So, what the heck is libertarianism?

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Saturday, September 7, 2024 21:57
VIEWED: 19122
PAGE 18 of 21

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

STORYMARK

Wednesday, August 7, 2013 10:52 PM

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!"

GEEZER

Thursday, August 8, 2013 12:55 PM

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."

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Thursday, August 8, 2013 9:24 PM

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?

SIGNYM

Friday, August 9, 2013 4:31 AM

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:
Since you wish me dead, I'm dead to you, and will no longer respond to your posts.

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.

Quote:
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.

The corollary to this is if you don't own land, you have no water rights.

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:
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

No, because of the Endagered Species Act, which a lot of corporatists like to complain about

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:
What if I corner a water supply?-signy
I've written several pages on how very extremely unlikely this is. -geezer

And I've written pages about how I think it is not only possible, but nearly inevitable.

Quote:
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

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.

Quote:
"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."

Bull. Shite. Libertarianism is based on ...

Quote:
private property as the sole source of legitimate authority.

and all those fancy words about

Quote:
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."

is all about nobody getting between your and your "stuff" in any way whatsover.

Quote:
Seems to me you end up with a society of folks who believe that everyone's rights to liberty, political freedom, and voluntary associ

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Friday, August 9, 2013 7:24 AM

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.

GEEZER

Friday, August 9, 2013 12:08 PM

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."

GEEZER

Friday, August 9, 2013 1:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
Since you wish me dead, I'm dead to you, and will no longer respond to your posts.
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.

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:
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.
The corollary to this is if you don't own land, you have no water rights.

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:
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
No, because of the Endagered Species Act, which a lot of corporatists like to complain about

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:
What if I corner a water supply?-signy
I've written several pages on how very extremely unlikely this is. -geezer
And I've written pages about how I think it is not only possible, but nearly inevitable.

Yep. And I can only buy Miller Lite and Taco Bell.

Quote:
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

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.

GEEZER

Friday, August 9, 2013 1:27 PM

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."

GEEZER

Friday, August 9, 2013 1:31 PM

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."

SIGNYM

Friday, August 9, 2013 5:50 PM

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

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE