It has a convenient box near the top, labelled “search”. I had the fifteen articles in about thirty seconds.
And you weren’t asking whether blah-blah was one word or two. You were asking for a specific answer to a vague hypothetical.
Here, try this:
In your current system of government, what happens when dead children are found in someone’s back yard? Please be specific.
Look, if you’re gonna pull this, then please do just ignore me. You know as well as I do what would happen under the current system of government; that doesn’t require clarification here.
I very specifically asked you about a situation in which a corporation’s pollution was responsible for one or more deaths. I didn’t just posit a dead child in a vacuum, as you dishonestly suggest. I sincerely wanted to know what process the parents would follow to seek redress, or to try to lessen the likelihood that it would happen again.
I sincerely would like you to take a few minutes to flesh out the scenario I’ve posited as if you were writing an SF story that took place in a Libertarian society.
I’m addressing here my ignorance of Liberarianism. I honestly don’t know what the processes would be. You’ve only answered me so far with hollow philosophies, when all I want is for you to tell me a story.
What is an SF story? You mean like a news report, a short story, what exactly? I will accomodate you if I can. I did a similar thing once for someone when I wrote Sarah’s Gold.
D’oh! I get it. Science fiction. Very well. I will need some time.
Well if this line of questioning prompts Lib to write another story, I applaud it!
Seriously, though lissener, I think Lib and pldennison have been trying to answer you honestly within their available frames of reference (red herrings from Phil notwithstanding 
). Possibly, you’re having the same conceptual problem I had when first introduced to libertarianism; you may be assuming that a “non-coercive” government would have no standards for investigation, compensation and punishment of crimes such as pollution.
On the contrary, as Phil pointed out, a government working under a libertarian ethic could have the exact same standards as published by EPA. What such a government would not have is the EPA itself (also no Superfund, no FEMA, no federal disaster relief, etc.). The costs of cleanup and compensation to damaged parties would be levied against the offending entity (although I think a libertarian society wouldn’t allow corporations as separate legal entities), and the offender would also face criminal fines and punishment.
You and I probably agree that such an arrangement would leave situations such as Love Canal unrectified, and the affected families uncompensated simply because companies have a far greater ability to ruin the environment than they do to repair it. Libertarians might counter that the Love Canal situation remains unresolved despite the Superfund and decades of legal wranglings at taxpayer expense. Whatever your personal feelings about it, if Lib writes his story I highly recommend you read it. I found his previous story to be highly instructive, as well as passionately and eloquently written. It didn’t sway me to his way of thinking, but it did clarify my understanding of his philosophy.
This is just stoopid. Might as well say: “How can we bring a government employee to trial? The judge is also a government employee.” The government is not a monolith. The “government” can’t pollute; individuals or divisions of the government pollutes, and other individuals and divisions take them to task for it. Isn’t this a basic tenet of Libertarianism? Isn’t this just bald hypocrisy?
Yes, let’s use this as an excuse to give everyone a free ride, rather than an indication that more work is needed.
This is an argument against limited liability (which I am also opposed to), not for corporate anarchy.
Another straw man argument. Leaving aside Sean Connery as a cite :rolleyes: , this merely points to an issue that is on many more agendas than just the Libertarians’: it makes no case for a solution.
An argument for campaign finance reform, which is hardly unique to the Libertarian movement.
Good point, if true; no one is saying to eliminate such corporations, or that each individual one is ipso facto evil. One good deed certainly does not negate the issue.
An argument for greater governmental regulation, not against. How does this make sense: “They abuse the public lands, but not their own. Solution? Give ’em the public land!” Hunh? “A teenager abuses his dad’s car, but not his own. Solution? Give ’im Dad’s car!” No, you GROUND the little fucker.
Naïve. It’s even more profitable to build a couple hotels on it before you sell it. It’s also profitable to strip it entirely and then sell it for development. This argument hardly convinces me that a corporation’s bottom line would be best improved by treating its land like a national park.
The first point has certainly not been proven. Indeed, I still think the opposite is true. And the second is nothing new.
That’s the ticket! Put everything into the hands of the aristocracy! All benefits accrue to the rich, and there’ll be enough table scraps for all of us!
