So, what the heck is libertarianism?
POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Saturday, September 7, 2024 21:57
VIEWED: 19122
PAGE 2 of 3
Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Aw, damn, Sig, I feel bad.
You asked nice, SHORT, valid hypothetical questions. And all you got out of Geezer was dismissal and an attack on your perceived starting bias. And from Six, anger and hostility.
No.
I provided answers to SignyM's questions, based on my understanding of how a Libertarian system would work. She either ignores them completely, ignores the effect that a large libertarian-minded population would have on society, or comes up with hypotheticals that are so outlandish they're similar to "What would your pitiful Libertarian society do if the Sun exploded?"
Looking back at the threads Frem found, we went through the same thing five years ago.
If SignyM wants to stick to her belief that private property, individualism, and the free market will inevitably screw things up, and ignore any suggestion that there might be a way out of that, That's fine.
I've shown several ways that a Libertarian society could defeat her "Water Baron" scenario that seem reasonable to me. I'd be glad to discuss them with you, if you will agree to have an open mind.
"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
I was thinking about pioneering the other day, American wilderness style. In 1776, if you were broke, you could get a wagon, move westward over the mountains, find yourself a piece of land and make a fresh start, libertarian or anarchist style. Cut down the trees, build yourself a cabin, plant and grow animals and crops to feed yourself and family. Wouldn't have been EASY, would have been RISKY, but you could get away from society and do it all with your bare hands, or just a little help from your very few neighbors. .
Right, apart from the fact that the land was owned/managed by the Indigenous people in the area, who would have a high chance of being pissed off by you moving in. And when things start to get rough with them, the idea of living free from the rule of no other man would start to wear thing, and next thing you know you're asking for the protection of the military (to whom you don't fund - but they come anyway) to sort out these savages who keep attacking you.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And again.
Let's look more at this "Ownership of property, individualism, and a free market lead inevitably to monopoly" thing.
This explains why I can only get a hamburger at McDonalds.
Wait a minute.
I can buty a burger at McDucks.
I can also buy one at Burger King.
And Sonic.
And Hardees.
And 5 Guys.
Not to mention local places like BGR the Burger Joint, and Ray's Hell Burger, that cater to the folks who want a high end burger.
If I travel a bit I can have Krystal, Steak and Shake, or White Castle.
Going to the West Coast, I can get Carl Jrs, In and Out, Fatburger, etc.
More locally, I can go to the Greek pizza place up the street and get a burger.
And I've probably left out a few thousand places where I can get a burger.
Hardly the "buy from me or you get no burger" monopoly SignyM says is inevitable.
"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No, you didn't.
I provided answers to SignyM's questions, based on my understanding of how a Libertarian system would work.
Quote:What would libertarianism do SPECIFICALLY if there were individuals bent on using market forces to achieve power? That is the heart of the question. Since I can point to driven individuals in ANY economic system on any continent throughout history, I think it's a fair assumption that there will be such individuals under libertarianism as well.
She either ignores them completely, ignores the effect that a large libertarian-minded population would have on society, or comes up with hypotheticals that are so outlandish they're similar to "What would your pitiful Libertarian society do if the Sun exploded?"
So, what's the answer? What ethic, procedure, or contract would either prevent or respond to such a circumstance? All I ever got... and all I ever get... is That would never happen under libertarianism.
Why not? I happened under monarchism and fuedalism and imperialism and capitalism and socialism, so why not under libertarianism?
So, that's not an answer, that's wishful thinking.
As far as having a bias... or course, I have a bias. So do you. I would be more than happy to answer any questions you might have about my "solutions"
... or what you think my solutions are. Right up front, I'll say that I don't think that I have "the" answer or even "an" answer. But if we discuss this together, with you in the role of the skeptic, maybe an idea will be developed.
Also, I quoted "property is theft" because it represents to me the essence of anarchism. I'm not an anarchist, so maybe I got it wrong.
Quote:Small things that can be made and used locally aren't necessarily subject to monopolism. But things that require large capital investments- large manufacturing concerns, "infrastructure", and what are now considered "public utilities", communications systems (exactly the things MY monopolist targeted) are subject to monopoly forces because the cost of entry is so high. Also, most of the stuff you originally thought were small- like Ben & Jerry's, and Burt's Bees... turned out all to have been bought out by larger concerns. Been there and done that with you before. Most of what you think you know about "market forces", economies, and people is mostly wishful thinking, IMHO.
Hardly the "buy from me or you get no burger" monopoly SignyM says is inevitable.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Not quite true, Magons - okay yes, the pissing off part, maybe a little, but here's a little bit from american early history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watauga_Association
Quote:
In May 1772, the Watauga and Nolichucky settlers negotiated a 10-year lease directly with the Cherokee, and being outside the claims of any colony, established the Watauga Association to provide basic government functions. The lease and the subsequent purchase of these lands in 1775 were considered illegal by the British Crown, and were vehemently opposed by a growing faction of the Cherokee led by the young chief Dragging Canoe.
That's why the scene with Ten Bears in The Outlaw Josey Wales strikes a chord with me, cause the Wataugans, my ancestors, preferred to negotiate rather than use force.
Now mind you, despite giving lip service to the crown, and later to the colonies, the Wataugans were prettymuch Anarchists, or as close to such a thing as politics allowed back then, mainly cause no one much bothered them except Dragging Canoe and his flunkies, and that was kind of an ongoing spat where each side would shoot a couple of the other, call it a win, and leave it be for a while, which had less to do with Cherokee versus Europeans as much as it did with the fact that Dragging Canoe was kind of a dick, and John Sevier was kind of a dick, and crazy to boot.
Interesting note to that is again, Wataugans preferred not to fight, and even that whole mess over the failed attempt to create their own state (state of Franklin) when it came to shooting they mostly shot at each others cover (referred locally as shooting fenceposts) as bluster and threat of the I-COULD-have-shot-you-there stripe, at least when fighting amongst themselves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Franklin
The one noteable exception to this was that asshole Ferguson, who made the very dire mistake of saying, essentially "Hand over your guns, OR ELSE!" to the damn Wataugans...
That was probably the stupidest thing Ferguson EVER did, and as a direct result, one of the last.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kings_Mountain
After which they mostly went home and got drunk, though some few went and fought for the colonials, see - they were sympathetic to the colonials, moreso than the british, but mostly they just wanted to be left the hell alone, at least till Sevier and others got politically ambitious, which didn't last even then.
Anyways, they didn't go that route, being far more of a leave alone get left alone attitude, than the manifest destiny sense of entitlement which came later.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No worries, mate. I'm high on painkillers right now, so the time will pass quickly!
Aw, damn, Sig, I feel bad.
You asked nice, SHORT, valid hypothetical questions. And all you got out of Geezer was dismissal and an attack on your perceived starting bias. And from Six, anger and hostility.
I'd take a shot at ANSWERING your question, I WILL, even tho' I'm not a believer, but I'm busy today, got real world stuff I gotta do, and this is the first thread here I've looked at today. Maybe tomorrow or Monday.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Mags,
of course. Or you could, maybe, buy the land from the Indians, as the Dutch did Manhattan. Or they might give it to you, as with William Penn. Or trade with 'em, as the French fur trappers did. Or you might steal it, and piss them off, especially if the piece you stole was special to them. Or they might not care. That's parts of what made it risky. Could get you killed. and you might do something that made you commit the non-libertarian act of asking the government for help.
But my main point was in the next paragraphs, where I was agreeing with Frem, wasn't I?-- You can't even do that in 2013. Somebody else will already claim ownership of the land, private citizen, corporation or government, and you'll have to buy it, and be bound by their laws and regulations. Which means you can't even get the chance to do it on your own without a bunch of oney.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
re Aquanopoly vs Geezer's Geysers, isn't the "cheaper short term, because it's a loss leader" strategy what Wal-Mart did?
And didn't the Apple Mac computer lose out to the PC and Windows because it was more expensive, even though better? and Sony BetaMax vs VHS? seems I remember a Sony DVD format losing the same way, but I don't remember the name, I might be wrong about that one.
And isn't that what the Federal dumping charges against Korean and other Asian steel were about? Sell below cost, lose money, make the competition lower its price to get any business at all, until it goes broke, then jack up the price and lower the quality. Isn't that the way the game is played ?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
RAPPY-
Quote:Well, that explains why you didn't write much- at least you didn't puff up your one-word thought (if you can call it that) into a multi-page bloviation.
Look at you. Wanting more and more answers, to be told what to think and how to live. And sure as hell if i were to produce any sort of manifesto, you'd call me CRAZY for trying to impose my rules on your lifestyle- rapppy
And look at you. Wanting to avoid answers more and more! I don't want to be told what to think and how to live. I just wanted to know what you think. Is that such a problem?-signy
I've already told you. -rappy
6IX
Quote:Jack, I don't know who the heck you're talking to, or what you're saying. I didn't vote for Obama, so why the heck do you keep going on.... and on... and on... about shit that even isn't part of the discussion?
Pardon my french, Signy, but here's Libertarianism in TWO WORDS...
FUCK YOU
EDITED TO ADD:
Figured that wasn't sufficient.....
I'd like to elaborate.....
I own my own house and pay my taxes and the gumment wants in for any reason.....
FUCK YOU...
In the mean time, I'm glad that you were able to not have to go to the ghetto for weed and I could provide. Now that the government owns my house, not only do I apologize that you have to ask shady "niggers" in the ghetto for what after being covered in hair spray and MACE was weed, but you have to live with 3 feet of unkempt lawn across the street since I'm too busy being raped in prison to worry about mowing our lawns.
Bottom line Signy.......
Dems are even afraid of weed, although both sides allow it now (especially in corrupt IL) for money. Illinois decision will not alleviate illegal drug trade by a MICROCOSM because they will TAX IT SO HARRRRRDDDDDDDDDD.
That's the only reason the Pimps in IL allowed it.
Ahem... OBAMA.....
ILLINOIS IS EVIL$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Don't ask me....
you voted him in, assholes.....
Talk to his half-human hand
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
What would libertarianism do SPECIFICALLY if there were individuals bent on using market forces to achieve power? That is the heart of the question. Since I can point to driven individuals in ANY economic system on any continent throughout history, I think it's a fair assumption that there will be such individuals under libertarianism as well.
So, what's the answer? What ethic, procedure, or contract would either prevent or respond to such a circumstance? All I ever got... and all I ever get... is That would never happen under libertarianism.
Oh, come on. I've answered this.
I've given several reasons why your "water baron" scenario would not work in a Libertarian society, and you ignore them all. All I get from you is "Oh. Private property, Individualism, and Free market lead inevitably to Monopoly". I've even shown that this is bogus, just using hamburgers.
Quote:
As far as having a bias... or course, I have a bias. So do you. I would be more than happy to answer any questions you might have about my "solutions"
Fine. You have put forward no solutions to this point. Define them and we'll have a go.
Quote:
Small things that can be made and used locally aren't necessarily subject to monopolism. But things that require large capital investments- large manufacturing concerns, "infrastructure", and what are now considered "public utilities", communications systems (exactly the things MY monopolist targeted) are subject to monopoly forces because the cost of entry is so high.
Okay. So monopoly is not inevitable, depending on conditions. Strange you didn't mention this until now.
Quote:
Also, most of the stuff you originally thought were small- like Ben & Jerry's, and Burt's Bees... turned out all to have been bought out by larger concerns. Been there and done that with you before. Most of what you think you know about "market forces", economies, and people is mostly wishful thinking, IMHO.
I'd note that there are still a lot of independent ice cream and lip balm companies out there. Folks are starting up new ones every day.
Just for fun, name one nationwide monopoly on any item most everyone needs (that's not a government, or government sanctioned, monopoly).
"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Does a consortium count? How about price-fixing?
Most people would consider a trip to the gas station a perfect everyday example.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
re Aquanopoly vs Geezer's Geysers, isn't the "cheaper short term, because it's a loss leader" strategy what Wal-Mart did?
So we all have to shop at Wal-Mart because its the only store left. Right?
Quote:
And didn't the Apple Mac computer lose out to the PC and Windows because it was more expensive, even though better? and Sony BetaMax vs VHS? seems I remember a Sony DVD format losing the same way, but I don't remember the name, I might be wrong about that one.
I seem to recall passing an Apple store in the mall the other day. How could that be?
And Betamax lost out because it was awkward. I'd note that you can get movies and video streaming, on Netflix, by download, and various other ways instead of DVD. This is a monopoly?
Quote:
And isn't that what the Federal dumping charges against Korean and other Asian steel were about? Sell below cost, lose money, make the competition lower its price to get any business at all, until it goes broke, then jack up the price and lower the quality. Isn't that the way the game is played ?
Korea and other Asian producers subsidized by their governments. That's the way governments play the game. You okay with that?
"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Why "nationwide"? If you need it, and you can only get it from one source, it's a monopoly as far as you're concerned. Talk about a biased question!
name one nationwide monopoly on any item most everyone neeeds
ETA: if you see a lot of typos, just chalk it up to painkillers and muscle relaxants... I saved them for the evening .... WHEEEE!!!!!!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Very good observation. I wonder if Geezer has an answer.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Muscle relaxants... they relax SO MUCH MORE than muscles! Whooda thunk???
I wonder if Geezer has an answer.
OF COURSE Geezer doens't have answer!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This thread leads me to two (not new) conclusions:
1) Geezer's dream libertarian system has nothing to do with a new system of government. It is a change in fundamental human nature. Go read his posts again. It's right there. The system doesn't change, it's only that in his utopia everyone is uniform in the way they buy into it. It all works in his fantasy because in his fantasy suddenly everyone wants the same thing and has the same values.
Yeah, it's easy to have a govt that works when there is no conflict in human nature. How about a system that can be applied in reality? Because, in reality, there will ALWAYS be conflicts in basic beliefs.
In my experience, libertarians will never admit for this inconvenient reality. Because they are so stuck in the idea that their values should somehow be universal. Because they are so very right. Why can't everyone see it? /irony
2) Six is on the sauce again.
*---------------------------------------*
The French Revolution would have never happened if Marie Antoinette had just given every peasant an iPhone.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:Why "nationwide"? If you need it, and you can only get it from one source, it's a monopoly as far as you're concerned. Talk about a biased question!
name one nationwide monopoly on any item most everyone neeeds
Oh, come on. You said that pretty much any society would eventually end up with monopolies and the very few running everything, and now you want to quibble about size.
And you complain about biased questions? Please.
But okay. Name an existing total monopoly in the U.S. over an area 100 miles from wherever the central water (or whatever) plant is (100 mile diameter), as you described earlier. Just to be fair (sorry) let's say in an area of pretty good population density, not wher there's 10 folks per square mile. And once again, no government, or government supported, monopoly.
"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
This thread leads me to two (not new) conclusions:
1) Geezer's dream libertarian system has nothing to do with a new system of government. It is a change in fundamental human nature.
Winner, winner chicken dinner. You're exactly right.
Just like it called for a fundamental change in human nature for democracy to develop, or for people to decide that keeping people enslaved was wrong. Glad you figured it out.
"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Of course I do. And so do you, apparently.
now you want to quibble about size.
If YOU depend on me for water, you depend on me.What an ass you are!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:Of course I do. And so do you, apparently.
now you want to quibble about size.
What an ass you are!
Okay. So you don't have an answer, and resort to insult.
I win.
Woopee.
Or I could assume that painkillers make you more prone to insult than good rye makes me, and wait for you to tell me about that 100 mile monopoly in a fairly well populated portion of the U.S. that doesn't involve government.
I'm going to bed, as it's 11:15PM here.
I'll check your answer, or continuing insults, in the morning.
p.s. still awaiting your solutin to the "inevitable monopoly" scenario.
Hope your pain is reduced and that you get a good rest.
You'll need it tomorrow.
"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Pfizer, Inc - Viagra - a monopoly. If you want Viagra, you have to pay Pfizer.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Just like it called for a fundamental change in human nature for democracy to develop ..."
Do you think western democracy is the only point of all democratic development in this entire history of the human race? Really?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
And again.
Let's look more at this "Ownership of property, individualism, and a free market lead inevitably to monopoly" thing.
This explains why I can only get a hamburger at McDonalds.
Wait a minute.
I can buty a burger at McDucks.
I can also buy one at Burger King.
And Sonic.
And Hardees.
And 5 Guys.
Not to mention local places like BGR the Burger Joint, and Ray's Hell Burger, that cater to the folks who want a high end burger.
If I travel a bit I can have Krystal, Steak and Shake, or White Castle.
Going to the West Coast, I can get Carl Jrs, In and Out, Fatburger, etc.
More locally, I can go to the Greek pizza place up the street and get a burger.
And I've probably left out a few thousand places where I can get a burger.
Hardly the "buy from me or you get no burger" monopoly SignyM says is inevitable.
This says more about the nature of the obesity problem in the US, than the nature of libertarianism.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Mags,
of course. Or you could, maybe, buy the land from the Indians, as the Dutch did Manhattan. Or they might give it to you, as with William Penn. Or trade with 'em, as the French fur trappers did. Or you might steal it, and piss them off, especially if the piece you stole was special to them. Or they might not care. That's parts of what made it risky. Could get you killed. and you might do something that made you commit the non-libertarian act of asking the government for help.
But my main point was in the next paragraphs, where I was agreeing with Frem, wasn't I?-- You can't even do that in 2013. Somebody else will already claim ownership of the land, private citizen, corporation or government, and you'll have to buy it, and be bound by their laws and regulations. Which means you can't even get the chance to do it on your own without a bunch of oney.
Seems that to find the truth about how successful trades/purchases were from Native American, you have to ask yourself where are those thriving nations that existed pre white settlement?
Might have been beads for land, but the end result was displacement and cultural distruction.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
E-T-A:
Aw, gee. I'm responding chronologically, and between the original post and this response, you already made most of these points. Feel free to ignore most of this post. ANd I worked so hard to get it down to almost one screen.
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Economic power, especially the monopoly power over vital resources, is a power itself, without government. And you're free to own all the doodads and gizmos you want.
then Geezer wrote:
Quote:
Next, when you talk about killing people by purposely withholding services, don't you think that's initiation of force?
Aha! That's where this discussion started breaking down. No, that's not initiation of force. Withholding your own services, that's a voluntary, individual choice of action, or non action. The motivation behind it might be undesirable, but nobody outside the actor gets to dictate, or judge, that motivation. Force is, well, force-- guns, knives, clubs, fists, mobs vandalizing things. That's FORCE.
Using economic power, the power of property, for individual benefit, is a common, nay, universal, phenomenon. That's what ALL commerce is about. Except that Geezer seems to be saying that, under libertarianism, that would never happen. But libertarianism promotes maximum individual freedom of action. Use it in a manner that Geezer disapproves of, it gets re-defined as "use of force", and "use of force" gets redefined as that.
Now, a left-wing, collectivist, socialist, Commie might define individual use of economic power against the group, "the masses" as that. Not exactly clear on what differentiates the Geez from the commie on that one.
And, Sig, here's 2 points of MY own to consider:
1. Libertarianism focuses on the successful, the rich, the powerful, the rulers. It's about them, which is how the Libbies see themselves. IT ignores the situation of the unfortunate, the poor, the oppressed by reality, the ruled. E-T-A: it's that "social Darwinism" thing I mentioned way up at the top of this thread. They evolved into losers, they deserve what they got.
2. (Sig, I know you already know this one.) There used to be a concept called "the social contract"- One definition of that might be that a person gives up using certain individual rights in exchange for the benefit of the group, and for the benefit to him from the larger scale action of the group. It can be thought of as the basis of any civilization. Seems to be a concept, in any form, that I haven't heard from any libbie here. And you can tell how they feel about it from Six's post.
Yeesh, I've spent literally hours online here, revising and editing this little post. And there's a lot more I have comments on.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Firstly, what does 'land' mean? Does it mean that if you own it, you are able to do what you want with it entirely? Do you own it from the top down to the earth's core? The first hundred metres? Do you own the air above it, the airspace above it, the water that runs through it?
I'm catching up from a couple of days back here. If this has already been answered,feel free to ignore.
Theoretically yes, you own all those things. You can exploit or contract out, or sell, just those rights on your piece of ground. Oil rights, water rights, mineral rights, any or all may be in the legal title to your property. You may or may not have bought them when you bought the land. Pre-existing contracts may determine whether or not you can use, dam up, or even drink, the water that flows across the surface of your land.
I have read of situations where privately owned airports had to lease the air space in their approach or departure landing patterns, they paid so that no land owner could erect a radio tower or sky scraper to endanger planes operating there.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
re Aquanopoly vs Geezer's Geysers, isn't the "cheaper short term, because it's a loss leader" strategy what Wal-Mart did?
So we all have to shop at Wal-Mart because its the only store left. Right?
Quote:
And didn't the Apple Mac computer lose out to the PC and Windows because it was more expensive, even though better? and Sony BetaMax vs VHS? seems I remember a Sony DVD format losing the same way, but I don't remember the name, I might be wrong about that one.
I seem to recall passing an Apple store in the mall the other day. How could that be?
And Betamax lost out because it was awkward. I'd note that you can get movies and video streaming, on Netflix, by download, and various other ways instead of DVD. This is a monopoly?Quote:
And isn't that what the Federal dumping charges against Korean and other Asian steel were about? Sell below cost, lose money, make the competition lower its price to get any business at all, until it goes broke, then jack up the price and lower the quality. Isn't that the way the game is played ?
Korea and other Asian producers subsidized by their governments. That's the way governments play the game. You okay with that?
1. I didn't say WalMart succeeded at it yet. But you could ask K-Nart, Sears, Wards, and local grocery chains how they feel about it.
2. Apple Stores sell phones now, maybe SMART phones; and maybe music players, but not general purpose computers, a market they dominated and innovated in before the IBM PC and the Windows box came along.
3. I remember Betamax as technically superior, better fidelity, longer playing time, several virtues. VHS only virtue was cheaper. That's how I remember it.
4.Subsidized by some other government or not, dumped steel was one factor driving American steel mills out of business. They got OUR government to step in on their side. Didn't help much, most of them are still gone.
All examples of somebody taking a short term loss to sell CHEAP, undercutting existing competition until in the long term that competition was gone from that market place, or reduced.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
This thread leads me to two (not new) conclusions:
1) Geezer's dream libertarian system has nothing to do with a new system of government. It is a change in fundamental human nature. Go read his posts again. It's right there. The system doesn't change, it's only that in his utopia everyone is uniform in the way they buy into it. It all works in his fantasy because in his fantasy suddenly everyone wants the same thing and has the same values.
Yeah, it's easy to have a govt that works when there is no conflict in human nature. How about a system that can be applied in reality? Because, in reality, there will ALWAYS be conflicts in basic beliefs.
In my experience, libertarians will never admit for this inconvenient reality. Because they are so stuck in the idea that their values should somehow be universal. Because they are so very right. Why can't everyone see it? /irony
Ah, damn. Spot on, and written better, more concisely, than I ever could have. Maybe a perspective I've never had, too.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:Why "nationwide"? If you need it, and you can only get it from one source, it's a monopoly as far as you're concerned. Talk about a biased question!
name one nationwide monopoly on any item most everyone neeeds
Oh, come on. You said that pretty much any society would eventually end up with monopolies and the very few running everything, and now you want to quibble about size.
And you complain about biased questions? Please.
But okay. Name an existing total monopoly in the U.S. over an area 100 miles from wherever the central water (or whatever) plant is (100 mile diameter), as you described earlier. Just to be fair (sorry) let's say in an area of pretty good population density, not wher there's 10 folks per square mile. And once again, no government, or government supported, monopoly.
Possibly, maybe probably, we would have those monopolies here in the USA under a libertarian government. The US certainly had those tendencies between the Civil War and 1929. Maybe we don't have them because government regulation prevented them. Maybe not having them is proof that the existing system WORKS.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Pfizer, Inc - Viagra - a monopoly. If you want Viagra, you have to pay Pfizer.
ah, a critical monopoly.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Pfizer, Inc - Viagra - a monopoly. If you want Viagra, you have to pay Pfizer.
If you want a Ford, you have to pay Ford.
Of course you could buy a Chevrolet from Chevrolet.
