily a professional, you better have a gun, a hose and well of your own. Just saying.
Travel IS NOT a basic human right. Never hasd been, never will be, at least not as defined by Libernutballs. They see it as “I have the right to go anywhere I want, by whatever means I want, and you can’t stop me without oppressing me. Help! Help! I’m being repressed!” They don’t want to pay for anything they want, and really get steamed about this new-fangled thing called “society.”
I’d say their motto is “I got mine, Jack. Fuck you.”
Owning a car is not a human right. When you buy a car, you agree to abide by the restrictions set forth. If you do not agree to the restrictions, you are free to travel without a car. Humans have been doing it for millennia. Of course there are restrictions on walking as well. You may not violate the property rights of others. You may not walk in places likely to cause harm to you or others.
“The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.
There are other decisions as well that say something similar, but one is enough. Driving IS a human right.
No, it’s not a tax. The hypothetical road owner has property rights. He may allow people to use his property, but he has the right to charge for it. It’s called Capitalism.
And this is the issue. Libertarians want the freedom to do what they want, but they don’t think they should bear the responsibility of paying for it.
Note that is says public highways. That means that the Public own them. As owners, it is incumbent upon the Public to pay for their upkeep. Therefore, the Public must pay taxes to pay for them, whether they use them or not.
It’s Socialist, I know. But there’s that pesky bit in the Constitution about making things better for the general populace.
But you shouldn’t be FORCED to pay for the upkeep. It is YOUR property. If you want to neglect it, you should be able to. But, again, that’s unrealistic. I’m not arguing this point, I think we should pay taxes to maintain roads.
My real issue is not with the taxes, but with the traffic laws that violate your human right to travel without restriction.
Paragraph 1 - Actually, most toll roads are “private”. Look at the charter of the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission among others.
Paragraph 2 - Roads could (“could”) be treated just like railroads and once upon a time they were; the basic “beds” or “right of ways” supported and maintained by industry to fit their needs as much as anyones. Even more so. Your “human right” to roam and migrate on foot is preserved - walk where-ever you find a path or set your compass and have at it. Won’t cost you a dime.
(OK - since Conrail and even before some public money went into railroads. But you get my point.)
I’ve always wondered: how would emergency vehicles operate in a Libertopia? Would they have to pay in advance to ALL the roads to make sure they can get someone to a hospital in a reasonable time, like one of those electronic passes? What if one or more of the roads they passed through had no “get out of the way for emergency vehicles” rules?
What?? Says who? Who gets to dictate which rights exist and which don’t? Seems to me that having shelter is far more important than being able to travel to Disneyland. Therefore, I now decree that having a house is a human right, and the right to travel freely is no longer one.
Are you seriously saying that things like “traffic will keep to to the right side of the road (or left, depending on the country)”, or “there will be a given order in which cars at an intersection should go through it”, or "yield to those who enter your road on your right (or left, depending on the country) should be ditched?
Are you saying that?! Are you saying that the rules that keep traffic flowing in a way that minimizes the chances of accidents infringe upon your “human rights”?!
The fact that the Supreme Court has ruled numerous times that the right to travel is a human right, and there is nothing (that I’m aware of) that states that owning a house is a human right.