What’s the whole story here? Why did the government “take over”? The US government is a big proponent of the golden rule “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” I sincerely doubt the government interceded simply because it had nothing better to do. (And no, I’m not going to look it up. It’s your cite, you verify it.)
Oh come on, you really think you can flip flop back and forth, using Corporations as the ultimate tool of good for one argument, and natives in loincloths the next? Put this in, say, a suburban context. Put the land in hands of a suburb’s “native people” and you have–could it be?–a government!
Isolated islands within governmental structures. This does not argue for the elimination of the larger collective action made possible by a central government. Also, first rain forest natives, now elephants. What’s next, termites? Tralfamadorians? The more exotic your example, the less relevant to the discussion.
This is a criticism of the Kenyan government and its methods, not of any central government.
Two extremes, disingenuously pretending that no third alternative–such as a well managed common area, like a national park (which is a much more relevant example than the oceans :rolleyes: ).
Completely unsubstantiated. You obviously haven’t succeeded in convincing me, on any front, that trickle-down environmentalism is any better than trickle-down economics. All you’ve made clear to me is that Libertarians are as good as the next person at avoiding the real issues, spinning the not-quite-to-the-point to obscure its irrelevance, and piling unproven conclusions on top of unsubstantiated platforms.
[Hijack]
Lib, do you know if that article is copyrighted? Even if there is no specific copyright notice (which there isn’t), I believe the article would be automatically copyrighted under the Bernes Convention and I’d likely edit it to be on the safe side, barring specific permission for your usage in this context. Does that website/author give you permission to reproduce it?
[/Hijack]
Wow, Lib, thanks for the compliment, but I must admit that I’ve seen you be just as concise with a similarly lucid point on numerous occasions. Either way, your kingdom is in some of the best hands in all the world (even if it is only hypothetical). Oh, by the way, I’ve just noticed that Smartass is back on the board.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Libertarian *
The Pollution Solution
by Dr. Mary Ruwart>clear the mighty forests. The cost of such callousness was vividly portrayed in the movie MEDICINE MAN, in which Sean Connery played a scientist who found a cure for cancer in the rainforest. He watched helplessly as the natives who befriended him were driven from their forest home. The rainforest, along with the cancer cure, were both destroyed.
However, on lands which they own privately, the paper companies suddenly become staunch environ-mentalists! They replant so that their own forest acreage increases each year – while the national ones dwindle. In the South, International Paper makes as much as 30% of its profits from recreational uses of its forests.
[QUOTE]
Note that the MOVIE, “Medicine Man” is complete FICTION.
Note that: privately owned forests, rather than being environmental paradises, are ecological deserts, with rows of identical trees, with ZERO eco-diverity. Chemical fertilizers, insecticides and herbicides are used at will. Note also, what happens when greed sets in- Pacific Lumber, in NoCal, was an enviro-freindly company. Then is was bought out by junk-bond leverage. Now, on that they own, they are performing what amounts to environmental rape- clear cutting, pollution of stream with run-off, etc. Why? Well, it is true, that in the LONG RUN, the enviro-freindly way is better, But they are handcuffed by outrageuos interest rates on those bonds, and plan to loot & run. In any case, you cannot show folks how great & PRACTICAL “Libertaria” is, by showing us how bad the USA is. Libertaria may well be a thousand times worse. Show us how it will work, and why, not why our current sytem is flawed.
Now i note that every normal law we have; crime, pollution, code enforcement, traffic, are all defined as 'coercion", which your contracted Bov’t will defend you from. Sounds like the identical set of laws we have now, with “Code of Federal Regulations” (or whatever) struck out, and “Anti-coercion Code” inserted.
Still, Libertarian has not explained about what happens when one “opts out” by not signing the “Contract” in the 1st place. Nor has he, or any of his fellow travelers shown us how a model Libertaria would run, despite promises to do so.
water: you are correct- the difference between a gangster- run near-anarchy like Beirut, and Libertaria is “the people”. Beriut, and such are populated with all too human, all too real people, with all their weaknesses & strengths; wheras Libertaria must be populated soley by intelligent, well-meaning altruists.