Or if you're looking for ED drugs, you could buy Cialis from Lilly, or Levitra or Staxyn from Bayer, or a dozen more.
"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"Just like it called for a fundamental change in human nature for democracy to develop ..."
Do you think western democracy is the only point of all democratic development in this entire history of the human race? Really?
Did I say that? All I said was "democracy".
"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
This says more about the nature of the obesity problem in the US, than the nature of libertarianism.
Well, no. Actually it shows that Signym's "everything leads inevitably to monopoly" scenario is not true.
"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
OK, here's a new point in this discussion.
History. I have seen this theory written, can't cite exactly where. I propose it as a possible explanation, to be discussed; not because I believe it to be the Absolute truth.
THEORY-- The Declaration of Independence was a libertarian document, a statement justified on the level of individual rights, a reason for libertarian revolt. "inalienable rights"; "life, liberty, pursuit of happiness"; "to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men."
STILL THEORY- Thomas Jefferson, who wrote this, was a libbie.
NOW, FACT: This document was not LAW, never the basis of the government, but a statement of cause for Revolution.
MORE FACT: The Articles of Confederation were the document that set up the government for that Revolution. The national Congress could not do much, could not compel the states to do anything. The states were free to do as they pleased. This government was able to win the Revolution, barely, with lots of troubles caused by this government structure. Washington could not get the money from the states to operate the army, could not get enough men in his army. He bitched about it frequently. After the war, it was failing at regulating itself, commercially.
THEORY:The Articles were a libertarian document on the state level.
FACT: So the Convention set out to change the government, write the Constitution of the United States. Thomas Jefferson was not there-- he was ambassador in Paris.
THEORY. The Constitution was not a libertarian document. It was a social contract to unify, bind together, the states into a national whole. There's precious little about states rights, let alone individual rights, in the body of the Constitution. It's a pragmatic, practical, realist document. Explicit, detailed in a generalist way. "Congress shall consist of--"; "Congress shall pass no law--"; "first Tuesday after the first Monday"
FACT: The Convention approved the Constitution, a body representative of the people and governments of the colonies.
THEORY: The Bill of Rights had to be added to get the libertarians to ratify. It's a libertarian document, full of concern about things that no part of the government may do to an individual; abuses experienced under British rule that were now prevented.
NOBC's CONCLUSION. You can make the argument that the Articles of Confederation were an attempt at libertarian government, on a state level. They failed, ultimately, but not catastrophically. They had to be replaced by a unifying social contract that had some Libertarian features.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Using economic power, the power of property, for individual benefit, is a common, nay, universal, phenomenon. That's what ALL commerce is about. Except that Geezer seems to be saying that, under libertarianism, that would never happen. But libertarianism promotes maximum individual freedom of action.
Once again ignoring that libertarians believe in the maximum freedom of action for everybody, not just themselves. And that freedom of action is limited to actions that don't initiate force against others. Your idea that 'force' is only physical force flies in the face of reality.
Quote:
And, Sig, here's 2 points of MY own to consider:
1. Libertarianism focuses on the successful, the rich, the powerful, the rulers. It's about them, which is how the Libbies see themselves. IT ignores the situation of the unfortunate, the poor, the oppressed by reality, the ruled. E-T-A: it's that "social Darwinism" thing I mentioned way up at the top of this thread. They evolved into losers, they deserve what they got.
Got any cites for this, or is it just an opinion based on nothing?
Quote:
2. (Sig, I know you already know this one.) There used to be a concept called "the social contract"- One definition of that might be that a person gives up using certain individual rights in exchange for the benefit of the group, and for the benefit to him from the larger scale action of the group. It can be thought of as the basis of any civilization. Seems to be a concept, in any form, that I haven't heard from any libbie here.
You should read the threads Frem cited. Plenty of discussion from several folks about voluntary associations of folks in a Libertarian society to provide everything from fire services to medical care to charity.
Seems you're slipping back into the "Every man for himself and devil take the hindmost" trap that does not accuarately most Libertarian thinking at all.
"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Possibly, maybe probably, we would have those monopolies here in the USA under a libertarian government. The US certainly had those tendencies between the Civil War and 1929. Maybe we don't have them because government regulation prevented them. Maybe not having them is proof that the existing system WORKS.
Could be, although government seems to support big businesses at least as much as it controls them.
BTW: It's SignyM saying that the current system, or any system based on private property, individualism, and the free market cannot possibly work.
"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
NOBC "ah, a critical monopoly"
Geezer "If you want a Ford, you have to pay Ford"
It's an example. The same is true of many medications, including life-sparing ones like Cialis. These meds were based on government-supported research into NO blood vessel dilation, and originally conceived and developed as blood pressure medications. But they had an interesting side effect on men and so the companies went with them as a blockbuster-'lifestyle' market rather than a lifesaving one. But Cialis is the ONLY treatment for primary pulmonary hypertension, aside from a double-lung transplant. Another example is humulin (genetically-derived human insulin) for diabetics who've become allergic to the pig insulin. Then there's EPO for kidney-disease based anemia. Latisse which grows eyelashes but also treats sleeping sickness - except it's priced far too high to be used on poor African lives. All of these are just select examples of vital monopolies, where you pay the price, or die. Literally.
I'm surprised you both didn't realize that. NOBC, I realize you're playing devil's advocate. But Geezer - you believe this stuff. You should know your monopolies better.
Also, price fixing by a few companies - gasoline, heating fuel, natural gas. They are definitely vital and there's no effective competition.
Interesting example if you're into details - this whole hullabaloo about 'peak oil' and 'the end of oil' only applies to sweet light crude - the kind nearly all refineries have been built around over the last 50 years and the only kind they are able to handle. But there's other kinds of crude - heavy sour crude (and tar-sands crude, which I mention for completeness, but that's not part of this story). There is a virtually unlimited supply of that, and it's much cheaper. ONE refinery named Valero did have SOME capacity to refine heavy sour crude. Almost two decades ago they decided to specialize in it. So they took some huge profit hits and rebuilt their refineries to handle the stuff - crack at higher temps, remove sulfur and other unwanted elements etc. With light sweet crude trading at about $90/bbl heavy sour crude trades at about $70/bbl and their capital costs recouped a long time ago, and operating costs about the same as other refineries (they recoup sulfur removal costs by selling sulfur) you'd THINK their gasoline would be far cheaper. It's all about competition reducing prices - right? But their gasoline is a marginal $0.05 per gallon cheaper at a base price of about $4.00/gal. Costs of production 25% cheaper. Prices at the pump 1.25% cheaper.
So, let's here it for free competition and no monopolies! Not.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
And, Sig, here's 2 points of MY own to consider:
1. Libertarianism focuses on the successful, the rich, the powerful, the rulers. It's about them, which is how the Libbies see themselves. IT ignores the situation of the unfortunate, the poor, the oppressed by reality, the ruled. E-T-A: it's that "social Darwinism" thing I mentioned way up at the top of this thread. They evolved into losers, they deserve what they got.
Got any cites for this, or is it just an opinion based on nothing?
Damn, can you read? DO you? Or do you just ignore stuff that isn't what you want to bitch about? You even quoted it right there.
"And Sig, here's 2 points of MY own to consider."
Of course they're opinions. I don't think they're based on nothing. They're an observation based on what I've read. I offered them for Sig to consider. You could Argue against them. Do you want to do that? Or just say that that's all been settled, somewhere else?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
1. I didn't say WalMart succeeded at it yet. But you could ask K-Nart, Sears, Wards, and local grocery chains how they feel about it.
Still got Sears around here. Or you might ask Target, or Costco.
Quote:
2. Apple Stores sell phones now, maybe SMART phones; and maybe music players, but not general purpose computers, a market they dominated and innovated in before the IBM PC and the Windows box came along.
The Apple Mac Mini I got hooked up to my TV is pretty recent, and I bought it at an Apple store. There were plenty of MacBook notebooks, iMacs, and Mac pros there for sale.
Quote:Never had much luck with Beta myself. Both are pretty much gone by now.
3. I remember Betamax as technically superior, better fidelity, longer playing time, several virtues. VHS only virtue was cheaper. That's how I remember it.
Quote:
4.Subsidized by some other government or not, dumped steel was one factor driving American steel mills out of business. They got OUR government to step in on their side. Didn't help much, most of them are still gone.
But without the government subsidies, the Asian steel makers couln't have stood the loss of profit, and certainly not for so long.
Quote:
All examples of somebody taking a short term loss to sell CHEAP, undercutting existing competition until in the long term that competition was gone from that market place, or reduced.
But where is the inevitible monopoly? Per SignyM's scenario, "There can be only one".
"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Damn, can you read? DO you? Or do you just ignore stuff that isn't what you want to bitch about? You even quoted it right there.
"And Sig, here's 2 points of MY own to consider."
Of course they're opinions. I don't think they're based on nothing. They're an observation based on what I've read. I offered them for Sig to consider. You could Argue against them. Do you want to do that? Or just say that that's all been settled, somewhere else?
You have opinions. You apparently base them on something you read. What is it you base them on?
I've listed what I think Libertarianism is, and backed it up with a cite that's pretty close to what I believe. If you have a different view, you should be able to cite the information that makes you believe that way. That's all I'm asking for.
I will note that I have mentioned that Libertarianism as I understand it, and as defined in several places, calls for every adherant to want the maximum of individual liberty for everybody, not just themselves, and to follow the Non-aggression Principle, which states no one has the right to initiate force against any ones else, but that force can be used in response to such aggression.
Given this, I'm not sure how you can continue to talk about "Social Darwinism" and leaving everyone but the rich behind.
Maybe if I know where you got your information about Libertarians, I can figure this out, and possibly show that it is not as reliable as you might think.
"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:Quote:
Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
This thread leads me to two (not new) conclusions:
1) Geezer's dream libertarian system has nothing to do with a new system of government. It is a change in fundamental human nature. Go read his posts again. It's right there. The system doesn't change, it's only that in his utopia everyone is uniform in the way they buy into it. It all works in his fantasy because in his fantasy suddenly everyone wants the same thing and has the same values.
Yeah, it's easy to have a govt that works when there is no conflict in human nature. How about a system that can be applied in reality? Because, in reality, there will ALWAYS be conflicts in basic beliefs.
In my experience, libertarians will never admit for this inconvenient reality. Because they are so stuck in the idea that their values should somehow be universal. Because they are so very right. Why can't everyone see it? /irony
Ah, damn. Spot on, and written better, more concisely, than I ever could have. Maybe a perspective I've never had, too.
Bingo. Geezer's libertarian Utopia would work great, if it weren't for those all those darned PEOPLE! LIbertarians basically treat human nature as a rounding error in their computations.
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012
Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"
Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Just like it called for a fundamental change in human nature for democracy to develop ..."
So, what was your point? Be explicit. Spell it out.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Does the irony strike anyone else? The amazing irony that Geezer's libertarian paradise relies entirely upon a mass of people all acting, believing, behaving in the exact same way, almost as if they were a gigantic hive mind, a massive collective society, one of those kinds of personless statist societies that libertarians claim to hate?
He's basically arguing that the world would be perfect if we would all just act like him. How very ecocentric of him.
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012
Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"
Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Your idea that 'force' is only physical force flies in the face of reality.
dug out my Webster's Unabridged dictionary. It's in the bookcase next to the computer desk, right here in the home office
Quote:
Force,n:
physical power or strength exerted against a person or thing;
physical coercion;
violence, as, the police resorted to force to disperse them.
A word in common usage means what the common usage says it mean. You don't get to change that. You wanta use a word, use it correctly. You mean some other concept, use the word for that.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Especially b/c he claims that people will in time evolve to a higher state of perfection to be - like him! A libertarian!
Says a lot about what he thinks of himself, and us.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"Just like it called for a fundamental change in human nature for democracy to develop ..."
So, what was your point? Be explicit. Spell it out.
Did it really require a fundamental change in human nature for democracy to develop?
Before democracy, was it "human nature" to believe that kings ruled by divine right, or that one person was inherently worth more than another simply because of where they were born, or into which family?
When you watch children play, do you see it in their nature to treat one person among them as a king, far superior in every way to every other child they're playing with? Or do they tend to just treat each other as equals?
I'd posit that democracy - one person being the equal of another, having just as legitimate a voice, is closer to our default state of human nature, and it takes quite a bit of wrangling by kings and priests to try to drive that instinct out of people.
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012
Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"
Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Your idea that 'force' is only physical force flies in the face of reality.
dug out my Webster's Unabridged dictionary. It's in the bookcase next to the computer desk, right here in the home officeQuote:
Force,n:
physical power or strength exerted against a person or thing;
physical coercion;
violence, as, the police resorted to force to disperse them.
A word in common usage means what the common usage says it mean. You don't get to change that. You wanta use a word, use it correctly. You mean some other concept, use the word for that.
And Geezer, if you're talking about the "force of law", then you really should sit down and ask yourself exactly what that means. Behind every law is the threat of violence and a gun. If you don't agree, see what happens when you refuse to comply with even the most basic laws, like ones against jaywalking or ones that say you must pay your taxes.
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012
Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"
Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:Quote:
2. (Sig, I know you already know this one.) There used to be a concept called "the social contract"- One definition of that might be that a person gives up using certain individual rights in exchange for the benefit of the group, and for the benefit to him from the larger scale action of the group. It can be thought of as the basis of any civilization. Seems to be a concept, in any form, that I haven't heard from any libbie here.
You should read the threads Frem cited. Plenty of discussion from several folks about voluntary associations of folks in a Libertarian society to provide everything from fire services to medical care to charity.
OH, BTW, since I'm giving reading lessons, "here" means here, this thread. I haven't read others, didn't then, ain't gonna go back now.NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
NOBC "ah, a critical monopoly"
NOBC, I realize you're playing devil's advocate.
Yep, hon, teasing, joking.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
posted by Geezer:
(as posted by NOBC)
1. Libertarianism focuses on the successful, the rich, the powerful, the rulers. It's about them, which is how the Libbies see themselves. IT ignores the situation of the unfortunate, the poor, the oppressed by reality, the ruled. E-T-A: it's that "social Darwinism" thing I mentioned way up at the top of this thread. They evolved into losers, they deserve what they got.
Got any cites for this, or is it just an opinion based on nothing?
I notice that you haven't made any substantive response to my statement. What do you have to say about "the unfortunate, the poor, the oppressed by reality, the ruled"? Do they not exist? DO you not care about them? When or where have YOU focused on them in your postings, in this thread?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Your idea that 'force' is only physical force flies in the face of reality.
dug out my Webster's Unabridged dictionary. It's in the bookcase next to the computer desk, right here in the home officeQuote:
Force,n:
physical power or strength exerted against a person or thing;
physical coercion;
violence, as, the police resorted to force to disperse them.
A word in common usage means what the common usage says it mean. You don't get to change that. You wanta use a word, use it correctly. You mean some other concept, use the word for that.
And Geezer, if you're talking about the "force of law", then you really should sit down and ask yourself exactly what that means. Behind every law is the threat of violence and a gun. If you don't agree, see what happens when you refuse to comply with even the most basic laws, like ones against jaywalking or ones that say you must pay your taxes.
"force of law" is a subcategory under the main entry of "force". Pretty much agrees with what you write.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Every time you get in trouble you pull out the strawman. I should have known. I have repeatedly said that monopolies form when the cost of entry is high.
Well, no. Actually it shows that Signym's "everything leads inevitably to monopoly" scenario is not true.
I noticed, however, that while you were busy misrepresnting my views and asking questions where you kept moving the goalposts (i'll point those out later, if you wish) you never really did answer my question.
Also, you misrepresented the scenario that I posed about water monopoly. I never said that the water monopoly was selling below cost. In fact, I said that the costs were lower due to superior technology and economies of scale. So, let the customers view "my" books- I'm OK with that! And, isn't that the Ayn Rand storyline? That a group of extremely innovative people find better ways to do things, and would take over the economy if "the man" wasn't constantly getting in their way, and "forcing" them to take care of the less propertied? And didn't they decide to take their marbles and play elsewhere, kind of like my intrepid water-baron who decides who she wants to sell to?
Yanno, Geezer, there seems to be a deep chasm embedded in libertarianism: Libertarians themselves can't seem to decide whether their economic philosophy is about property or about liberty. I can think of far too many scenarios that are not only plausible but quite likely where the two ideals will conflict. And I also noticed that libertarians tend to start talking about "liberty" when their "property rights" argument runs into trouble.
Is there property that is "inalienable" under libertarianism? Do I own "my" air? Do I have the "right" to water? Can I sell myself into slavery? Does the person who "owns" more have more "rights"?
Seems like the conflict between liberty and property hasn't really been fully worked out, and I don't think it can be.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yeah, the strawman - his favorite standby.
"...while you were busy misrepresenting my views and asking questions where you kept moving the goalposts (I’ll point those out later, if you wish) ..."
I know it's late and all, so I don't expect an answer right away - but even if he doesn't wish, I do. Could you see your way to accommodating me at some point in the future?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:then changed it to a 100-mile limit. Really?? 100 miles? 100 miles around here would encompass about 18 million people, maybe more.
name one nationwide monopoly on any item most everyone neeeds
The funny thing is, there IS a nationwide monopoly that not only didn't get help from the gubmint, it was actually charged with unfair (monopolistic) practices by the DoJ. They got their monopoly the old-fashioned way- threatening retailers that if the retailer sold a competing product their very own "special pricing" would go away, and buying up and killing competing producers.
And, as far as I can tell, there is nothing in libertarian-land that makes it at all unethical.
So, Geezer, IS there something unethical about these practices in libertarian-land? 'Cause as far as I can tell, this would only be considered contractual arrangements... people freely buying and selling (even if the parties were vastly different in economic power).
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Every time you get in trouble you pull out the strawman.
Unlike the strawman of "I have this process to clean dirty water that's cheaper than just pumping clean water out of the ground"?
"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Assuming there is clean water to be had. If you look at my example, I did stack the deck in my favor by sying the the groundwater had been contaminated from fracking or from other industrial processes. It's something we here in LA know about, because many of our major aquifers have already been contaminated.
Also, if you look at my example, I patented the cleanup process, so there's no getting around that, either.
You keep quibbling around the edges, but have not addressed what seems to me to be the major conflict between "liberty" (rappy calls it "freedom") and "property". The libertarian mantra seems to be: Free to do whatever you want with your property, as long as force or fraud isn't involved.
But what if I own a huge ranch, and decide to turn it into a monoculture, killing off a number of rare species? Who owns "biodiversity"? What if I corner a water supply? What if, due to my huge fishing fleet and superior fish-finding satellites, I decimate a fishing ground that other people use?
Where are the ethical limits on such behavior, if any, under libertarianism, and what are those limits based on? That is one of the conundrums I keep bumping into with libertarianism, and one of the reasons why- no matter how much I think about it- I can't make it make sense.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Assuming there is clean water to be had. If you look at my example, I did stack the deck in my favor by sying the the groundwater had been contaminated from fracking or from other industrial processes. It's something we here in LA know about, because many of our major aquifers have already been contaminated.
Well, I would first propose that in Libertopia, ground water would probably not be contaminated by fracking or mining.
Groundwater is the property of the person who owns the ground.
If a bunch of guys wanted to start fracking or mining, other folks would file suit against them to, for example, stop them based on the likelyhood of such actions damaging their ground water, based on what happened back in the old U.S.A. Or they might sue to require posting of a bond large enough to remediate any possible spillage, with the understanding that any spillage would be cause for a shutdown of remaining operations. Probably other legal tacks this could take.
Now the government in Libertopia is limited to enforcing contracts and protecting people from aggression and injury. They don't care about job creation, increased tax revenue, energy independence for Libertopia, etc. They care only about if you violate a contract with me, mess up my property, or initiate force against me. Given the history of fracking and mining, I'm pretty sure that such a government would see it as a valid threat. You'd keep it clean, or you wouldn't do it.
Quote:
Also, if you look at my example, I patented the cleanup process, so there's no getting around that, either.
Somebody patented the VHS tape, as well, other people developed a different system - well actually several different systems - to do the same thing better. Are you the only inventor?
Then again, folks might not trust your process, sort'a like the fear of GMO foods. I could truck in Geezer Geyser Natural Spring Water and sell it on the supposed benefits of it being "natural", "organic", or "gluten free".
Quote:
You keep quibbling around the edges, but have not addressed what seems to me to be the major conflict between "liberty" (rappy calls it "freedom") and "property". The libertarian mantra seems to be: Free to do whatever you want with your property, as long as force or fraud isn't involved.
And as long as what you do on your property doesn't injure other people or their property.
Quote:
But what if I own a huge ranch, and decide to turn it into a monoculture, killing off a number of rare species? Who owns "biodiversity"?
This doesn't happen now?
And maybe I (or I and a bunch of like-minded people) buy a huge ranch and run it as a biodiversity reserve, with maybe a little hunting thrown in. That happens now as well.
Quote:
What if I corner a water supply?
I've written several pages on how very extremely unlikely this is.
Quote:
What if, due to my huge fishing fleet and superior fish-finding satellites, I decimate a fishing ground that other people use?
That'd be fishing grounds other people own, by right of first claim, or purchase. There's lots of writing about first claim, but one of the conditions is that if you claim it and don't use it, you lose it, probably through litigation.
Quote:
Where are the ethical limits on such behavior, if any, under libertarianism, and what are those limits based on? That is one of the conundrums I keep bumping into with libertarianism, and one of the reasons why- no matter how much I think about it- I can't make it make sense.
Going back to my first post in this thread, I'll edit down and sometimes expand on the Wiki definitions of the flavor of Libertarianism I like.
BTW. Since I don't have unlimited time, this will have to do as an answer for some questions and misconceptions from other folks aw well:
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Seems to me you end up with a society of folks who believe that everyone's rights to liberty, political freedom, and voluntary association are paramount. That believe that initiation of force, or threat of initiation of force, is wrong, and can morally be responded to. That believe that a person has a right to own him/herself and the fruits of his/her labor. And believe that the what government they have should be limited to protecting their rights and enforcement of contracts.
Seems to me that you've ended up with a society where there aren't any "unfortunate, poor, oppressed by reality, or ruled" people. Whatever happened to them? Do they not exist? How, exactly, do we evolve from where we are, where those folks are, to where you want us to end up? DO you not care about them? When or where have YOU focused on them in your postings, in this thread?
Hey, that question sounds familiar. Are you planning to ever answer it, or do you just hope it'll go away?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey, Sig, would you care, for clarity's sake, to explain the difference between a hypothetical argument and a strawman argument? I think I know the difference, but somebody here seems to be confused about it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Groundwater is the property of the person who owns the ground."
Skidded to a halt right here. If I'm on the upstream side of the aquifer then whatever is under my feet is all mine. I could suck it dry and it's my right as the 'owner'. The downstream people wouldn't have a thing to say about it. OTOH they could claim that they USED to own the aquifer that flowed under their property and I stole it from them, denying them something they used to own. In which case I'm not allowed to use any of it, since my use of any amount diminishes their property.
Private ownership doesn't seem to apply here, as it leads to irresolvable conundrums of who has ownership rights of the water.
Starting up again "Or they might sue to require posting of a bond large enough to remediate any possible spillage, with the understanding that any spillage would be cause for a shutdown of remaining operations. Probably other legal tacks this could take." And if the person refuses to comply - then what?
"But what if I own a huge ranch, and decide to turn it into a monoculture, killing off a number of rare species? Who owns "biodiversity"?"
"This doesn't happen now?"
That's where that nasty big brute of a gummint comes in and tells you you can't do that.
"What if I corner a water supply?"
"I've written several pages on how very extremely unlikely this is."
Spoken like an easterner where streams, creeks, ponds, lakes, and everything in between are no more than a quarter mile away from anywhere, and rain and/or snow fall year round. There are whole parts of the world where that isn't true.
"That'd be fishing grounds other people own, by right of first claim, or purchase."
Very similar analogy to an aquifer. You can ruin another person's fishing without ever going off your 'property'.
But even more, you contradict your own argument about rare species. You claim that it might perchance be possible that conservation-minded people would set aside land to preserve biodiversity (also, you seem to accept the idea that if that doesn’t happen, and species are lost - even keystone species of an ecosystem - oh well, that's a small sacrifice to made made to preserve the owner's rights.) But couldn't a person who wants to preserve aquatic biodiversity want to do the same thing? In your system isn't that their right, as owner? But then you say this about fishing: "That'd be fishing grounds other people own, by right of first claim, or purchase. There's lots of writing about first claim, but one of the conditions is that if you claim it and don't use it, you lose it, probably through litigation." Isn't that a limitation on property rights you hold so dear?
"where aggression is defined as the violation of private property"
That's interesting - you prefer to reduce people to the sum of their possessions.
"I understand that the non-concern about monopolies is based on the concept that if such a monopoly jacks up the prices too much, competition will arise."
What about a company town where the monopoly owns everything, and the ability of anyone else to accumulate enough goods to create a competitor is nil?
"Given that such a monopoly could do little against competition except lower prices (NAP, etc) ..."
How long will the NAP stand when powerful monopolies can't be challenged?
"that their only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud, and that the only legitimate governmental institutions are the military, police, and courts"
That are the sole possessors of the right of violence. Because what if the person refuses to comply?
And where does the punishment begin and end? Let's take a particular example: what if the person the court rules against is th
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Seems to me that you've ended up with a society where there aren't any "unfortunate, poor, oppressed by reality, or ruled" people. Whatever happened to them? Do they not exist? How, exactly, do we evolve from where we are, where those folks are, to where you want us to end up? DO you not care about them? When or where have YOU focused on them in your postings, in this thread?
Hey, that question sounds familiar. Are you planning to ever answer it, or do you just hope it'll go away?
Not sure how you get there. I'd guess there would be unfortunate (whatever you mean by that. Unlucky?) poor, or oppressedy by reality (Once again, what? people with mental health problems?) in most societies.
No one would be ruled. Everyone supports individual liberty for everyone. Everyone is willing to act to obtain this liberty for everyone.
About the poor. Libertarian philosophy, from what I understand, is that with more opportunity through lack of government constraint on trade, and the extra money available in a society with little or no taxes, it'd be easier for anyone with a philosophy of independence, which would include sel-reliance, to make a buck if they worked for it. Remember that I don't expect a Libertarian society until a good majority of folks are libertarians. If there are folks who don't want to work, they'll be poor. I'd guess there would be voluntary organizations (like soup kitchens, food banks, Salvation Army, e.g.) to provide for these folks.
Define "unfortunate" and "oppressed by reality" and I'll discuss those.
"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
It's so very one-sided.
Yes it is.
Since you wish me dead, I'm dead to you, and will no longer respond to your posts.
Have a nice, bitter, life.
"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Seems to me that you've ended up with a society where there aren't any "unfortunate, poor, oppressed by reality, or ruled" people. Whatever happened to them? Do they not exist? How, exactly, do we evolve from where we are, where those folks are, to where you want us to end up? DO you not care about them? When or where have YOU focused on them in your postings, in this thread?
Hey, that question sounds familiar. Are you planning to ever answer it, or do you just hope it'll go away?
Not sure how you get there. I'd guess there would be unfortunate (whatever you mean by that. Unlucky?) poor, or oppressedy by reality (Once again, what? people with mental health problems?) in most societies.
No one would be ruled. Everyone supports individual liberty for everyone. Everyone is willing to act to obtain this liberty for everyone.
About the poor. Libertarian philosophy, from what I understand, is that with more opportunity through lack of government constraint on trade, and the extra money available in a society with little or no taxes, it'd be easier for anyone with a philosophy of independence, which would include sel-reliance, to make a buck if they worked for it. Remember that I don't expect a Libertarian society until a good majority of folks are libertarians. If there are folks who don't want to work, they'll be poor. I'd guess there would be voluntary organizations (like soup kitchens, food banks, Salvation Army, e.g.) to provide for these folks.
Define "unfortunate" and "oppressed by reality" and I'll discuss those.
A couple of little things that speak volumes:
I deliberately phrased the question, "How, exactly, do WE evolve from where WE are?" To which you replied, "Not sure how YOU get there." Emphasis added. Are you sure you aren't Ross Perot? Wasn't that HIS thing? "YOU PEOPLE have to solve YOUR OWN problems."
and
"About the poor. Libertarian philosophy, from what I understand,..." All of a sudden, you're not so knowledgeable, not such a great expert, don't believe something yourself, you just "understand.."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Seems to me that you've ended up with a society where there aren't any "unfortunate, poor, oppressed by reality, or ruled" people. Whatever happened to them? Do they not exist? How, exactly, do we evolve from where we are, where those folks are, to where you want us to end up? DO you not care about them? When or where have YOU focused on them in your
postings, in this thread?
Hey, that question sounds familiar. Are you planning to ever answer it, or do you just hope it'll go away?
Not sure how you get there. I'd guess there would be unfortunate (whatever you mean by that. Unlucky?) poor, or oppressedy by reality (Once again, what? people with mental health problems?) in most societies.
No one would be ruled. Everyone supports individual liberty for everyone. Everyone is willing to act to obtain this liberty for everyone.
About the poor. Libertarian philosophy, from what I understand, is that with more opportunity through lack of government constraint on trade, and the extra money available in a society with little or no taxes, it'd be easier for anyone with a philosophy of independence, which would include sel-reliance, to make a buck if they worked for it. Remember that I don't
expect a Libertarian society until a good majority of folks are libertarians. If there are folks who don't want to work, they'll be poor. I'd guess there would be voluntary organizations (like soup kitchens, food banks, Salvation Army, e.g.) to provide for these folks.
Define "unfortunate" and "oppressed by reality" and I'll discuss those.
Well, in my original point to Sig, the one you objected to, I wrote
Quote:
1. Libertarianism focuses on the successful, the rich, the powerful, the rulers. It's about them, which is how the Libbies see themselves. IT ignores the situation of the unfortunate, the poor, the oppressed by reality, the ruled. E-T-A: it's that "social Darwinism" thing I mentioned way up at the top of this thread. They evolved into losers, they deserve what they got.
Ya see, there was a neat match-up of categories there: the successful and the unfortunate, which certainly could mean unlucky; the rich and the poor; the powerful vs the oppressed by reality (I chose not to say "in reality." Too polite for my own good); the rulers and the ruled.
You asked where I got that opinion. By observation, of posts like yours, of posts you didn't make until pressed, of things that you "understand" but obviously don't believe
and the poor: from what you "understand":
Quote:
it'd be easier for anyone with a philosophy of independence, which would include sel-reliance, to make a buck if they worked for it.
if they wasn't so "shiftless", if "them boys would just work", if they "wanted to", they wouldn't be poor.
and:
Quote:
Remember that I don't expect a Libertarian society until a good majority of folks are libertarians.
Boy, if there was ever a circular argument, that one is it. It'll work after it works. Because-- uh-- it'll work... because--uh -- it did... if it does... NOt buyin' it.
E-T-A: missed this --
"the ruled... Would they not exist?" " No one would be ruled." Not buyin that one either.
NOBC sez: " this post violates NOBC's Rule, it's too long."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
A couple of little things that speak volumes:
About how your mind works, perhaps.
Quote:
I deliberately phrased the question, "How, exactly, do WE evolve from where WE are?" To which you replied, "Not sure how YOU get there." Emphasis added. Are you sure you aren't Ross Perot? Wasn't that HIS thing? "YOU PEOPLE have to solve YOUR OWN problems."
Nope.
"Not sure how you get there" was in response to your idea that Libertarian society would leave out the "unfortunate, poor, oppressed by reality, or ruled". I don't know where you get the idea these people would be left out.
Still waiting for your definitions of "unfortunate" and "oppressed by reality", BTW.
and
Quote:
"About the poor. Libertarian philosophy, from what I understand,..." All of a sudden, you're not so knowledgeable, not such a great expert, don't believe something yourself, you just "understand.."
I provided what I understand the Propertarian, Minarchist, Libertarian solution to the poor would be. There are doubtless other Libertarians who'd quibble over the details. Do all Democrats understand their party to be exactly the same thing?
So you'll ignore what I said because you think I don't know everything about all flavors of libertarianism. Good dodge on your part when you have no substantive arguments.
"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Well, in my original point to Sig, the one you objected to, I wroteQuote:
1. Libertarianism focuses on the successful, the rich, the powerful, the rulers. It's about them, which is how the Libbies see themselves. IT ignores the situation of the unfortunate, the poor, the oppressed by reality, the ruled. E-T-A: it's that "social Darwinism" thing I mentioned way up at the top of this thread. They evolved into losers, they deserve what they got.
I'm trying to square this with people who believe that everyone's independence, political freedom, and right of voluntary association is very important to them - and who believe it is immoral to impose force on onyone else. I can't. Explain it to me.
Quote:
Ya see, there was a neat match-up of categories there: the successful and the unfortunate, which certainly could mean unlucky; the rich and the poor; the powerful vs the oppressed by reality (I chose not to say "in reality." Too polite for my own good); the rulers and the ruled.
I'll say it again.
I'm trying to square this with people who believe that everyone's independence, political freedom, and right of voluntary association is very important to them - and who believe it is immoral to impose force on onyone else. I can't. Explain it to me.
Quote:
You asked where I got that opinion. By observation, of posts like yours, of posts you didn't make until pressed, of things that you "understand" but obviously don't believe.
So I haven't mentioned that Libertarians are people who believe that everyone's independence, political freedom, and right of voluntary association is very important to them - and who believe it is immoral to impose force on onyone else?
Really?
And how do you figure I don't believe this? Because I used the word "understand" to indicate that to me this is what most Propertarian, Minarchist Libertarians believe? I'm thinking your comprehension is disturbed by your biases.
b]
Quote:
[/and the poor: from what you "understand":Quote:
it'd be easier for anyone with a philosophy of independence, which would include sel-reliance, to make a buck if they worked for it.
if they wasn't so "shiftless", if "them boys would just work", if they "wanted to", they wouldn't be poor.
Okay, so you can't think of an argument against people who believe that everyone's independence, political freedom, and right of voluntary association is very important to them - and who believe it is immoral to impose force on onyone else. so you go to insult.
How usual.
Quote:Quote:
Remember that I don't expect a Libertarian society until a good majority of folks are libertarians.
Boy, if there was ever a circular argument, that one is it.
Why? There wasn't a society that outlawed slavery until a good majority of folks were opposed to it. This is different how?
Quote:
E-T-A: missed this --
"the ruled... Would they not exist?" " No one would be ruled." Not buyin that one either.
Okay. You don't accept that there can ever be people who believe that everyone's independence, political freedom, and right of voluntary association is very important to them - and who believe it is immoral to impose force on onyone else.
Is there any reasonable argument that one could make that would cause you to accept that this might be possible, or are we done here?
"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Since you wish me dead, I'm dead to you, and will no longer respond to your posts."
Not exactly what I posted, but whatever. That wouldn't be the first time you misrepresented someone's post.
And, SO COOL! that you're not going to respond! YOU may not respond to my points, but other people may read them. If they find them convincing and you have no countervailing argument on offer, then they just might end up agreeing with my position. I'm glad I have the floor unopposed.
ETA: The one thing I get out of your posts is that you don't know how the system will adjudicate imbalances between conflicting rights; or provide for the young, ill, weak and disabled (let alone the poor); or protect the commons; or muster resources to sustain physical, social and technological infrastructure; or avoid the use of force on non-compliant members ... but you BELIEVE! Hallelujah! And if everyone else would just convert PRAISE THE LORD! to your superior system and reach your exalted level of development, and TRUST in the system's diviness to eventually provide, then we could all enter the promised land and live in heaven on earth AMEN!
In other words, it's a religion. Also, egotistical.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Well, in my original point to Sig, the one you objected to, I wroteQuote:
1. Libertarianism focuses on the successful, the rich, the powerful, the rulers. It's about them, which is how the Libbies see themselves. IT ignores the situation of the unfortunate, the poor, the oppressed by reality, the ruled. E-T-A: it's that "social Darwinism" thing I mentioned way up at the top of this thread. They evolved into losers, they deserve what they got.
I'm trying to square this with people who believe that everyone's independence, political freedom, and right of voluntary association is very important to them - and who believe it is immoral to impose force on onyone else. I can't. Explain it to me.Quote:
Ya see, there was a neat match-up of categories there: the successful and the unfortunate, which certainly could mean unlucky; the rich and the poor; the powerful vs the oppressed by reality (I chose not to say "in reality." Too polite for my own good); the rulers and the ruled.
I'll say it again.
I'm trying to square this with people who believe that everyone's independence, political freedom, and right of voluntary association is very important to them - and who believe it is immoral to impose force on onyone else. I can't. Explain it to me.Quote:
You asked where I got that opinion. By observation, of posts like yours, of posts you didn't make until pressed, of things that you "understand" but obviously don't believe.
So I haven't mentioned that Libertarians are people who believe that everyone's independence, political freedom, and right of voluntary association is very important to them - and who believe it is immoral to impose force on onyone else?
Really?
And how do you figure I don't believe this? Because I used the word "understand" to indicate that to me this is what most Propertarian, Minarchist Libertarians believe? I'm thinking your comprehension is disturbed by your biases.
b]Quote:
[/and the poor: from what you "understand":Quote:
it'd be easier for anyone with a philosophy of independence, which would include sel-reliance, to make a buck if they worked for it.
if they wasn't so "shiftless", if "them boys would just work", if they "wanted to", they wouldn't be poor.
Okay, so you can't think of an argument against people who believe that everyone's independence, political freedom, and right of voluntary association is very important to them - and who believe it is immoral to impose force on onyone else. so you go to insult.
How usual.Quote:Quote:
Remember that I don't expect a Libertarian society until a good majority of folks are libertarians.
Boy, if there was ever a circular argument, that one is it.
Why? There wasn't a society that outlawed slavery until a good majority of folks were opposed to it. This is different how?
Quote:
E-T-A: missed this --
"the ruled... Would they not exist?" " No one would be ruled." Not buyin that one either.
Okay. You don't accept that there can ever be people who believe that everyone's independence, political freedom, and right of voluntary association is very important to them - and who believe it is immoral to impose force on onyone else.
Is there any reasonable argument that one could make that would cause you to accept that this might be possible, or are we done here?
"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."
Is there any reasonable argument you can make to dissuade people of the idea that if, like in your perfect libertarian Utopia, people were all perfect and perfectly reasonable, then perfect socialism and communism wouldn't work just as well as your libertarian ideal?
The problem with all of these systems is that people AREN'T all the same, and the
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Is there any reasonable argument you can make to dissuade people of the idea that if, like in your perfect libertarian Utopia, people were all perfect and perfectly reasonable, then perfect socialism and communism wouldn't work just as well as your libertarian ideal?
The problem with all of these systems is that people AREN'T all the same, and they all have differing ideas of what perfection, "freedom", and liberty mean.
How will you codify what "liberty" is? And realize that once you write it down in a code of law, you've just decided that people - ALL people - need to "be ruled over".
What you're trying to propose here is your perfect world, your world without conflict. Maybe you can call it "Miranda".
Let's see.
When did I ever say it would be perfect? Or that all the people would be perfect or perfectly reasonable?
All I said, over and over again, is that a pretty sizable the majority of the people would believe that everyone's independence, political freedom, and right of voluntary association is very important to them - and would believe it is immoral to impose force on onyone else. That seems a reasonable goal to me. You don't want these things?
As I've also noted, we seem to have societies where almost everyone opposes slavery pretty strongly (the U.S. Civil War comes to mind. More people were killed in a fight over slavery than any other American war), or where almost everyone believes in preserving representative democracy (American Revolution, WWI and WWII, Cold War, e.g.). And those beliefs work, sometimes at great cost to the folks who believe them, although imperfectly. Also, the people in those societies aren't all the same, as witnessed by the folks here in RWED.
All I'm looking for is less imperfectly.
I suppose that if a majority of people believed strongly enough in Socialism or Communism, such a society could exist without government coersion. I don't think I'd enjoy communal ownership, lack of individuality, and State control very much. Perhaps you would.
Now there is a flavor of Libertarian though that espouses communal ownership, so you might like that better.
From the Wikipedia article on Libertarianism:
Quote:
Non-propertarian libertarian philosophies hold that liberty is the absence of capitalist authority and argue that a society based on freedom and equality can be achieved through abolishing authoritarian institutions that control certain means of production and subordinate the majority to an owning class or political and economic elite. Implicitly, it rejects any authority of private property and thus holds that it is not legitimate for someone to claim private ownership of any resources to the detriment of others. Libertarian socialism is a group of political philosophies that promote a non-hierarchical, non-bureaucratic, stateless society without private property in the means of production. The term libertarian socialism is also used to differentiate this philosophy from state socialism. Libertarian socialists generally place their hopes in decentralized means of direct democracy such as libertarian municipalism, citizens' assemblies, trade unions and workers' councils.
Now I have to assume that these Libertarians, to be called Libertarian Socialists rather than just Socialists, would still have to believe in the independence, political freedom, and voluntary association basic to Libertarian thought, and in the NAP.
As to defining what freedom is, define it as you will. Remember, though, that the Non-aggression Principle prohibits you from using your freedom to initiate force against anyone else. Whatever you want to do to yourself, carry on.
So, yeah, there's a rule. Don't initiate force against other people. That rule would be enforced. So, in my Propertarian flavor, would rules regarding contracts.
But remember that I'm not an Anarchist, but a Minarchis
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
In other words, you believe in a government ruling over people, even if, as you say, it's *mostly* fulfillment of contracts and enforcing "a limited set of rules".
What's the "limit"? We already have a "limited set of rules"; it just doesn't comport with your idea of what that limit should be.
Your oppression is someone else's libertarian paradise. And your libertarian paradise looks like oppression to someone else.
You propose a majority rule. Is that not more or less what we have now, with a majority of voters deciding who gets to represent them?
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012
Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"
Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Unlike the strawman of "I have this process to clean dirty water that's cheaper than just pumping clean water out of the ground"?
Uh, do you even know what "strawman" means?
Excuse me while I soak in all these sweet, sweet conservative tears.
"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum
"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
In other words, you believe in a government ruling over people, even if, as you say, it's *mostly* fulfillment of contracts and enforcing "a limited set of rules".
Yep. As a Minarchist, I see that government has a place in the enforcement of contracts and protection of folks from aggression.
It doesn't have a place in deciding how you use your personal independence.
Want to use drugs? Want to marry someone of the same sex? Want to marry several people? Want to paint your house purple? Want to graft on a third arm? Want to start a business? Want to own a dog? Want to drive a car? As long as you don't aggress against or injure anyone else, go to it.
Quote:
What's the "limit"? We already have a "limited set of rules"; it just doesn't comport with your idea of what that limit should be.
Given the idea of maximum independence, political freedom, right of voluntary association, and freedom from aggression, I'd have to say that "limit" is a good bit more "limited" than the current "limited set of rules".
Quote:
[n]Your oppression is someone else's libertarian paradise. And your libertarian paradise looks like oppression to someone else.
So who's oppressed in a libertarian society? (I never said it was a paradise, BTW)
Quote:
You propose a majority rule. Is that not more or less what we have now, with a majority of voters deciding who gets to represent them?
Where did I say that? I said the majority of the people would have the same philosophy, but since that philosophy is about having the absolute minimum of rule possible...
BTW, since I'm answering your questions as best I can, seems it would be only fair that you answer one I posed earlier.
"All I said, over and over again, is that a pretty sizable the majority of the people would believe that everyone's independence, political freedom, and right of voluntary association is very important to them - and would believe it is immoral to impose force on onyone else. That seems a reasonable goal to me. You don't want these things?"
Oh, and don't forget the question in this post. "Who'd be oppressed in a Libertarian society?"
"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Can I run a couple of scenarios past you, to see if they fit into your libertarian society.
I'd like to manufacture and sell drugs from my house. I'm your neighbour. Okay?
You live in a normal residential street, and I've bought one of the nice neat bungalows. I'm going to tear it down and build a hamburger joint. This will employ 30 people, so you should be pleased that I've brought jobs to your community. Okay?
You live in a seaside town. You have a two storey home with a nice view of the sea. I have bought the block in front of you and want to build a unit complex with 15 apartments. This will obscure your view of the sea. Okay?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
OK Geezer, I read your responses and the responses of others. I grok your version of libertarianism, and now that I know what it means (to you) I can say in all honesty that I like it even less now than before. But before I get to that point, I want to address this:
Quote:HUH??? Okay, I might have skimmed past the reponse that prompted this statment, but I can't find anything anywhere that would cause you to say this. Care to elucidate? Or was this really just a diversion? Because it seemed to me that KIKI offered some excellent questions and counterpoints that you didn't answer.
Since you wish me dead, I'm dead to you, and will no longer respond to your posts.
Quote:The corollary to this is if you don't own land, you have no water rights.
Well, I would first propose that in Libertopia, ground water would probably not be contaminated by fracking or mining. Groundwater is the property of the person who owns the ground.
So, what about air? I "get" that you mean that owning land means owning everything underneath is and everything above it, delimited by the shape of the property extending outward into space and inward toward the center of the earth along invisible radii, but... what if I don't own any land at all? Does that mean I have no right to air or water?
Quote:No, because of the Endagered Species Act, which a lot of corporatists like to complain about
But what if I own a huge ranch, and decide to turn it into a monoculture, killing off a number of rare species? Who owns "biodiversity"?-signy
This doesn't happen now? -geezer
Quote:
And maybe I (or I and a bunch of like-minded people) buy a huge ranch and run it as a biodiversity reserve
And maybe it doesn't. What then? Every environment is more resilient because of biodiversity, and everyone who lives in that environment gains a benefit from it.
Quote:And I've written pages about how I think it is not only possible, but nearly inevitable.
What if I corner a water supply?-signy
I've written several pages on how very extremely unlikely this is. -geezer
Quote:In other words, you envision every single square inch of land and body of water being "owned" by somebody. "Ain't no mountain high enough, Ain't no valley low enough..." not to be somebody'e property.
What if, due to my huge fishing fleet and superior fish-finding satellites, I decimate a fishing ground that other people use?-signy
That'd be fishing grounds other people own, by right of first claim, or purchase. There's lots of writing about first claim, but one of the conditions is that if you claim it and don't use it, you lose it, probably through litigation.-geezer
Quote:Bull. Shite. Libertarianism is based on ...
"Libertarianism is a set of related political philosophies that uphold liberty as the highest political end. This includes emphasis on the primacy of individual liberty, political freedom, and voluntary association. It is the antonym to authoritarianism. Libertarians advocate a society with minimized government or no government at all."
Quote:and all those fancy words about
private property as the sole source of legitimate authority.
Quote:is all about nobody getting between your and your "stuff" in any way whatsover.
unsolicited actions of others that physically affect an individual’s property or person, [hmmm...interesting that you would list 'property' first...] no matter if the result of those actions is damaging, beneficial, or neutral to the owner, are considered violent or aggressive when they are against the owner's free will and interfere with his right to self-determination and the principle of self-ownership."
Quote:
Seems to me you end up with a society of folks who believe that everyone's rights to liberty, political freedom, and voluntary associNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I find the water issue an interesting one, coming from somewhere where fresh water can be scarce.
One of the issues that has arisen is around river water usuage and who gets to take water out of the system. If one person upriver decides to use river water for rice farming and pulls out enough water from the system, the farmers and towns dwellers and city folk further down the system don't have enough water to survive. The river system needs to be managed as a whole, not through individual land owners doing entirely what they want.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Can I run a couple of scenarios past you, to see if they fit into your libertarian society.
I'd like to manufacture and sell drugs from my house. I'm your neighbour. Okay?
Don't see why not. Drugs won't be illegal, so you'll be a maker of a product, just like anyone else. As long as you use safe manufacturing means, and don't damage my property.
Quote:
You live in a normal residential street, and I've bought one of the nice neat bungalows. I'm going to tear it down and build a hamburger joint. This will employ 30 people, so you should be pleased that I've brought jobs to your community. Okay?
If you want to set up a fast food business on a residential street with little traffic and not too big a customer base, that'd be your right. If the noise from your operation is too loud, prepared to get sued for damaging my right to sleep. When you go broke due to lack of business, I might by the lot and expand my bungalow.
Quote:
You live in a seaside town. You have a two storey home with a nice view of the sea. I have bought the block in front of you and want to build a unit complex with 15 apartments. This will obscure your view of the sea. Okay?
