Author Topic: Who else here is a libertarian?  (Read 29097 times)

robartsd

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1003
Re: Who else here is a libertarian?
« Reply #200 on: September 22, 2016, 01:20:06 PM »
This sounds great in theory . . . but the issue is in determining the amount to tax people.  What's the value of keeping a species of moth, bird, or turtle from extinction?  What if the company wiping out these species decides that this price is acceptable?  Are we OK with giving a very deep pocketed company the legal right to destroy our world for a price?
I certainly don't see a problem with setting extremely high taxes/fees on some things with the intent that it would be cost prohibitive to do any of the damage. If the price is high enough, the deep pocketed company will not be interested. In areas such as burning fossil fuel, I'd much rather see a straight up tax than any kind of "Cap and Trade" system that creates new markets for insider profits and corporate abuse. I would want no exemptions to such taxes: governmental agencies would have to include these costs in their budgets; imported goods would be subject to a tariff equal to the tax for producing and distributing the goods domestically.

Look at the huge pollution costs associated with tailings ponds that were last used for mining gold more than a hundred years ago.  Nobody foresaw these issues being so problematic when the mining was going on, and now it's too late to make the people responsible for the issue to pay for it (they're all dead).

Sometimes the market doesn't react quickly enough.  Who pays to fix the problem when this occurs?
This is no more of a problem with a tax/fee based approach to control than any other form of regulation. Legislation often reacts slower than the market (just be sure the legislation is written in a way that allows agencies to adjust the taxes/fees charged without additional legislation). Taxes/fees from current environmental damage (deemed an appropriate balance between economic needs and environmental protection) could certainly be used to fund repair of old damage.

The point is that damaging the environment in any way should have an associated economic cost, but not a criminal punishment. Some damage should have such a high economic cost that no rational actor would choose to do it; other damage should find a balance between economic and environmental needs providing incentives to improve efficiency. Attempts to hide damage to the environment; however, would remain criminal.

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Who else here is a libertarian?
« Reply #201 on: September 22, 2016, 01:33:46 PM »
I prefer the current model where we try to PREVENT damage.  Putting the broken puzzle back together just doesn't work very well

I think prevention in the case where it's very difficult to undo the damage is sensible. That's why Gary Johnson would keep the EPA, while perhaps reining in some of its most ridiculous abuses of power, like defining puddles as wetlands to prevent people from doing what they like with their own land.

Yea - the CATO Institute.  Since I work in some large restoration projects - that article is a bunch of crap.  Section 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act have been adjusted over the past two decades so they are LESS restrictive.  The idea that "puddles" are regulated has no merit. 

And no - just because a regulated stream or wetland lies on public property does not mean you just get whatever-the-hell you want to do with it.  It's the stale argument that ends up demanding public costs for private gain.

FINate

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 651
Re: Who else here is a libertarian?
« Reply #202 on: September 22, 2016, 01:53:48 PM »
I prefer the current model where we try to PREVENT damage.  Putting the broken puzzle back together just doesn't work very well

I think prevention in the case where it's very difficult to undo the damage is sensible. That's why Gary Johnson would keep the EPA, while perhaps reining in some of its most ridiculous abuses of power, like defining puddles as wetlands to prevent people from doing what they like with their own land.

Yea - the CATO Institute.  Since I work in some large restoration projects - that article is a bunch of crap.  Section 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act have been adjusted over the past two decades so they are LESS restrictive.  The idea that "puddles" are regulated has no merit.

And no - just because a regulated stream or wetland lies on public property does not mean you just get whatever-the-hell you want to do with it.  It's the stale argument that ends up demanding public costs for private gain.

I personally know of two local projects where I live that were held up for years because of wetlands issues. In one case, it was a man made drainage ditch that took several years to clear up. In the other it is quite literally a puddle that is still in discussion several years later. I'm all for wetlands restoration and protection, but in my area this is being abused by people who just want to stop all development.

BDWW

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 284
  • Location: MT
Re: Who else here is a libertarian?
« Reply #203 on: September 22, 2016, 02:39:38 PM »
I prefer the current model where we try to PREVENT damage.  Putting the broken puzzle back together just doesn't work very well

I think prevention in the case where it's very difficult to undo the damage is sensible. That's why Gary Johnson would keep the EPA, while perhaps reining in some of its most ridiculous abuses of power, like defining puddles as wetlands to prevent people from doing what they like with their own land.

Yea - the CATO Institute.  Since I work in some large restoration projects - that article is a bunch of crap.  Section 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act have been adjusted over the past two decades so they are LESS restrictive.  The idea that "puddles" are regulated has no merit.

And no - just because a regulated stream or wetland lies on public property does not mean you just get whatever-the-hell you want to do with it.  It's the stale argument that ends up demanding public costs for private gain.

I personally know of two local projects where I live that were held up for years because of wetlands issues. In one case, it was a man made drainage ditch that took several years to clear up. In the other it is quite literally a puddle that is still in discussion several years later. I'm all for wetlands restoration and protection, but in my area this is being abused by people who just want to stop all development.

My anecdotal experience conflicts with Northwestie's statements too. We had a long protracted battle on the family ranch because they attempted to classify part of a field as wetlands. The thing was, it was only that wet because the field was irrigated. Eventually we stopped irrigating it for 2 years, and got it tossed after paying a couple experts to come in and testify that it was not indeed a wetlands.  Turns out it was a low spot in the field where irrigation water collected. A cynic might call it a puddle.
« Last Edit: September 22, 2016, 02:41:41 PM by BDWW »

badbear

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 49
Re: Who else here is a libertarian?
« Reply #204 on: September 22, 2016, 02:51:11 PM »
Interesting that we've got some personal experience with this problem. It's all anecdotes, but at the same time, just because you didn't work on any puddle restoration/regulation doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Did you look at any of the court cases linked to the in that CATO article? In the Koontz case, these were people developing private property that were in some cases being required by government to improve completely unrelated government property, not doing whatever they wanted with public property.

FINate

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 651
Re: Who else here is a libertarian?
« Reply #205 on: September 22, 2016, 03:16:58 PM »
This thread has devolved into ridiculous semantic arguments.

I don't think it has.

What is a free market and does it include extreme examples like slavery, or selling children, or munitions? Can libertarians support X? IMO these are more about defining labels and staking out ideologies...semantics. People are free to explore this all they want, I don't find it particularly enlightening. To each their own I guess.

Quote
From an economic point of view a free market ("an economic market or system in which prices are based on competition among private businesses and not controlled by a government") is generally the most efficient and scalable way to organize an economy, though there are exception to this (natural monopolies as one example). However efficient, free markets are amoral and unconcerned with ethical or moral outcomes. This is why we have regulation and government intervention in the market.

Right.  We're in 100% agreement.  Now let's discuss what government intervention and regulation we should have in the market (ala your final sentence I quoted) which makes it no longer 100% free, but for good reason.

Like, you say now you're in favor of less regulation, 100 years ago you'd have been in favor of more.

What do you want regulated less?  Why?

EDIT:  Rather than just ask questions, I'll give an example of where I see government overreach in regulation.

I think the interstate commerce clause, and how it's been used to regulate pretty much everything, is *, and I think Wickard v. Filburn is one of the worst Supreme Court decisions ever (tl;dr: Guy was growing his own crops to feed his own pigs, and was fined, and US Supreme Court ruled that yes, the government can regulate him because he was affecting commerce by NOT buying someone else's crops), which led to terrible government overexpansion.

I don't think this is just semantics, but segues into important discussion topics.

As I already mentioned, housing policy, though this is more of a state issue. I should add that it's not just regulation, it's intervention in general. US Federal interventions I think need to change/be reduced:
  • Criminalization of drugs, including cannabis
  • Most farm subsidies (and other corporate subsidies)
  • The ethanol fuel mandate
  • Corporate tax regime - should be lowered in line with OECD norms and changed to territorial
  • The ACA has serious problems. Top of my list in this category is the individual mandate. I get that they needed to find a way to prevent people from gaming the system, but it's not working. Yes, more people are insured, but at a terrible cost for insurance that's not very useful. I have a Bronze plan that we get premium subsidies for. I only have it because I'm forced to have it, would otherwise have just bought catastrophic coverage. Would have preferred the feds simply normalize the tax treatment of corporate vs individual plans, and encourage each state to develop their own solutions.
  • There a ton of "small" regulations that add up in aggregate to a very large burden on the economy.

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Who else here is a libertarian?
« Reply #206 on: September 22, 2016, 03:19:52 PM »
Interesting that we've got some personal experience with this problem. It's all anecdotes, but at the same time, just because you didn't work on any puddle restoration/regulation doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Did you look at any of the court cases linked to the in that CATO article? In the Koontz case, these were people developing private property that were in some cases being required by government to improve completely unrelated government property, not doing whatever they wanted with public property.


No law is perfect and humans make mistakes.  But in the over 30 years of my work in the field I've seen much more private landowner and developer shady activity than incompetence from agencies.  The one irrigated field issues should have been a slam dunk - there are agricultural exemptions large enough to drive a combine thru. They should have hired my firm!!

And defining something as a "puddle" is interesting.  I've seen laypeople apply this to a 1/3 acre low quality wetland and a 40 acre very diverse wetland community.  Defining a wetland is not speculative or based on profession opinion.  There is a very detailed manual and regional guidance letters and supplements put together by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, EPA, and Corps of Engineers.  All wetlands must have the "triple parameters" a preponderance of wetland adapted plants, wetland hydrology, and hydric soils.  There is no guesswork.

I'd say these laws are working pretty well - except we are still losing wetland habitat in large chunks  https://www.epa.gov/wetlands/how-does-epa-keep-track-status-and-trends-wetlands-us


GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9087
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Who else here is a libertarian?
« Reply #207 on: September 22, 2016, 03:53:09 PM »
Criminalization of drugs, including cannabis

Yeah, this one in particular seems like a slam dunk, no brainer.  US drug policy seems silly and rooted in puritanical ideals.
[/quote]

badbear

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 49
Re: Who else here is a libertarian?
« Reply #208 on: September 22, 2016, 04:03:14 PM »
I've seen laypeople apply this to a 1/3 acre low quality wetland and a 40 acre very diverse wetland community.

This doesn't surprise me at all. The average person is pretty clueless when it comes to describing the natural environmental, doubly so if they think they can plead ignorance to avoid trouble.

FINate

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 651
Re: Who else here is a libertarian?
« Reply #209 on: September 22, 2016, 05:38:46 PM »
I've seen laypeople apply this to a 1/3 acre low quality wetland and a 40 acre very diverse wetland community.

This doesn't surprise me at all. The average person is pretty clueless when it comes to describing the natural environmental, doubly so if they think they can plead ignorance to avoid trouble.

Another example: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Half-Moon-Bay-grapples-with-36-8-million-3234399.php This plot was not previously wetlands, it was created either through incompetence or intentionally by the city of Half Moon Bay because they didn't like the proposed development. I've heard enough of these stories to believe that something is broken here. Maybe there are regional differences to account for the divergent experiences?

Northwestie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1224
Re: Who else here is a libertarian?
« Reply #210 on: September 22, 2016, 05:48:26 PM »
There is nothing in this that warrants a problem with the CWA - but rather poor engineering on the part of the city that backed up water after the initial approval and before they denied the plan change - they blew it - they own it - especially after this.

The city had given tentative approval to a previous owner for the development but opposed the new plan, saying protected wetlands had appeared on the property. Keenan's trustee sued.

No one with common sense would argue that the city gets a pass on a problem they caused.  And this has nothing to do with the Section 404 of the CWA - rather it is a prime example of poor hydrologic engineering.

And I could easily find loads of shady stories like this:

The indictment describes a scheme to illegally fill wetlands situated on a 96-acre parcel sitting upstream from Tonawanda and Ransom Creeks. As alleged in the indictment, the defendants purchased the property with the intent of commercially developing the site and were aware of the presence of the wetlands at the time of that purchase. After the purchase, and despite knowing that wetlands were present, the defendants, and others acting at the defendants’ direction, filled a portion of these wetlands by installing both a roadway and a “fill pad” on the site.
« Last Edit: September 22, 2016, 05:53:46 PM by Northwestie »

MVal

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 784
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Missouri
Re: Who else here is a libertarian?
« Reply #211 on: September 22, 2016, 06:09:46 PM »
Is anyone a liberal libertarian librarian in Liberia? If so, I lift my libation to you.
Proverbs 13:4
The soul of the sluggard craves and gets nothing, but the soul of the diligent is made fat.

Proverbs 13:11
Wealth obtained by fraud dwindles, but the one who gathers by labor increases it.

https://tickers.TickerFactory.com/ezt/t/wGp3WGH/savings.png

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 26143
  • Age: -999
  • Location: Traveling the World
Re: Who else here is a libertarian?
« Reply #212 on: September 22, 2016, 06:24:58 PM »
Is anyone a liberal libertarian librarian in Liberia? If so, I lift my libation to you.

You're going to regret having replied to this thread just to post a throwaway joke when it grows to 20+ pages and keeps popping up in your unread posts.

But it was a good joke.  :D
We are two former teachers who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, and now travel the world full time with a kid.
If you want to know more about me, or how we did that, or see lots of pictures, this Business Insider profile tells our story pretty well.
We (occasionally) blog at AdventuringAlong.com.
You can also read my forum "Journal."

FINate

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 651
Re: Who else here is a libertarian?
« Reply #213 on: September 22, 2016, 07:54:14 PM »
Agreed, the city screwed up. You're right that this may not be CWA related, but rather wetland status under "state coastal regulations." In any case, IMO this is overreach by government. This land was an empty lot within the city, and surrounded by other developments, a prime candidate for urban infill. The irony is that limiting development in cities (the man made drainage ditch I mentioned earlier was also within a city) is keeping already impacted areas from developing higher density thereby pushing growth to areas like California's Central Valley - a terrible commute to jobs in the Bay Area and an area with a large amount of wetlands.

MVal

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 784
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Missouri
Re: Who else here is a libertarian?
« Reply #214 on: September 23, 2016, 08:50:31 AM »
Is anyone a liberal libertarian librarian in Liberia? If so, I lift my libation to you.

You're going to regret having replied to this thread just to post a throwaway joke when it grows to 20+ pages and keeps popping up in your unread posts.

But it was a good joke.  :D

It's okay, I had already replied to it a couple weeks ago anyway!
Proverbs 13:4
The soul of the sluggard craves and gets nothing, but the soul of the diligent is made fat.

Proverbs 13:11
Wealth obtained by fraud dwindles, but the one who gathers by labor increases it.

https://tickers.TickerFactory.com/ezt/t/wGp3WGH/savings.png

WilliamWallace

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 15
Re: Who else here is a libertarian?
« Reply #215 on: October 14, 2016, 10:32:45 AM »
I am...and define that identification as a social liberal (do whatever you want so long as it does not harm <a 'microaggression' is not harm> anyone else) and a fiscal conservative (simply - have a balanced budget with as little gov't as necessary).

Sad thing is that I think many more Americans feel similarly, but the libertarians are unable to articulate their views.  Some gradualism is necessary - promising to end the Fed, abandon foreign bases, shut down 1/2 of gov't agencies, etc is too scary to too many people.

In the old days, Blue Dog Democrats or moderate GOP would probably fit this bill....but now all we have are the extremes.  Sad.

robartsd

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1003
Re: Who else here is a libertarian?
« Reply #216 on: October 14, 2016, 01:45:21 PM »
I am...and define that identification as a social liberal (do whatever you want so long as it does not harm <a 'microaggression' is not harm> anyone else) and a fiscal conservative (simply - have a balanced budget with as little gov't as necessary).

Sad thing is that I think many more Americans feel similarly, but the libertarians are unable to articulate their views.  Some gradualism is necessary - promising to end the Fed, abandon foreign bases, shut down 1/2 of gov't agencies, etc is too scary to too many people.

In the old days, Blue Dog Democrats or moderate GOP would probably fit this bill....but now all we have are the extremes.  Sad.
I think that there are different views on what constitutes "harm" and what gov't is "necessary". While some libertarians may have difficulty articulating their views, I think the broader problem most money spent in politics is from special interests that are opposed to libertarian ideals being applied in their area of interest.

Libertea

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 363
  • Age: 42
  • Location: USA
Re: Who else here is a libertarian?
« Reply #217 on: October 14, 2016, 04:20:58 PM »
I just checked a book out of the library called "Dark Money" that is apparently an "expose'" on the Koch brothers and all the "right extremist" funding they do.  I'm guessing from the title and jacket blurb that it's not going to be very complimentary.  ;-)

Classical_Liberal

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 738
  • Age: 41
Re: Who else here is a libertarian?
« Reply #218 on: October 14, 2016, 08:08:32 PM »
I just checked a book out of the library called "Dark Money" that is apparently an "expose'" on the Koch brothers and all the "right extremist" funding they do.  I'm guessing from the title and jacket blurb that it's not going to be very complimentary.  ;-)

Excellent! I look forward to a review from a fellow Gen X rebel & individualist!

I came across this podcast on another forum.  It's an interview with Neil Howe, who wrote "The Fourth Turning". 

http://www.artofmanliness.com/2016/09/20/podcast-236-generational-cycle-theory-can-tell-us-present-age/

His book is next on my list.  Never heard of him before (slightly surprising after hearing the material), but he has some pretty interesting theories on history and generational social interplay that repeats.  His theory is very relevant to why Gen X'ers tend towards individual freedom/libertarian and Millennials tend towards a sacrifice for good of the group/democrat type of group think.  Check out the podcast if interested.