I never said that the difference was the people, the difference is the rule of law. Don’t put words in my mouth, then use those words to mock me. When you claim that Beirut is more libertarian than Hong Kong, you are measuring libertarianism by the methods, not the result. None of us have ever claimed that you can simply take the government away, and utopia will spring forth. We have merely claimed that true utopia will not exist as long as people are forced to consent to being governed.
Society depends upon government for protection from the initiation of force and fraud. There is no reason, however that this must always be the case. I have no idea if a society could honestly function without a mildly coercive government. When a large-scale society does exist with a mildly coercive government, with the people protected from coercion from other sources, I will have a much better idea.
While my opinion is that Utopia will never come to pass as long as you insist on letting people in! 
If “Libertaria” has any rules whatsoever, people wil come along who will use those rules with the intent of exploitation. Outside of the Rand novels and the juvenile science fiction of L.Neil Smith, you would be hard-pressed to get a large enough group together that would be willing to form such a government that truly believed in such a government. Power-mongers are always on the lookout for such groups-look at what happened to Ross Perot’s party!
Hong Kong? Hong Kong is by no means “Libertarian”. They have taxes, they have laws. The Govt owns the roads, and other normal Gov’t run stuff, just like in any other country. You do not get to ‘contract" with HK to agree with their Laws, etc- like all modern Govts there is an implied consent, ie if you are in their country, you have agreed to follow their Laws, etc. However, unlike "free’ countries, you cannot leave if you want to. Coercion?: There is the entire freakin Red Chinese Army ferkristsake. Not to mention the secret police, etc. The only thing that makes HK in any way “libertarian” is that they have a very 'lazai fair (sp) form of Govt, as far as business goes.
I believe strongly in the rights of humanity, in the “social libertarian” context mentioned by Satan on the first page of this thread. And I like, ceteris paribus, the concept of “reciprocal libertarianism” suggested by the author of Albion’s Seed as the basis of the original Quaker commonwealth that provoked me to post this.
I do have a very strong disagreement with Lib’s concept (is it a tenet of libertarianism or your personal take on it, Lib?) that the only rights to be recognized in a libertarian society are those related to property. This would be truly wonderful if every person had adequate property to provide for his every need in every eventuality. This, however, does not happen to be the case. And without a redistribution of resources beggaring anything suggested by even Marxist theorists, it seems unlikely to ever be the case.
I believe there should be means to provide those “in need” with the necessities of life, and a means to reconstruct their lives to a point where they are no longer in need. I do not necessarily suggest that the government is the essential vehicle for providing those means. But it would seem evident that private charity is insufficient to do so. (Consider the Davy Crockett story which Lib. retold from that perspective, as well as the “limited government” context for which he used it as parable.)
Three questions arise:
Daniel, have you read my posts? When have I ever even hinted that laws are un-libertarian? For the last time, libertarianism is not anarchy, it is not minarchy. It is a context in which people are free of initiated force and fraud. In Hong Kong, people are freer from initiated force and fraud than anywhere in the world that I know of. No, it is not truly libertarian, but it is closer than Beirut.
Stop pretending that you cannot tell the difference between libertarianism and anarchy. I have explained it to you in the past, and twice already in this thread. If you persist in equating the two, I won’t respond to you. There are others here who actually show me the courtesy of not attributing to me beliefs that I have repeatedly stressed that I do not hold. If you refuse to understand what libertarianism is, I really can’t debate its merits with you, especially when you mockingly agree with things I have never said.
I’m busy with Lissener’s short story, but I wanted to record this comment for Poly.
What property did our Savior have, and how did He fare? He had His life, His body, and His mind — with full authority (rights) concerning all of those. And He done purtty good.
I’ll try to have the story finished this weekend. I guess I’ll post it in MPSIMS with a link here. So far, the most difficult part of it is trying to figure out how the pollution could occur in the first place in a land where everybody is used to personal responsibility and vividly aware of the consequences of irresponsible behavior. But I think I found an angle.