Guess so. My two story house blocks the sea view of the bungalow behind me.
"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:HUH??? Okay, I might have skimmed past the reponse that prompted this statment, but I can't find anything anywhere that would cause you to say this. Care to elucidate? Or was this really just a diversion? Because it seemed to me that KIKI offered some excellent questions and counterpoints that you didn't answer.
Since you wish me dead, I'm dead to you, and will no longer respond to your posts.
http://fireflyfans.net/mreply.aspx?q=y&mid=945052
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Also, by 2024 I hope to have outlived you. Let's see ... by 2024 I'll be ... yes, statistically very doable.
Quote:Quote:The corollary to this is if you don't own land, you have no water rights.
Well, I would first propose that in Libertopia, ground water would probably not be contaminated by fracking or mining. Groundwater is the property of the person who owns the ground.
So, what about air? I "get" that you mean that owning land means owning everything underneath is and everything above it, delimited by the shape of the property extending outward into space and inward toward the center of the earth along invisible radii, but... what if I don't own any land at all? Does that mean I have no right to air or water?
Do folks who don't own land now - who live in an apartment, for example - have water rights? They can buy water from the landlord or the city, but don't own any. Not sure of your point here.
I would expect that you'd own the space above your property for as far as you could use it - to build a building for example - but not claim it to infinity. Folks could still fly over. If you wanted to try and build a box to keep all the air in, I suppose you could. If you can't keep it in your space, it's not yours. I now expect your "air baron" scenario where you discover some method of cornering the air market.
Interesting discussion in Heinlein's "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress" about "free as air", since on the Moon, air is a commodity that has to be manufactured, and so is not free.
Quote:Quote:No, because of the Endagered Species Act, which a lot of corporatists like to complain about
But what if I own a huge ranch, and decide to turn it into a monoculture, killing off a number of rare species? Who owns "biodiversity"?-signy
This doesn't happen now? -geezer
Ever drive through Nebraska, with miles and miles of corn, wheat, sunflowers, etc. Monoculture? Yep.
Quote:Quote:
And maybe I (or I and a bunch of like-minded people) buy a huge ranch and run it as a biodiversity reserve
And maybe it doesn't. What then? Every environment is more resilient because of biodiversity, and everyone who lives in that environment gains a benefit from it.
I could ask you to prove this. Then again, I could note that very few of us live in a very biodiverse environment now.
Quote:Quote:And I've written pages about how I think it is not only possible, but nearly inevitable.
What if I corner a water supply?-signy
I've written several pages on how very extremely unlikely this is. -geezer
Yep. And I can only buy Miller Lite and Taco Bell.
Quote:In other words, you envision every single square inch of land and body of water being "owned" by somebody. "Ain't no mountain high enough, Ain't no valley low enough..." not to be somebody'e property.
What if, due to my huge fishing fleet and superior fish-finding satellites, I decimate a fishing ground that other people use?-signy
That'd be fishing grounds other people own, by right of first claim, or purchase. There's lots of writing about first claim, but one of the conditions is that if you claim it and don't use it, you lose it, probably through litigation.-geezer
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I find the water issue an interesting one, coming from somewhere where fresh water can be scarce.
One of the issues that has arisen is around river water usuage and who gets to take water out of the system. If one person upriver decides to use river water for rice farming and pulls out enough water from the system, the farmers and towns dwellers and city folk further down the system don't have enough water to survive. The river system needs to be managed as a whole, not through individual land owners doing entirely what they want.
I'd suppose that a lot of that management currently involves litigation. I'd also suppose that this wouldn't change much in my Propertarian, Minarchist Libertarian society.
"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Because it seemed to me that KIKI offered some excellent questions and counterpoints that you didn't answer.
If you want to rephrase them out of KIKIscreed into English, I'll try to answer them.
Not gonna do the "Please tell KIKI...", "Please tell Geezer..." thing through third parties, though.
"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Since you wish me dead, I'm dead to you, and will no longer respond to your posts.-geezer
....
Also, by 2024 I hope to have outlived you. Let's see ... by 2024 I'll be ... yes, statistically very doable.- kiki, geezer
You went all the way to another thread to drag in ONE line (which BTW doesn't seem all THAT terrible to me?) and failed to address the significant points that KIKI brought up? (Also OBC, FREM, MAGONS, and KWICKO all brought up relevant points which you didn't address.)
Let's go to biodiversity... It's "owned" (insofar as land is owned) by patchwork of interests - farmers, business owners, homeowners- which divide up the land and shores in lines that are as arbitrary to nature as the political lines in Africa are to the tribes. I imagine the same for geezerland's oceans- invisible fences cutting willy-nilly across fish breeding grounds, kelp forests, coral reefs, petroleum reserves etc.
No single person "owns" it, but everybody benefits from it. BTW- You asked for proof about the benefits of biodiversity. Really??? It's not obvious to you?
Quote:
Here we describe a long-term study of grasslands, which shows that primary productivity in more diverse plant communities is more resistant to, and recovers more fully from, a major drought. The curvilinear relationship we observe suggests that each additional species lost from our grasslands had a progressively greater impact on drought resistance. Our results support the diversity–stability hypothes
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v367/n6461/abs/367363a0.html
Lets look at clearcutting. Ideally, trees should be harvested individually to reduce fuel load but still keep the soil intact. The benfits are that mudslides are mitigated, and there is no washed-down soil from cleared land, which makes stream turbid reduces fish stocks. So the benefits of NOT clearcutting accrues to people downslope or downstream, but the costs accrue to the landowner. However, it only takes one owner in the drainage system to ruin the streams for everyone, and only one owner upslope to cause mudslides.
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2008674714_glenomaslides27m.htm
l
Wetlands slow down floods, filter nutrients out of the water before it flows into the river (and thence to estuaries, bays, deltas, and the ocean), absorb carbon, and recharge aquifers. Protecting and reconstructing wetlands would require that many farmers set aside land around each ditch, stream, creek, and river to form a contiguous and "working" whole, and agree to forgo pesticides, tilling practices, and excess fertilizers which will poison the system downstream. Again, one holdout can ruin a large part of the system.
The same with the ocean, and the shorelines, There are breeding areas that restock the oceans with fry. In Geezerland, somebody (or several somebodies) who "own" these areas could destroy the fishing stock for everybody by deciding that they need to get SOME economic benefit from their stake, and fish out all of the small fish. According to YOU, it would be NECESSARY for them to make SOME nominal "use" of the property because
Quote:
"That'd be fishing grounds... if you claim it and don't use it, you lose it, probably through litigation."
So, your notion that "a" landowner or even a small group of land/ocean/ shoreline-owners can protect biodiversity is poor. One needs contiguous areas which follow natural drainage systems, mountain chains, reefs, shorelines etc because animals can roam and fish can swim in and out of small "protected" areas, and water flows everywhere. Conservation is a problem, but it is not about to be tackled by individuals, and seems to be actively discouraged in Geezerland.
You failed to address the idea of the "company town". These developed in remote, isolated areas which had so little to do with gummint that they paid in their own sc
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I read Robert Sarvis' campaign site. Sounds like a great guy, very sincere, but also proposing mnay things which have been shown NOT to work in the past.
Quote:Charter schools don't do any better than public, and because they don't have to take EVERYbody, they get to "cherry pick" the best students. You'd think they'd do better than that.
Virginia needs open-minded, economically literate leadership, not culture wars and class wars. Here's my plan for Virginia:
Empower parents by championing school choice.
Quote:Cutting taxes does not make the economy grow. Unless he gets more specific, I can't evaluate any further.
Provide tax relief and job growth through tax reform.
Quote:Umm...what rights does he feel are being intruded on? I would be more impressed if he said "privacy rights" and "economic rights"
Protect gun rights
Quote:good
AND Recognize gay marriages.
Quote:If he means "decriminalize drug posession and put people in therapy rather than jail", or even just "decriminalize pot" that'd be great! But he's talking political-ese, so ... what does he really mean?.
Reform our drug laws to reduce violence, rebuild communities, restore civil liberties, and save money.
Quote:There is no politician of ANY stripe who will say that s/he wants to impose on personal freedoms and tank the economy. The question is whether or not the steps being proposed are sufficient, or at least not counterproductive.
By protecting personal & economic freedom, we can make Virginia the envy of the world, with a growing economy that adds jobs and raises incomes, and a system of laws providing equality and justice for all.
My response to this candidate is like my response to MANY libertarian candidates... about 50/50. There are some things I agree with 100%, and some things I disagree with 100%. The parts I disagree with are so fundamental, I could never see myself voting libertarian when the Green Party is on the ticket. And if it was a choice between libertarian and democrat, I'd have to look long and hard at each one's record, because there are some democrats who are head and shoulders above some libertarians, and vice versa.
I think I've figured out at least YOUR stripe of libertarianism, geezer. I appreciate the education. However, I won't convince you to change and you certainly won't convince ME to change, so unless you feel that you have an amazingly compelling point to make, I prolly won't be responding much more to this thread. But thanks again for the valuable insights.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I find the water issue an interesting one, coming from somewhere where fresh water can be scarce.
One of the issues that has arisen is around river water usuage and who gets to take water out of the system. If one person upriver decides to use river water for rice farming and pulls out enough water from the system, the farmers and towns dwellers and city folk further down the system don't have enough water to survive. The river system needs to be managed as a whole, not through individual land owners doing entirely what they want.
I'd suppose that a lot of that management currently involves litigation. I'd also suppose that this wouldn't change much in my Propertarian, Minarchist Libertarian society.
Not currently, as water is largely owned by state government, who also operate service provision. You get bickering between the states and large water users, but not litigation.
The issue with litigation is that it generally ends up being vastly more favourable for those who are wealthier, who have more money to fund legal processes further. I can see that under your proposed system, you'd get more litigation and more injustice rather than less. Is that a concern, or is justice and fairness not really significant issues for libertarianism. Or am I missing something that would make a difference?
The concept of invididuals owning water seems incredibly problematic to me, when water systems are usually enormous, and usuage is going to impact on so many people, not to mention whole eco systems which can be damaged. Would your system have any laws around what people can and can't do with 'their' water? ie would there be limits?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sig, I surely hope this guy in Virginia wins and implements his LIBERTARIAN, stand on your own, self-reliant platform.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_taxation_and_spending_by_state
Wikipedia lists VA as 48th out of 52 (DC, Puerto Rico, and 50 states) in net tax revenue, at -$6239 per capita. The sooner they stand on their own, the less tax burden there will be on us out here in California.
Until then, he's just whining about his freedom while he's sucking on the big old Federal tit
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Also, by 2024 I hope to have outlived you. Let's see ... by 2024 I'll be ... yes, statistically very doable. - kiki,
Since you wish me dead, I'm dead to you, and will no longer respond to your posts. - geezer
That’s just Geezer's inability to read. Again.
I didn't wish anything bad for him, merely that I wished something good for myself - that I would outlive him.
But out of curiosity I threw this against his precious NAP:
Did I CAUSE him HARM? No.
Did I CREDIBLY pose a threat, as in, do I have the means to do him harm by knowing where he lives, for example? No.
Did I threaten to DO anything bad to him in any way? No.
Did I SAY I wished him dead? No.
All I did was say I hoped to outlive him, and (given our relative sexes and ages) that it was statistically do-able.
All without violating his NAP. I guess he doesn't like it when people follow his dicta for utopia.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well, he'd better get used to it, people tend to do that. (Altho I really think that he was just trying to distract from all of those annoying questions that you asked!)
I guess he doesn't like it when people follow his dicta for utopia.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
You went all the way to another thread to drag in ONE line (which BTW doesn't seem all THAT terrible to me?) and failed to address the significant points that KIKI brought up? (Also OBC, FREM, MAGONS, and KWICKO all brought up relevant points which you didn't address.)
I guess calumny is in the eye of the insulted.
As to not directly answering every question from you, KIKI, Magons, NOBC, Frem, Mike, and others ask, I don't have the time. Sometimes I try to roll up several sets of similar questions in one overall answer, but apparently everyone wants individual attention. I also note that I've asked folks a lot of questions that remain unanswered.
Quote:
Let's go to biodiversity... It's "owned" (insofar as land is owned) by patchwork of interests - farmers, business owners, homeowners- which divide up the land and shores in lines that are as arbitrary to nature as the political lines in Africa are to the tribes. I imagine the same for geezerland's oceans- invisible fences cutting willy-nilly across fish breeding grounds, kelp forests, coral reefs, petroleum reserves etc.
Could be. I'd expect that at the start, there'd be a good bit of litigation about who owned what, what parts of it that actually moved around (fish, e.g.) they owned, what would classify as damage to someone elses' property, etc.
Quote:
No single person "owns" it, but everybody benefits from it. BTW- You asked for proof about the benefits of biodiversity. Really??? It's not obvious to you?Quote:
Here we describe a long-term study of grasslands, which shows that primary productivity in more diverse plant communities is more resistant to, and recovers more fully from, a major drought. The curvilinear relationship we observe suggests that each additional species lost from our grasslands had a progressively greater impact on drought resistance. Our results support the diversity–stability hypothes
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v367/n6461/abs/367363a0.html
So a biodiverse grassland is more resistant to drought. This benefits everybody? What about the folks who eat the corn or grain grown on the former grassland that's now an agricultural monoculture?
Quote:
Lets look at clearcutting. Ideally, trees should be harvested individually to reduce fuel load but still keep the soil intact. The benfits are that mudslides are mitigated, and there is no washed-down soil from cleared land, which makes stream turbid reduces fish stocks. So the benefits of NOT clearcutting accrues to people downslope or downstream, but the costs accrue to the landowner. However, it only takes one owner in the drainage system to ruin the streams for everyone, and only one owner upslope to cause mudslides.
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/
2008674714_glenomaslides27m.html
So the owner of the property upstream damages your property? As noted ad nauseum, he'd have to restore it.
Quote:
Wetlands slow down floods, filter nutrients out of the water before it flows into the river (and thence to estuaries, bays, deltas, and the ocean), absorb carbon, and recharge aquifers. Protecting and reconstructing wetlands would require that many farmers set aside land around each ditch, stream, creek, and river to form a contiguous and "working" whole, and agree to forgo pesticides, tilling practices, and excess fertilizers which will poison the system downstream. Again, one holdout can ruin a large part of the system.
And again, you damage my property, you have to fix it. Most reasonable folks would understand that if the alternative is doing simple stuff like leaving natural strips around watercourses, it'd be cheaper to do so. The unreasonable would pay.
This would be a good spot to note that "would pay" applies to the individual, or individuals, that damage your property. The corporation is not responsible. The people wh
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Charter schools don't do any better than public, and because they don't have to take EVERYbody, they get to "cherry pick" the best students. You'd think they'd do better than that.
Briefly on this point.
Don't know about everywhere, but when D.C. tried school vouchers, the cost per pupil of the public schools was between $16,000 and $30,000 per student, depending on who you ask, and the public schools had all their physical facilities already built. The vouchers averaged $7,500 and charters had to obtain property, furniture, equipment, etc. Seems like a stacked deck.
"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, it wasn't a wish for him to be dead.
"I guess calumny is in the eye of the insulted."
calumny, definition: A false statement maliciously made to injure another's reputation. 2. The utterance of maliciously false statements; slander.
And it's not calumny, either.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Are you effing kidding me??? It's just logic that leads to that conclusion.
Regarding libertarian's "fancy words": unsolicited actions, right to self-determination and the principle of self-ownership, independence, political freedom, right of voluntary association, and freedom from aggression and harm for EVERYONE ... that only works when individuals are pretty much independent from each other... when they own sufficient PROPERTY to meet their own needs.-signy
Cites? Proofs? Just askin'.-geezer
Examining three of those "rights:
The "right" to self-determination is only meaningful when you have many options to choose from. But if you have no resources and you're left with the choice of work for a wages that will let you starve slowly, or don't work and starve faster you will probably choose to starve more slowly. It may be "voluntary" but is it REALLY "self-determination"?
Choosing the next word, "independence", the "right" to independence only applies when you do not "depend" on anyone or anything... in other words, when you're so well-off that you can live self-sufficiently, without societal input such as trade, roads etc.
You demonstrated this point yourself, in your discussion about "freedom of association"... you are "free" to choose working with people you dislike, when the other option is to not work. Let me extend this - You are "free" to work with people who demand sex as a job requirement, when the other option is "no job at all".
It's the same with every "right" that libertarianism supposedly grants - those rights are empty for the poor because they can't exercise them, and pointless if already acquired through wealth. Let me repeat that: Every "right" that libertarianism grants is a "right" that the wealthy already have, and a "right" which the poor do not have and never will have under your system. There is no floor below which the poor cannot fall. So, OOC, since people "own" themselves... can they "sell" themselves into slavery? Or does libertarianism require that people only rent themselves out by the hour?
Quote:So libertarianism is a religion, just like socialism and uptopianism, which can't be explained to the majority of the people as to how it will benefit them. And you're hoping that enough people will be bamboozled into believing your religion so they will vote for a system that benefits you and people like you (ie the well-off), but not them. Got it.
Fancy words like "Emancipation" seem to work somewhat when most everyone believes in them. Folks have died for words like that.
Quote:
So what's your ethical component for this? As noted, Libertarianism's (pretty much all flavors) is unsolicited actions, right to self-determination and the principle of self-ownership, independence, political freedom, right of voluntary association, and freedom from aggression and harm for EVERYONE.
As I pointed out earlier, those "rights" are meaningless without the capacity to enforce them. But as written, libertarianism does not enforce rights for the non-propertied.
In all of your detailed explanations about resolving property disputes, none of your posts address the concerns of the un-propertied: those who own nothing except their bodies. There is no inalienable right to life, such as the right to clean water, clear air, and the right to a job. Therefore, in your system, non-propertied individuals are "free" to starve to death, while the complacent and well-protected property-owners wash their hands with the cleanser of non-involement, and the state smiles down benevolently.
Also, in libertarianism, it's all about individual property. But many problems can't be solved by your system. We live on a planet that doesn&
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Again, I will not convince you, and you will not convince me. I think libertarianism is morally abhorrent, but I've learned a lot about libertarianism, and I appreciate your responses.
Okay. Let's call it.
"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So, re-reading this, this is what I get out of the discussion:
As Mal4 pointed out, Geezer's entire contention is that if enough people (80% is the figure he put out) believe the way he believes, then the society will create a durable optimum for all.
There are serious problems with his contention. The first is whether a society can exist where 80% of people find his exact vision of utopia to be compelling.
The second is that even within the framework he posits, there are significant gaps and conflicts (for example the commons and the 'rights' of ownership regarding it), without invoking any other forces . He has no resolution for these inborn gaps and conflicts except to say he has faith 'the system will provide' (which frankly sounds like religion).
The third is that he has no understanding at all of a systematic drift that - even if slight - will dominate the end state of his utopia > given enough time <. It's the point that SignyM keeps bringing up over and over, and that Geezer is so completely unable to grasp that he can't address the question, let alone try to formulate an answer.
So I'll take a stab at describing it:
Assuming 80% of people believe in Geezer's utopia and are willing to do what it takes to maintain it
- to spend the extra money for the sole purpose of keeping a competitor in business rather than buy from the vendor with the lowest prices
- OR alternatively to develop your own item (assuming that's possible)
- OR alternatively to do without (assuming it's not a necessity)
- to keep the government as an honest broker rather than as a tool of the more monied by spending their own time, effort and money to investigate and publish the sources of money and influence, and the past dealings of people running for office as a minimum for a fair vote
- to be able to insist the government fairly resolves disputes between single individuals/ small groups vs large numbers of people and/or large and/or wealthy organizations, rather than succumb to a majority/ powerful side
- to voluntarily come together in sufficient numbers and expend sufficient resources to maintain the human, infrastructure and technological commons
- to adjudicate the use and maintenance of the environmental commons ...
- etc
So, at this point there is a large majority of people who will mind other people's business enough that they will use their time, effort and resources to take active steps to not let themselves or their neighbors be infringed on.
That leaves a 20% minority who don't follow the rules. Will they ALL be brought to heel by the power of the people? The answer is no, since nothing is perfect. So let's assume a failure rate of bringing those people in line of 0.1%, which most would consider a very small number. Therefore there wiil be 0.1% of 20%, which is is 0.02%, of people who will have accumulated a non-libertarian amount of property and/or power. At the next generation, there will be 80% - .02% base population, 20% of those will be slackers at libertarianism and 0.1% of them will get away with it ... and so on. It doesn't matter how gradually it happens, or how quickly - the endpoint is that there will come to be a population of rich powerful people who do NOT follow the libertarian model, and who will have accumulated enough to be beyond its strictures.
SignyM's question is a reasonable one - what then? If the libertarian model doesn't respond to that process of partial but repeated failure, it will eventually succumb to its imperfections. That's the second point where Geezer's argument fails, and he falls back on a very religious-sounding statement of faith that it just wouldn't happen. Amen.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So, to get back to the SYSTEMATIC problems of various economic/ social systems:
As I've posited a few times already, the very fact of an accumulation of resources by a very few is BY ITSELF the cause of a lot of social pathology. I think there's enough human and non-human studies that back that up as an idea for consideration.
To prevent that, I've proposed a system of taxation that will remove that accretion from individuals and organizations. The virtue of this proposal is that it's not extreme - it doesn’t propose the destruction of money, the dissolution of banks, stock markets etc ... instead it uses a very familiar mechanism to achieve the goal.
I'm curious what other people think.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Libertarianism is a stand against the Obama, O'rielly McCain BS
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Winner, winner chicken dinner. You're exactly right.
have you seen the latest from the alternative conspiracy heads and libertarians?
and
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?481683-Europe-crumbles-und
er-the-devastating-Impact-of-Mass-Immigration
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wrong link for your immigrant post JANEZSTOWN
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
a better option than Green Party?
https://www.axios.com/local/raleigh/2022/07/08/nc-green-party-november
-election
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
wow, we used to have good discussions here!
In re-reading parts of the thread, I think I still stub my toes on whether libertarians can't decide whether it's about property or liberty. If it's about protectingproperty rights, then it will protect the most propertied.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
wow, we used to have good discussions here!
In re-reading parts of the thread, I think I still stub my toes on whether libertarians can't decide whether it's about property or liberty. If it's about protectingproperty rights, then it will protect the most propertied.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake
I was thinking the same thing. I learnt a lot even if I didn’t necessarily agree
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Me too. I wouldn't have come to what I think is the essential conundrum about libertarianism if ppl hadn't hung with me while I re-approached the discussion many times from many angles, asking the same or similar questions with different emphasis. I especially appreciated GEEZER's posts bc he clearly favored libertarianism but didn't devolve to a flame war as he responded to my many examples and honed my thoughts.
Originally posted by MAGONSDAUGHTER:Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
wow, we used to have good discussions here!
In re-reading parts of the thread, I think I still stub my toes on whether libertarians can't decide whether it's about property or liberty. If it's about protectingproperty rights, then it will protect the most propertied.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake
I was thinking the same thing. I learnt a lot even if I didn’t necessarily agree
How's life down under, MAGON's? It's early winter there for you. Life and weather treating you well?
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:Me too. I wouldn't have come to what I think is the essential conundrum about libertarianism if ppl hadn't hung with me while I re-approached the discussion many times from many angles, asking the same or similar questions with different emphasis. I especially appreciated GEEZER's posts bc he clearly favored libertarianism but didn't devolve to a flame war as he responded to my many examples and honed my thoughts.
Originally posted by MAGONSDAUGHTER:Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
wow, we used to have good discussions here!
In re-reading parts of the thread, I think I still stub my toes on whether libertarians can't decide whether it's about property or liberty. If it's about protectingproperty rights, then it will protect the most propertied.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake
I was thinking the same thing. I learnt a lot even if I didn’t necessarily agree
How's life down under, MAGON's? It's early winter there for you. Life and weather treating you well?
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake
It’s mid winter here and pretty cold for this neck of the woods. Waiting for my bulbs to start coming out and the early wattle to open.
Life is busy - we were in lockdown on and off for 2 years which was tough and now the covid spike is back again - everyone is sick with it or the flu - not so much fun
We voted out the jerk that was PM and this government seems more functional - for now anyway.
Hope you are on the mend
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME