LIB says:
Yeah, you do that a lot. It saves you from having to answer the questions put to you. Since you wouldn’t answer it, I will: my understanding of Libertarianism (and God knows I’ll be corrected if I’m wrong) is that there are no communally owned lands, or lands owned by the government for the good of the community. Therefore, there is likely to be any “tragedy of the commons” because there isn’t any “commons.”
(FYI: “Tragedy of the commons” refers, generally, the the phenomenon that if a group of people own a piece of property together of the use of all of them, they will individually mis-use it to maximize the benefit to them individually, and ultimately undermine the benefit to society as a whole. If we as a village have a common meadow for grazing cattle, and we all recognize that we each should only put one cow out to keep from over-grazing the land, some people will still put out more than one cow, taking up more than their share, and ultimately ruining the grazing opportunity for the whole village.)
This is a non sequitir, since nations do not tax one-another.
And another.
Owe them for what? The last time I checked, Okinawa was part of Japan.
No, but those are among the dangers that must be anticipated (okay, conquest more than nuclear annihilation), which is why people organize into communities in the first place.
That’s because people are both stupid and smart; both good and bad. It is your system that does not allow for leavening of stupidity and/or badness by the majority; you system that posits that people are smart and good – which, sorry, they ain’t. I know that you deny that your system requires good, smart people, but it obviously does; you can only have a Libertarian society functioning under a social contract and without even the implicit threat of force if every single person in that society is good and noble enough to respect that social contract and not break it.
You say I
I don’t know how you could glean that from my post. My position is, as it always has been, that sometimes the good of society as a whole (that is, the good of the many) outweighs the good of one particular individual. If you don’t have kids, so you don’t want to pay for schools, but society as a whole is manifestly improved by having well-educated children, I think you ought to chip in for schools. Same for hospitals. Same for civil defense. Call that tyranny if you want. In my opinion, living in a civilized society pursuant to an implied social contract (as we all do) means recognizing that you don’t get to have your own way all the time.
Irrelevant? No. Dispositive? No.
Would I mind? What kind of stupid question is that? Not everything that is legal is okay with me, and not everything that is illegal is not okay with me. But, generally, I follow the laws put in place by the people I elected to govern, because that’s the deal I made – and the deal I got – by living in this society. The difference, of course, is that Libertarianism does not allow for infringement on personal rights, no matter how small and no matter how justifiable, for the good of greater society. Democracy does. Does that mean that any infringement on personal rights, no matter how henious, is therefore okay? Obviously not, and for you to imply that it does is disengenuous.
What he prefers to do is shoot them all in the head under the guise of getting rid of them as squatters. The point, of course, is that their right (a right to live unmolested) is in conflict with his right (a right to the absolute, sole use and enjoyment of his property). It is by no means clear who decides what is allowable under such a scenario – what use of force is okay, and when.
No, you posit that everyone in the Libertarian society is nice – and working hard and not infringing on each other’s rights. The question is not what happens when that society meets an outside force, but what happens when not everyone in the society is good and follows the social contract they ought to follow.
Jodi
Fiat Justitia