Originally posted by Polycarp:
I think that pretty much cuts to the heart of the fundamental differences between the modern liberalist and libertarianist philosophies expressed in this forum. I’m greatly interested in the libertarian answers to Poly’s questions. If anyone is interested in the liberal answers (although I think these are more widely understood, particularly to questions 1 and 2), I’ll attempt to answer with my own viewpoint, and I hope that Polycarp, Gaudere, Kimstu and others will do so as well.
xeno’s perspective (a “bleeding heart” liberal one)
Lib: What property did our Savior have, and how did He fare? He had His life, His body, and His mind — with full authority (rights) concerning all of those.
Yeah, and look what happened to Him. No, that wasn’t really flippant—it’s extremely relevant to Poly’s question about how somebody without property can be protected from getting “leaned on” by the powerful people whom he/she annoys, even to the point of being railroaded and, well, crucified by the justice system.
I’m sorry but I just can’t let this pass. Libertarian, this is so not an answer. Polycarp, I guess he’s saying that as long as you are the Word made Flesh, you don’t need property. Or you either need property or to be born the Messiah of your People. Be the illegitimate son of the Lord Our God and you’ll do fine.
Please let me remind you, Lib, that this entire thread is meant to be a discussion of a REAL-WORLD Libertarian society subject to the messy practicalities of the REAL WORLD.
Your answer just confirms my belief that such a society can only survive if every single member is Christlike. How jumpin’ likely is that?
The only other way to take your answer is to look at the real-world aspect of your Savior’s “purtty good” life: he was killed by those is political power.
And this has to be the most unalloyedly naive statement made in this entire thread. Do you really expect me to believe that there will be no pollution in this Land of yours because the Corporations will be too decent to pollute?
If, as your answer seems to imply, your Libertaria will survive in the real world because every individual member–even the corporation heads–is Christ on Earth, then I really must consider this discussion a total wash.
I admire your Vision of the Ideal Universe, Lib, and I truly hope that when you slough off this mortal coil you find yourself in such a place, but this ain’t it.
What you are envisioning, Libertarian, is a Church-State. In the real world, this can only be maintained through coercion. Your model will not fly, except maybe to Afghanistan or Jonestown.
Well, I’ve been away from these boards for a while, but it’s good to see that some of the old debates are still raging. Since I don’t recall having this question answered in the thread WAY back when I was posting to these boards before, I’ll bring it up again.
Your ideal ‘Libertaria’ has a government based expressley on those it governs consenting to it, and freely recognizes that if someone doesn’t consent to Libertaria’s government, they’re not subject to its laws, correct?
Well, let’s assume that I’m on my own property, and have not consented to be governed by Libertaria. A citizen of Libertaria comes onto my property, thus initiating force against me. Does Libertaria claim any rights whatsoever about what I do on my own property to someone who has initiated force against me?
I just want to get on record that I stand unreservedly behind Xenophon’s answers to my questions, including the important distinction between rights of those in need and responsibilities towards them. I had missed this, thinking a bit foggily, and am honestly grateful for the correction.
Lib., if you feel that religion need be brought into the debate, I would submit in support of my thesis, such as it is:
(from Matthew 26, RSV)
Admittedly, if everybody lived perfect and exclusively moral and responsible lives, the questions raised in this thread would never come up. If everybody lived perfectand exclusively moral and responsible lives, we would not need a government, of any kind. And the Invisible Pink Unicorn would give children rides, and the Easter Bunny would bring everyone chocolate eggs twice a week (except for those allergic to chocolate, and subject to such other provisions as have been worked out in that thread).
Now, in a world where people are in need of help, where in a Libertarian society would they find it? If the answer is voluntary private charities, what causes you to assume they will be adequate to meet the need? Under social structures ranging from feudalism through mercantilism and Victorian laissez faire capitalism to today’s structure (“The Crazy Years”), “the poor have always been with us” (to paraphrase a friend of Lib’s and mine). I don’t claim that welfarist liberalism has done all that hot a job of solving the problem. It has tackled quite a bit of treating the symptoms, but failed to find the cure. In all honesty, with no Utopian assumptions, what would Libertarianism do?
I do not mean this to be belligerent – I reacted in anger to a flame made in anger by someone I considered (and still consider) to be a friend. Now I want to get to the bottom of the question. I think it is a valid one, and the evidence would indicate other thinkers agree. Kindly resolve it. Phil, Water, if you can assist with an answer while Lib. is busy composing the story requested of him, please do so.