So, what the heck is libertarianism?

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Saturday, September 7, 2024 21:57
VIEWED: 19122
PAGE 16 of 21

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Sunday, August 4, 2013 9:21 PM

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 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.

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.

SIGNYM

Monday, August 5, 2013 5:05 AM

Quote:
Well, no. Actually it shows that Signym's "everything leads inevitably to monopoly" scenario is not true.

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.

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.

1KIKI

Monday, August 5, 2013 5:24 AM

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?

SIGNYM

Monday, August 5, 2013 5:32 AM

Quote:
name one nationwide monopoly on any item most everyone neeeds

then changed it to a 100-mile limit. Really?? 100 miles? 100 miles around here would encompass about 18 million people, maybe more.

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).

GEEZER

Monday, August 5, 2013 2:06 PM

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."

SIGNYM

Monday, August 5, 2013 4:45 PM

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.

GEEZER

Monday, August 5, 2013 6:21 PM

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:

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Monday, August 5, 2013 8:06 PM

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?

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Monday, August 5, 2013 8:09 PM

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.

1KIKI

Tuesday, August 6, 2013 7:59 AM

"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

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE