Help from Libertarians/Anarchists
POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Friday, January 18, 2008 14:04
VIEWED: 12974
PAGE 17 of 18
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"slamming folks for not responding to you when they are simply absent from this forum for a while"
I think the last time I did that was two years ago, and it was with Geezer who was actively posting on other threads while ignoring one where he just didn't have an answer. Time to update your internal references.
Might want to scroll up in this very thread as a refresher to your 'internal references'.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Let's see - I mentioned being all alone on the board, and also that 'no one' had answered a question yet. Also chided CTS for ignoring a question while she was actively posting on that very topic and very obviously on the board.
Might want to learn to read, bud.
So, does CTS get points taken off for doing a victory dance after refusing to discuss her own positions ?
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Let's see - I mentioned being all alone on the board, and also that 'no one' had answered a question yet. Also chided CTS for ignoring a question while she was actively posting on that very topic and very obviously on the board.
That is less than two years ago, yes?
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Might want to learn to read, bud.
I can read very well thank-you, pal.
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
So, does CTS get points taken off for doing a victory dance after refusing to discuss her own positions ?
Maybe you are right and I cannot read. I thought CTS has discussed and continues to discuss her position.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Question #1 is more detail than I want to get into.
Quote:Yes. When you sign the Constitution, you agree to comply with the decisions of the courts, or accept enforcement by the police.
Originally posted by Fletch2:
2) If the courts adjudicate against you and you refuse to comply, do the police come after you?
Please note there is no mechanism for making laws. The Constitution is the only law in the land; the only illegal thing you can do is to violate the sovereignty of another person. So the only law enforcement would be for violent crime and property damage. If the courts find you guilty of violating the sovereignty of another person, you have to pay the consequences.
Quote:There is no such thing as a corporate entity. Sovereigns can collectively invest in some enterprise--but they are all personally liable for the decisions of that enterprise.
3) What rights do corporate entities have in this system? Rights equal to the sovereign individual or lesser?
Quote:I don't imagine this little libertarian country to be big enough for provinces. But no, there is no provision to make any other law than the Constitution, so whatever people want to work out on a more local level, they can work it out--it just won't involve changing the Constitution.
4) Are there regional states or provinces? What rights, functions and responsibilities do they have if any, how do they derive the income to provide these functions?
Quote:Pollution is property damage. The government can prosecute property damage on behalf of a group of sovereigns as it can on behalf of only one sovereign.
6) How do you deal with harmful actions like pollution,
Quote:Whether sovereigns want to act collectively is up to them. If absence of action can be proven in court to somehow violate the sovereignty of other citizens (which I highly doubt), then the citizen guilty of the violation would be culpable like anyone else.
7) In the event of national disaster/pandemics, do you take collective action, if so who decides when and how to do that and under what authority.
Please note, the Constitution does not provide for the *prevention* of sovereignty violations--it can only punish after the fact.
Quote:Prevention is not a function of the government.
8) In the event that a person's "personal sovereignty" is in conflict with the public good -- say for example someone wanting to travel with a highly contagious disease --- at what point does the group have the right to over ride that sovereignty (if ever.) If not do you just let him do as he likes and then try to fix the damage later?
However, individual sovereigns may take it upon themselves to restrict the movement of the sick person. If the sick person files charges, the courts can decide how much of a threat to other people's right to public thoroughfare was the sick person, and how much restriction by other sovereigns was justifiable.
In the real world, there are a helluva lot of judgment calls. Those judgment calls aren't going to be perfect. But the idea is to remain, as consistent as possible, to the principle of individual sovereignty.
Edit to add disclaimer: All this is my imagination only, and does not represent the views of other libertarians and/or anarchists.
--------------------------
Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.
--Thomas Paine, Common Sense (1776)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hi AnthonyT
"But a brain damaged child who can't even feed themselves or control bathroom functions, who has no capacity for reasoning, and who is not expected to recover... I think they need to die. At least someone with Down's syndrome or some similar malady can contribute to society."
I wasn't even considering 'total care' children.
I brought up brain damaged children as the most obvious example of people who might be incapable of caring for themselves in a devil-take-the-hindmost world. Since we were discussing such anomalies as Bundy, I thought it might be more useful to discuss more common issues.
Children who are 'slow' or have difficulties compared to other children make up a fair part of society. Just a limited number of conditions adds up to over 10%.
autism 0.1%
childhood epilepsy 1.0%
Down syndrome 0.1%
dyslexia 3%
dyscalculia 6%
But whether you are born that way, or come to it later in life due to illness, accident or age, we will all be disabled at some point. Who cares for and protects those who can't do that for themselves ? Especially if they have no family who might potentially have an interest. How will they fend for themselves ? Who out of general society will make the effort to provide for strangers ? What do you do to prevent these people from dying on the street ? Or worse, what's to prevent me - mr businessman - from taking in a whole bunch of disabled people and working them to death on simple tasks ? B/c some people WILL take advantage. Not everyone, not even most people, but some. And then what do you do ?
I guess I'd like to see some answers from people who are proposing their society as THE answer to all of life's injustices.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"NO ONE, is born like that, period.
You're arguing that point from a position of.. what, assumption ?"
No, from decades-long involvement with children who were born that way, and their families.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
OK, Signy, now to your question, "What about the feeble?"
I can sympathize with the question, because I was disabled for 10 years. At worst times, there is no doubt that I would have died had it not been for those who took care of me. I understand about completely being at the mercy of others.
The question is, should a libertarian society force its citizens to take care of the feeble, whether they want to or not? Obviously, the answer for a libertarian (let alone an anarchist) is, no hell no. No force. Lack of action is not an active violation of someone's sovereignty.
In countries where no one is forced to take care of the feeble, the feeble are still taken care of--by family, by community. Sure, some fall through the cracks and die, but some do that even in socialist societies. Do more fall in the cracks where there is no social net? I haven't seen any research on this, but just from my travels and living around the world, my personal opinion is no.
I have some experience as a social worker working with the poorest of the poor in the USA. The idea of a social net to catch the feeble is very attractive in theory, but in practice, that net is full of large, large holes. In my experience, that "net" is an illusion, like everything else govt provides. In some ways, it even hurts the feeble; people are less inclined to be charitable when they think there is already a net to catch those who fall (diffusion of responsibility), and it keeps the feeble "caught" in the net so that they are less likely to ever be free of the net. Voluntary family and charity nets are more responsive and empowering, and much less wasteful. As a former social worker, helping the feeble, both financial and physical, is a big issue with me. Social services is the least of my complaints about govt. But my opinion remains that voluntary charity is in all ways superior to govt charity.
Of course, when I say charity, I don't just mean food and shelter, but protection as well.
--------------------------
An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it. Truth stands, even if there be no public support. It is self sustained.
--Mahatma Gandhi, Young India 1924-1926 (1927), p. 1285
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Honestly, I can't decide between "politicans" and "police"... altho I think the national intelligence agenices would be a good start too!!
You know, I can't disagree with you here. I like the idea of a direct democracy. And I agree about the police as impotent in prevention. I should say that police of CTSLand would be there to investigate crimes and enforce courts decisions.
There is one more important aspect of CTSLand I egregiously left out. The Constitution would require that all citizens be members of the military. That means when people sign the social contract to become citizens, they sign an agreement to join the military, train to use weapons of all sorts, and deploy in event of a war. And when if there is a war resulting from a direct attack, all able-bodied citizens are drafted. There is no sending someone else's son to die for no good reason.
--------------------------
I would say that my position is not too far from that of Ayn Rand's; that I would like to see government reduced to no more than internal police and courts, external armed forces - with the other matters handled otherwise. I'm sick of the way the government sticks its nose into everything, now.
--Robert Heinlein
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
OK, Signy, now to your question, "What about the feeble?"
I can sympathize with the question, because I was disabled for 10 years. At worst times, there is no doubt that I would have died had it not been for those who took care of me. I understand about completely being at the mercy of others.
The question is, should a libertarian society force its citizens to take care of the feeble, whether they want to or not? Obviously, the answer for a libertarian (let alone an anarchist) is, no hell no. No force. Lack of action is not an active violation of someone's sovereignty.
But if a "feeble" person has no family, no friends to speak of, and there is no governmental "net" (however flawed), aren't you forcing people to volunteer?
Short of asking people to watch their helpless elderly neighbor crawl around in their filth and eventually die, what would the alternative be to "voluntarily" helping?
What if people wait around for someone to step up and take on what can be a very big burden, and the neighbor dies in the meantime? Would that be... completely alright? How is it really different from watching rape and torture be carried out? Would that even be a crime? Refusing to help is refusing to help, right? Is the only crime, then, the one that gets reported by the victims?
I suppose, I am uncomfortable with a society that doesn't provide some right for physical care for the helpless. Some officially expressed social will to prevent suffering.
This is difficult to me because I have some fondness for the idea of maximum responsibility/maximum freedom. Where it stops working for me is the reality of weakness and suffering. Mostly, I think it's a way of life that would work better in a more primitive world. Lots of space and no expectation of ease or lack of suffering.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CTS
Two things. First the Constitution only applies to government, it doesn't apply to individuals or none government institutions. So where as the government can't restrict your free speech I can fire any of my employees who leaks company information. If you are implying that to become a citizen I have to provide constitutional protections for personal and business interactions that just won't fly. The Constitution is not and was not a system of law, it's higher than that. The US chose to retain over 1000 years of the common law as the basis of the legal system. What the Constitution does is set down the system of government in a form that is hard for the government itself to change and to put limits on the government that restrict what it is allowed to do and the kinds of laws it can enact.
Second if we take your previous explanation seriously, then there can be no direct democracy. If there is no law but the constitution (which is not in fact a law at all) then how can a direct democracy function? Democracy in the end is about deciding who makes laws and what they should be. In the absence of laws there is no need for a democracy as long as there is a competent civil service.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME