Okay Phil, let’s get a coupla things cleared up right off the bat.
First, I’m sorry if you were offended by my use of the term “Chocolatebunnyland Libertaria.” None of the arguments put forth since the Perfect Governmental System thread have convinced me that this isn’t a valid analogy. Heck, you and waterj2 have conceded in the past that a practical large-scale application of libertarianism is pretty much utopian at this juncture–to me, the appellation “Chocolatebunnyland Libertaria” is simply a handy way of making this clear. If you think the term is overly sarcastic, though, I won’t use it again. Which brings me to my second point:
I do not–do not–start thread for the purpose of mocking someone else’s system of ethics…or, for that matter, for the purpose of mocking anything. I’m surprised and disappointed that you don’t know this about me by now–it didn’t seem as if you read my post carefully enough to give me the benefit of the doubt. I think that’s due in no small part to your tendency to infer vitriol in perfectly innocuous exchanges (see your .sig), and to your exhaustion in having fought battles on libertarianism so damn many times. Believe it or not, I sympathize on both these counts–that shouldn’t preclude me from asking a question about which I have genuine intellectual curiosity, however. If there’s been an extensive “libertarian property rights” debate in the past, kindly point me to the link and I’ll see what it says; I don’t remember one. Otherwise, don’t ascribe sinister motives to an OP which contained–with the exception of the word “chocolatebunnyland”–a perfectly civil delineation of position and inquiry. In short, give me some darn credit, will you please?
Finally–and it seems strange, using this phrase to the person who always uses the phrase to me–my question had absolutely nothing to do with the United States of America. Really. You can read it again, if you like. Nowhere am I saying that the US does a superlative job of protecting freedoms of speech, expression, and assembly; in fact, if you look to other threads, you’ll see me saying exactly the opposite. Nowhere am I saying that homeless people “have it made” (really, Phil, now come on) in the US; in fact, if you look to other threads, you’ll see me saying exactly the opposite. The thing is, though, that you did a remarkable job of building straw men which claimed I said exactly those things, when my question concerned itself solely and specifically with a certain condition–the lack of public property–in a wholly libertarian society, and the ramifications thereof on the practical exercise of rights.
Now, it may be relevant for you to invoke the United States to show, for example, that the homeless here have it as badly off, or worse, than would the homeless in a country without a commons, but you’d have to show why–you can’t just misrepresent my position and think that settles the thing. Unfortunately, your responses in this thread have consisted almost entirely of your misrepresenting my position and calling that misrepresentation a “fundamentally flawed premise.” That’s a nice rhetorical trick, but frankly it pisses me off–especially coming from someone who’s so often reasonable, logical, and articulate.
Honestly, I think both sides of this debate have become a little too sensitive to criticisms or perceived criticisms. Read the OP again, viewing it not as an attack but as a sincere desire to figure something out. For that matter, look beyond the humorously sarcastic tone of The Dufuz’s posts–there are genuine questions and concerns in there, and most of them are pretty pertinent. (Though it sounds like Crimson’s just as tired of arguing against libertarianism as some of you are of arguing for it.)
Pet peeve: infer is not imply, nor is imply infer. Read Phil’s .sig again. Then have one sentence showing your comprehension of both words on my desk by tomorrow moring.
And I am quite skeptical of your ability to do so, but don’t let that stop you.
<< but this stands out:
quote:
[my quote about how the government is as much trouble as it’s worth]
>>>>>>
And had the government not taxed people and spent their money on these “good things”, I suppose the wealth would have never existed in the first place.
Oh, huh. Why don’t you get back to us when you know something about “deficiet spending” and why this is actually a tremendous deal, especially for governments.
> You can’t compute the benefit to society realistically without taking into account the loss to society of whatever the money would have been spent on. >>
Um…
A) it’s at worst a wash: if the government takes money the government does something with it; money you would’ve spent on, who knows? a new bass boat now becomes money someone else spends on, oh, a new desk. Either way, X dollars worth of transactions took place.
B) the government can borrow money in ways people can’t, or at least sums of it you can’t under terms you can’t, and presumably uses some of that for investment as opposed to consumption. Here’s the thing; would you be better off if you borrowed 70, 80 thousand dollars to go to law school, or if you borrowed 70, 80 thousand dollars to research the development of transistors by starting a business, or if you borrowed 70, 80 thousand dollars to buy corn chips? Which decision is likely to give you more spending power in the future? Now, imagine if you can borrow 70, 80 billion dollars at about 1% to send everyone to school and then on to college, or build a house. Houses are good investments, huh? Do you think houses have appreciated at more than 1% since 1945?
Another way the government can create wealth is through organizations like the FTC or FDA. The utility of goods is increased to the consumer if she is assured they are safe, effective, and contain what their packaging and advertising claim they contain. I don’t have to mess around with, I dunno, spot kitchen inspection because there are health departments in most areas.
Think about it.
> government certainly could be considered to have created wealth if you assume that the money the government spent to do so was simply summoned into existence out of nowhere.
Well, we borrowed it. Borrowing money to buy an appreciable asset is pretty much like creating wealth out of thin air.
>> Major product recalls and liability lawsuits are both things that would happen in a libertarian context. >>
Huh. So how come every article I see in “Reason” is about “cigarettes aren’t really dangerous!” and “HIV doesn’t really cause AIDS!” and “Breast implants are good for you!” and “DDT Rules!” and “The old lady sure took McDonalds for a ride! Tort reform! Tort reform!”
> We aren’t anarchists.
Some of you are, and then there are anarcho-capitalists, and presumably you’re all at least minarchists.
>>“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.” - Adam Smith >>
Don’t snatch your learnin’ off of quote collection websites, because then someone will come along and broadside you with:
“erecting and maintaining certain public works and certain public institutions, which it can never be for the interest of any individual, or small number of individuals, to erect and maintain, because the profit could never repay the expense to any individual or small number of individuals, though it may frequently do much more than repay it to a great society.”
Or, say…
“though the state was to derive no advantage from the instruction of the inferior ranks of people, it would still deserve it’s attention that they not be altogether uninstructed. The state, however, derives no inconsiderable advantage from their instruction. The more they are instructed, the less liable they are to the delusions of enthusiams and superstition, which, among ignorant nations, frequently occasion the most dreadful disorders.”
He’s also a bug on labor unions and even certain types on tariffs, because capital was more mobile than labor in 1759 or so, and defense was more important than opulance, but I don’t feel like typing that all out, too. You could read it on the web, and just think how much more you’d know, then.
Actually, in the context–I can’t remember the thread, but I remember reading the exchange–I believe it was Scylla who meant infer. I’m perfectly aware of the difference between the two words, Gaudere. What’s more, I used infer correctly–Phildoes infer vitriol in innocuous exchanges. When referring to the .sig, I was relying on memory; my fault for not rereading the .sig before I posted. And if the context in which Scylla made his comment was conveying an implication rather than an inference, then I sever all analogical ties between what I said and what he said.
No, he meant imply, although as you said, if it is true that Phil infers vitriol, Scylla’s remark doesn’t matter. But it went:
Phil: “…the terrific irony is that, despite his own admonition for “pussy motherfuckers” to “grow a backbone,” he got all offended by my relatively innocuous replies.”
Scylla:“Yes, but you have the enviable ability to imply the most scathing criticism in the most innocuous phrase.”
Now that I have demonstrated my capability of using the search function, I see I dutifully followed the net-rule of making a typo in my first nitpicky post. :rolleyes: If that doesn’t have a specific name, it should.
That doesn’t follow–it’s not relevant to use the US as a point of comparison here, because we’ve got a commons which allows for the mostly equal exercise of rights. Most libertarian societies I’ve seen proposed wouldn’t have a public commons, and so I think it’s germane to ask about the practical applicative value of free speech, and how much it exists independent of eminent domain.
Again, thanks for the sarcasm. I’m glad you respect my integrity so much that you just assume I’m being disingenuous. The OP was not talking about the rights of the homeless in America. The OP was talking about the rights of the homeless in a society without a commons. These are fundamentally different things. In the latter, these people won’t necessarily have “unfettered access” to anything. In the former, dispensation of rights within the commons is dependent less upon the active consent of each citizen as it is upon a strong tradition of civil society in American history and constitutional jurisprudence, in which the beneficence of public property has been consistently affirmed:
–Chief Justice Roger Taney, Charles River Bridge Co. v. Warren Bridge Co. (1837)
What’s more, the exercise of rights on public property is largely restrictive rather than permissive (I think I have those terms right), in consonance with common law tradition; that is, we’ve got the freedom to do anything that isn’t prohibited, and no affirmative consent of the ‘millions of land owners’ is required. It seems likely to me that on private property, the exercise of each specific freedom must pretty much be explicitly allowed by the owner…in a de jure sense, at least. Am I incorrect?
Here’s the way the Supreme Court says what I just said with regard to public property:
–Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954)
Benjamin Cardozo believed that the Fifth Amendment’s provision for eminent domain was among those rights “so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental [and] implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” Polko v. Connecticut (1937)
So while the question of homeless rights in America may be a valid one, to draw a substantive parallel between that and homeless rights in Libertaria with the view of negating criticism about the latter requires that we ignore the very things which make Libertaria different from America. It’s not a valid comparison.
Wow, Phil, you’re really busting my chops. I won’t offer such a “completely flawed premise” next time, promise. Look how easily you’re able to refute it, just by asserting that it’s completely flawed!
Anyway, to answer your question: Most conceptions of a libertarian society that I have seen do not involve the presence of a public commons. Were a private individual to buy “a large piece of land” and let everyone use it, this wouldn’t be a public commons for the same reason that a privately-owned museum is not a public commons. See my distinction between restrictive and permissive codes of law, above.
Furthermore, since my question is aimed at the practical exercise of rights absent public property, your response reminds me of the “smoking zone” my high school used to have for its students. Kids were free to smoke on school grounds, as long as it was inside the prescribed 10 foot area behind the gym, and only at lunch. You’re saying, I think, that public property will exist in Libertaria to the extent that private entities will open their property up for use by the public. So where today in countries with eminent domain, public property can effectively be defined as “anywhere that isn’t private,” in a libertarian society it would be, “those particular areas that are given license to be used by the public, subject to the discretion of a private owner.” And there’s nothing necessarily wrong with that, if they were sufficiently widespread that everyone was given equal opportunity to exercise their rights, if each citizen was given reasonably equal access (that is, there wasn’t universally an admissions charge which people couldn’t afford), and if they weren’t regulated to such an extent as to meaningfully restrict those rights. Me, I prefer a society where I do “know for a fact” that there are areas which everyone can use, in which rights have a practical applicative value.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Gaudere *
No, he meant imply, although as you said, if it is true that Phil infers vitriol, Scylla’s remark doesn’t matter. But it went:
Phil: “…the terrific irony is that, despite his own admonition for “pussy motherfuckers” to “grow a backbone,” he got all offended by my relatively innocuous replies.”
Scylla:“Yes, but you have the enviable ability to imply the most scathing criticism in the most innocuous phrase.”
[QUOTE]
I stand corrected; I shouldn’t have linked my comment with Phil’s .sig. I hope I’ve demonstrated my knowledge of the crucial infer/imply difference for you, though. I would of done it earlier, accept I didn’t want the flow of the thread to be effected. (Don’t hurt me!)
Out of curiosity, Gaudere, how did you find that quote using Search? I assumed that the engine checks .sigs when finding a set of words; it seems as if I was wrong.
I don’t think it checks sigs, although I dunno–I’ve spent so much time doing searches during work and leisure that I unconsciously pick the most likely combo to get the cite that won’t produce many false hits regardless of various engine’s search logic. I searched for Scylla in the Pit with “scathing criticism” in a post, so even if it did search sigs I’d only get posts where both Scylla and Phil posted, or posts where Scylla posted near the phrase “scathing criticism”. Since I knew I saw it recently, it was an easy find.
Actually, I have read most of it on the web. For some reason I couldn’t get a hold of the last third or so. I’ve also read some of Hayek, Friedman, and Von Mises. I stand by my assertion that in general less wealth is created when the government redistributes existing wealth than when it allows people to use their wealth for whatever purposes they desire.
I have no idea what Reason prints or why, as I’ve never read it. There are certainly, from what I’ve seen, cases to be made that any of the lawsuits you referred to was mistaken in its findings, but debating their individual merits is hardly akin to advocating the removal of the protection tort law offers. And libertarianism is all about protecting the people from initiated force and fraud. Some people do get carried away with some of the implementation details, though, I’ll admit…
Originally posted by The Crimson Hipster Dufuz
You could read it on the web, and just think how much more you’d know, then.
(I really have to figure out how to do this someday)
>> Actually, I have read most of it on the web.
Oh, good. Well, then you’ve no excuse for only believing the parts you agree with.
>For some reason I couldn’t get a hold of the last third or so. I’ve also read some of Hayek, Friedman,
What, no Keynes? Jeez…
> and Von Mises.
If you’re going to read cranks, you’d better read a bunch of them. Here I am thinking of List.
> I stand by my assertion that in general less wealth is created when the government redistributes existing wealth than when it allows people to use their wealth for whatever purposes they desire. >>
The same amount of wealth is created when wealth is redistributed, but that’s relatively little of what the government does. Tremendous wealth is created when the government invests either borrowed money, or tax revenues, in public works or administrations.
>> I have no idea what Reason prints or why, as I’ve never read it. There are certainly, from what I’ve seen, cases to be made that any of the lawsuits you referred to was mistaken in its findings, but debating their individual merits is hardly akin to advocating the removal of the protection tort law offers. >>
Most libertarians I have run into are basically corporate apologists. It appears that “caveat emptor” is the logical conclusion of free-marketeering, and almost certainly Liber-lot would have much higher standards of evidence in torts, since after all no one forced you to do conduct trade with a business whose reputation you could’ve easily discovered.
> And libertarianism is all about protecting the people from initiated force and fraud.>>
Well, no, libertarianism is all about using force to protect positive property rights, the “initiation of force” stuff is a fairly dishonest slogan of theirs.
> Some people do get carried away with some of the implementation details, though, I’ll admit >>
It’s not, to some extent, a bad principle, sure, but un-words like “statist” (not to mention the beggaring of the word “libertarianism” itself, which is a philosophical doctrine akin to existentialism) really set my teeth on edge, and I’ll trade my freedom to discriminate for freedom from discrimination any day.
It also seems, for many of it’s adherents and advocates, to be a sort of smug, nerdy way to extract revenge from the world. “The failure of my ideas to win wide acceptence only proves how stupid everyone is, and therefore, how much smarter I am.” My, how convenient, and ironic, coming from free-marketeers. That, and the other contradictions, and I’ll enumerate them at the slightest provocation, well, they just get on my last Irish nerve.
Well, because another context might be different. With due respect, Manny, that’s the crux of the thread. I maintain that the libertarian context, with its effective absence of a commons, the practical exercise of rights is dependent upon ownership of property to a much greater extent than in any constitutional republic possessing eminent domain, for the simple reason that the exercise of rights on any property but your own seems to require the explicit consent of the property owner.
Your reasoning above seems to run along the line of, “I have no real income whatsoever, and yet here in Canada I have access to health care. Why is it so silly to believe that the same might be true in another country?” That’s specious–just because A exists in B, and B is a C, doesn’t mean that A exists in D, E, or F just because D, E, and F are Cs as well. (Bear with me; I just took the LSAT.)
I don’t think that “straw man” was as inaccurate a characterization as you profess, and I hope I’ve demonstrated why. Here you’re doing what Phil has done–failing to distinguish between a discrete number of properties which might be opened up to the public (for profit, in your example), and the notion of enduring public property. You’re making access to a “commons” dependent on a hell of a lot of different things–which is fine, if it floats your boat; I’m just saying that I prefer it when such access is relatively unfettered. I like the fact that we’ve got public parks where I can go and feed the ducks and read P. G. Wodehouse without having to pay for the privilege–call me a damnable Fabianist if you must.
Fallacious comparison. Nobody on this thread is necessarily extolling “statist” contexts, and certainly nobody’s claiming that they’re anywhere near perfect. Since you’re bringing it up, though, it sounds as if you’re saying that a libertarian context would’ve achieved different results in these instances. Would they really? And yes, manhattan, I know that you’re just about the furthest thing from a libertarian–I’m just pointing out that your analogy might be a bit misleading.
Back to pldennison:
No, it wasn’t at all condescending or mocking. I hope you believe that, because if not, we stand little chance of having a real exchange of ideas here.
Anyway, other people have addressed this quite adequately–and I do hope you take the time to respond, Phil, sincerely–but let me throw in my thoughts. First, those rights that you enumerate aren’t exactly those retained by citizens in the US of A. As I was saying in the McCain-Feingold thread, people don’t have the right to make decisions with respect to their property in certain circumstances, nor always to enter into freely contracted agreements. Presumably, restrictions on these rights are the kind of things which make a libertarian context attractive to some people; the point, though, is just that you really can’t equate the two sets of rights. The United States, in fact, explicitly endows citizens with rights which a libertarian context doesn’t necessarily address: the right to organize, for example.
In this vein, I’m contending in part that the right to freedom of assembly is largely moot in a country without a commons. What’s more, since some people (rightly) have more property than others, the scope of their decision-making ability with regard to that property will necessarily be larger. If some people have no property at all, the exercise of their right will be constricted by that fact. It’s one thing to possess a right; it’s quite another to be able to apply that right. In the United States, we have areas everywhere–streets, parks, public institutions, public land–which allow people the exercise of their rights. What about in a society without that power of eminent domain? To the extent that there is no public property, aren’t citizens unable for the most part to freely speak or assemble or express themselves absent the consent of the land owner?
Except in Libertaria you’re just talking about “private.” Look, I’m assuming that since there’s no such thing as a perfect large-scale society, you’re going to probably have homeless people in a libertarian context. Without bringing the United States into it, just tell me whether or not the ability of those people in that context to populate someone else’s property–since all property will be "someone else’s property–will be dependent upon the permission of the owner of the property. If so, aren’t you legitimizing for a class of people the absence of most independently applicative rights?
That’s fine, I guess; this thread is really, really, really not one of those. I should know–I started it. We’ve disagreed a great deal in the past, Phil, but I’d like to think that I’ve demonstrated to you my intellectual honesty to a sufficient enough degree that my motives for starting threads aren’t continually brought into question.
I am, actually.
Emphasis yours, and this is ridiculous. You show me where I said anything resembling “Gosh, the homeless have it made here.” Show me where I’ve intimated that at any time in my eight months on this board. Why must you think that because I’m offering a criticism of one social context, I believe a competing context to be without flaws? That’s grade-school reasoning that you’re ascribing to me, and it’s a bit insulting.
To find a point of agreement, however: Yes, if someone started a thread which said, “Gosh, the homeless have it made here, but wouldn’t they be miserable in a libertarian context?” that sure would be a fundamentally flawed premise. It’s a good thing, then, that no one’s done that, isn’t it?
I’m not sure I understand this–you seem to be implying (ha ha!) that it’s somehow inappropriate for someone to start a thread about something unless there’ve been other threads about that topic recently. Um, that’s kinda silly. I didn’t realize that we were expected to fully explicate our reasons for asking questions on this board–I’m glad you pointed it out, Phil, 'cause I’ve been contemplating starting a thread on the Ninth Amendment, and now I see that I should wait until someone else touches on it first. That’s some catch, that Catch-22.
Not that it’s at all relevant, in fact, but since you asked: I’ve been meaning to start a thread on property rights in a libertarian society ever since Kimstu made a stellar post a while ago which touched on the issue (you want I should find it for you, so you can check out my backstory?). I’ve been pretty busy since then. Saturday I took the LSAT, so I found myself this week with enough time to start the thread. Plus, I was trying to think of a catchy enough title; naming threads is a subtle art.
Are you satisfied? Have I justified this thread for you? Jesus, Phil.
Not only do I not expect anyone to say that, but the statement in no way resembles my own position…and I think you know that. Were you trying to construct the largest straw men possible, in the hope that their sheer breadth would preclude comment?
Wow, when you say it that way it sounds like a bad thing. :rolleyes:
I side with jab1 on the issue; I believe we don’t need higher taxes, just more efficient allocation of resources–for starters, corporate welfare should be scaled back drastically, pork barrel politics should be scaled back drastically, and military boondoggles both large and small (Star Wars, overpriced coffee makers) should be scaled back drastically. Presto, you’re on your way to fiscal accountability. I can see why the “Hey, We Should Just Raise Taxes!” mentality is an attractive shibboleth; it just doesn’t contain that much truth.
Because, as you quoted Opal on the PETA thread, someone can’t possibly worry about more than one thing at a time, right?
Hey, you just did something that you called out someone else for doing on another thread. Don’tcha hate that?
Oh, that’s right–that’s absolutely what I said. How thoughtful of you to translate my words for me, 'cause other people might not have apprehended the true meaning otherwise.
I hope not; you’re a good guy to debate with when you don’t wilfully misrepresent my position.
Simply enclose the statement within [[sup][/sup]quote] and [[sup][/sup]/quote] tags (don’t ask how I got those to not work, tht’s a secret).
Well, certainly the first word in classical economics need not be the final one. While Smith was far more astute than I at economics, I do have the benefits of the last 224 years of history and economic thought. In any event, giving even a cursory sample of all he has to say would make for a rather cumbersome sig, wouldn’t you agree?
When government spends money, it is necessarily redistributing wealth, from those that pay taxes to specific causes. If the money is borrowed, it is either paid for through taxes later on, or through inflation. So, in order to consider that tremendous wealth has been created, one must believe that people are better served by not being free to chose where to spend the money that was used to create that wealth.
Since it is impossible to know what money would have been spent on if it had not been taken by the government, there is ample room for us to disagree on this point, but to suppose that having the money invested in government is always going to be the better investment is rather idealistic. Personally, I think that generally the people will make better decisions with regard to the best way to spend their money than will the government in most circumstances.
Well, while I’m certainly no Ralph Nader or Michael Moore fanatic, I do try to avoid being a corporate apologist. Personally, in my vision of a libertarian utopia, I don’t see the limited liability of corporations being able to shield the persons responsible for tort claims. If an executive permits through negligence or willfully a wrong to be committed, that executive should not be able to avoid personal responsibility due to his employer’s status.
Just because a slogan has been used by corporate apologists to try to feign noble intentions is no reason to assume that that is the only reason it is used. A truly libertarian context is one where people (and their property) are protected equally from initiated force and fraud. It happens that the interests of corporate apologists coincide with the interests of libertarians in many areas. There are both advantages and disadvantages to this.
Well, I for one don’t use the term statist much, if at all, but I do kind of need the term libertarianism to refer to what the fuck we’re debating here. As for discrimination, if it were a simple trade, I’d be right there with you. Alas, I simply don’t trust humans to eradicate evils through legislation, but do believe that a free market provides the best motivation for people to get along peacefully and honestly.
Oh, come on. You cannot possibly believe that this is unique to libertarians. People who believe this crap are idiots regardless of their political ideology. Now, if I’ve calmed that last Irish nerve of yours at all, do you mind if perhaps we work our way back to the OP? If every debate about libertarianism is going to get hijacked from specific to general, I’m going to get repetitive. Luckily I seem to switch between moral and practical arguments easily, so I can remain somewhat bearable.
Kimstu, thank you very much. Altho I often have a “libertarian” viewpoint, libertarianism is simply not a practical form of government. Yes, I do agree with many Lib’t principles, but the fact remains, that it is annoying as snot to havr them trot out the old “A Libertarian gov’t would have no taxes, no crime, solve world hunger, and whiter & briter teeth.”. If Santa Claus was world emperor, I would expect about the same results, with the same practicality of that happening. I do not mind them applying Lib’t ideas to solve a situation- in fact the ideas are often very good. But Lib’t is possibly the most impractical way to actually run a nation I can think of.
However, back to our Hypothetical Libertaria, and our homeless. Now, there will certainly be some sort of fees or taxes or whatever you want to call 'em, for the national defence, and the Police. I assume that you ‘contract" to pay these “fees”. Am I right so far? Going a step further, if one does not pay these “fees”, then the logical assumption is that you lose the services for which you have not paid. Is there a problem with this? Now, some folks, out of being poor, or crazy, or just plain stubborn, will NOT pay these "fees’. Now, I will let you Lib’t assume, that for a while, some “unemployed” will be covered by charity- fine. But nobody will want to pay the $ for somebody who simply won’t, either becuase they refuse to pay, or refuse to work. So these folk are without those “services”. Please correct me if any of this is wrong. Now, then, these folks have no right to police protection, or protection from “coercion”, either “initiated” (whatever that means) or “retalitory”. So, they trespass, or steal, and I guess, from nothing to the contrary, that they can be shot down like dogs by that property owners private security “goons”. Umm, seems like not a happy time for the “homeless”. So, Lib’tians, where have I gone wrong? Or is this basicly correct?
I believe you pay debt by issuing more bonds. Cecil had a thing about this.
Well, or the investment improves GDP in some way, so you pay it back with less labor
and there certainly are models, such as the prisoner’s dilemma or the tragedy of the commons, which suggest that every person acting in their own self interest produce less than optimal results.
When was the last time anyone you knew built an interstate highway system? Sent umpteen-million kids to school? etc.
Good for you.
I see no real utility to changing this from what we have now, and perhaps even some harm to come from certain libertarian rhetoric like “there is no society.”
Everyone opposed force and fraud, or nearly everyone. I think arbitrary discrimination is force, especially given the relative scarcity of things like jobs compared to people to hold them, or houses in decent neighborhoods compared to people to live in them, and I am concerned with the long term societal results of employment or housing discrimination.
Sure, okay. Just something else you should be aware of, though.
I really think its neutral, unless you’re defining “peacefully and honestly” in some strange way, like “not imposing public works or institutions on the citizenry through legislation.”
Actually, I take that back, since a totally free market might allow more fraud. I certainly feel health inspections make resturants safer and cleaner, or that labeling increases the utility I gain from the products I use. If, say, I were terribly allergic to peanuts or morally opposed to eating animal flesh, I would have to subscribe to some journal to determine if the products I used were free of things I did not want to consume, and perhaps some other journal to determine that the journal I subscribed to was itself rigorous and honest (in fact, this is what’s required, I understand, if you choose to keep kosher or use vegan products). Now, the company, in a free market, libertarian society, would have no incentive to not put peanut traces in food if it was shown that the cost of X lawsuits was higher than the cost of keeping peanut traces out of their product; if there is no society you have little basis for awarding punitive damages. If my objection is on moral or religious grounds, I may have no way of knowing if the company has chosen to adulterate its products. Thus, the free market has no special ability to produce honesty.
I’m not even sure that it is always to the good to co-erce people to be peaceful, and by peaceful I mean co-operative, conformist, at least that it should be a categorical imperative. Certainly, if I do not have a co-ercive body which defends my civil rights, I may have to accept a lower standard of education, or housing opportunity, or justice, or employment, than if I am “normal” White, agnostically christian, heterosexual, and male, to be sure, but pleasant, conciliatory, friendly, homogenous as well. My rewards will be commensurate to the degree I provide utility for others, and that doesn’t sound like freedom from force to me.
[quotes]
You cannot possibly believe that this is unique to libertarians. People who believe this crap are idiots regardless of their political ideology.
[quotes]
I assume its common to fringes and cranks of all shades and tints. It’s just funny coming from Libertarians, because of how they go on about people should be allowed to do what they want, and if not so many people want something it must not be as good as something more people want. Isn’t that central to the free market?
It strikes me as…well, of course any real life situation is going to fall short of utopia.
Anyway, if I can be fired at will, and certainly for holding unpopular beliefs, isn’t that opening the door for the tyranny of the majority? I thought you were all against that. I understand why an unpopular TV show can be canceled; TV is about selling eyeballs. I am not sure political agitation is about selling eyeballs, and certainly if I am peaceful and honest I may parade around in public demanding this or that for my cause. I’m even generally entitled to a police presence, and a locality may not use some form of the “hecklers veto” against me. How does a system of total private property ownership improve on this situation in some way? Is that even what you want? Would you still have public works, public goods, and public institutions? At least some Libertarians would. Would I be able to agitate in front of the legislature?
Nearly all libertarians believe in the importance of security forces, you know, to enforce contracts, defend property, and protect the borders.
Probably not; rather, most libertarians would tell you that that’s something worth co-ercing taxes from people. Others would fund the government through sales taxes or the sale of various licenses, pollution credits, etc.
[quotes]
Going a step further, if one does not pay these “fees”, then the logical assumption is that you lose the services for which you have not paid.
[/quote]
Well, except that it would be impossible to exclude someone from the benefits of well defended borders, for example. You could construct ways in which people are excluded from some of the benefits of police or fire forces, but most of those benefits are preventative, which again, you cannot be excluded from. Instead of contracting out of it, you’d simply be free to go anytime you like.
This may not describe the society most libertarians envision. In fact, from what I read they generally want pretty much the system as it now stands, only with no limitations on what you can do with your property, no subsidies for anything the free market can provide at all well, etc. Taxes can be used to remove externalities, and rescue forces would still service people who have no money. However, you get no social security, no NEA, no FDA, no FTC, none of that good stuff.
We didn’t remove them, but we did remove their tax support and forced them to subsidize themselves through the sale of their own products. In short, we forced the government-enforced monopoly to be subject to market forces. And look what happened. If it wasn’t for the enforced monopoly on first-class mail, the USPS would probably be an also-ran in that business. As it is, they have to keep raising the first-class rates to cover their losses in parcel delivery.
Gadarene:
Gee, why would I be offended? :rolleyes:
I stopped reading that thread around post #5, and didn’t post to it myself, because a) I thought it was inappropriate for GD, and b) I thought the comments being made were childish and vapid.
Of course not. The aforementioned “Perfect Governmental System” thread was clear, reasoned debate, and not just attempted mockery of libertarian thought, right? Please. If you’re going to claim that, you are being disingenuous, and what’s more, I think you know it.
Anyhow, everyone else seems to have a fine handle on debating the topic at hand. Enjoy.
Daniel:
It’s not a form of government at all, but I don’t expect you to understand it any more clearly on the millionth-and-first iteration than you did on the millionth.
Boy, I hope Gadarene takes you to task at least as harshly as he did me for egregious mischaracterization, but somehow I doubt it’s going to happen.
pldennison:Boy, I hope Gadarene takes [Daniel] to task at least as harshly as he did me for egregious mischaracterization, but somehow I doubt it’s going to happen.
Now Phil, you know neither side makes a practice of calling their own team’s fouls. Whup ‘im yourself if you think he needs whuppin’.
Well, given that it’s a relatively toothless jibe, I don’t really think you should have been offended. I would have thought that all this time in Great Debates–not to mention the Pit–would have given you thicker skin. If you were offended, though, I’ll try to stop using the term–I don’t set out to specifically antagonize people who feel differently than me. Speaking of which…
I’m sorry you felt that way. People on both sides of the issue had a lot of fun in that thread–as did a third group of people who were utterly unaware of the utopian parallels being drawn, but who just liked the fact that someone was talking about the Easter Bunny in Great Debates.
Incidentally, I assume you feel the same way about the Gravitism vs. Downism thread, right? It clearly exists only to mock a point of view, and has no real place in Great Debates. Oh, wait…you actually posted to that one! What makes it more appropriate, and less “childish and vapid” to poke gentle (and brilliantly funny) fun at creationists rather than libertarian utopianists?
Actually, there was a debate in there, if you’d have cared to enjoin it. Some of the other libertarians did debate the issue, albeit obliquely (exaggerating the side of the “statists” as I had done for utopianists). And the thread wasn’t solely about libertarianism, nor was it about all libertarians; I was parodying the tautology of some strains of some political philosophies, which seem to be saying, “If everything’s peachy, then everything will be peachy.” John Corrado picked up on the broad applicability and brought communism into it.
Anyway, it wasn’t mockery in that it wasn’t mean-spirited, and it certainly wasn’t attempted mockery; a lot of people, libertarian and otherwise, had a real good time in that thread, and that was all I was trying to accomplish, along with my satisfaction at having devised a somewhat clever analogy. If you’d like to debate the relevance of the analogy, you could have done so…and I’d still be happy to do so, though, as I say, your previous acknowledgment that pure libertarianism isn’t achievable for the foreseeable future kinda strengthens my characterization of it–pure libertarianism, that is–as largely utopian.
I’m not saying that you’re dodging the questions I’ve raised, but…I can’t think of a way to finish this sentence. (Simpsons homage) Seriously, I put a lot of time last night into trying to further articulate the OP in response to your posts. I even quoted the Supreme Court! I just wish that we could debate the facts of the thing without descending ceaselessly into pedantry and offended sensibilities on both sides.
To quote Al Gore (urgh), “I think we should attack the problems facing this country, rather than attack each other.”
What’s more, I used infer correctly–Phil does infer vitriol in innocuous exchanges. When referring to the .sig, I was relying on memory; my fault for not rereading the .sig before I posted. And if the context in which Scylla made his comment was conveying an implication rather than an inference, then I sever all analogical ties between what I said and what he said.