Radagast

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 634
  • Location: West of the Mountains, East of the Sea
Re: Who else here is a libertarian?
« Reply #219 on: October 14, 2016, 09:03:58 PM »
To paraphrase some earlier conversation in terms of engineering speak, imagine a discussion about the best way to put water in a water tank:

"It's best to always let water flow down hill..."
"Well that's stupid, my house isn't at the bottom of the hill."
"Ok, but in general letting the water flow downhill for most of the distance increases efficiency."
"But you said it's best to always let water flow down hill which is wrong! My house isn't at the bottom of the hill and besides my water tank is ten feet high and if the water ran out of that I wouldn't have any water!!!"

It's easy to state a general principle, but making it function in the real world is where all the work comes in.

(Degrees in civil engineering and political science. (;  )


Libertea

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 363
  • Age: 42
  • Location: USA
Re: Who else here is a libertarian?
« Reply #220 on: October 14, 2016, 10:33:40 PM »
I just checked a book out of the library called "Dark Money" that is apparently an "expose'" on the Koch brothers and all the "right extremist" funding they do.  I'm guessing from the title and jacket blurb that it's not going to be very complimentary.  ;-)

Excellent! I look forward to a review from a fellow Gen X rebel & individualist!

I came across this podcast on another forum.  It's an interview with Neil Howe, who wrote "The Fourth Turning". 

http://www.artofmanliness.com/2016/09/20/podcast-236-generational-cycle-theory-can-tell-us-present-age/

His book is next on my list.  Never heard of him before (slightly surprising after hearing the material), but he has some pretty interesting theories on history and generational social interplay that repeats.  His theory is very relevant to why Gen X'ers tend towards individual freedom/libertarian and Millennials tend towards a sacrifice for good of the group/democrat type of group think.  Check out the podcast if interested.
Nice.  Thanks.  I'm adding that book to my list. 

Have any of you read Gary Johnson's new ebook?  They don't have it at my library, and I already know I'm voting for him anyway, which kind of makes me reluctant to pay $10 to get it off amazon.  But I'd consider it if one of you thinks it's worth it.

ETA: I'm most of the way through another interesting book by Michael Shermer called "The Moral Arc."  I hadn't realized he was libertarian-leaning until I started reading this book. But it's not actually about libertarianism per se so much as him arguing that the world is steadily becoming freer and more moral over time.  Good read.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2016, 10:40:21 PM by Libertea »

aperture

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 367
  • Location: Denver
Re: Who else here is a libertarian?
« Reply #221 on: October 14, 2016, 10:54:11 PM »
US drug policy seems silly and rooted in puritanical ideals.

I suspect US drug policy was initially rooted in racism and since the early 1970s has become rooted in itself. It is now one of the arms of the military industrial complex that has become self-perpetuating.

Personally, I do not have a political ideology that I would not betray for pragmatic improvement in the life of people and the planet. I do not believe in big Government or little Government, but I do believe that the arguing over these concepts is the shell game that makes us forget to fight back against the corruption that robs us daily.  -aperture

robartsd

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1003
Re: Who else here is a libertarian?
« Reply #222 on: October 17, 2016, 08:30:59 AM »
ETA: I'm most of the way through another interesting book by Michael Shermer called "The Moral Arc."  I hadn't realized he was libertarian-leaning until I started reading this book. But it's not actually about libertarianism per se so much as him arguing that the world is steadily becoming freer and more moral over time.  Good read.
Many in the US (particularly those who identify with libertarianism) do not feel that their world is becoming freer. However, the majority of the earth's population enjoys less freedom than american citizens, but generally freedom is increasing in the areas in which they live.

I do not believe in big Government or little Government, but I do believe that the arguing over these concepts is the shell game that makes us forget to fight back against the corruption that robs us daily.
Very good point.

Mississippi Mudstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1529
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Danielsville, GA
    • A Riving Home - Ramblings of a Recusant Woodworker
Re: Who else here is a libertarian?
« Reply #223 on: October 17, 2016, 09:07:52 AM »
Many in the US (particularly those who identify with libertarianism) do not feel that their world is becoming freer.

Perhaps that indicates that there aren't many gay, black, female libertarians?
Never. Give up.

My Woodworking Blog

robartsd

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1003
Re: Who else here is a libertarian?
« Reply #224 on: October 17, 2016, 11:01:38 AM »
Many in the US (particularly those who identify with libertarianism) do not feel that their world is becoming freer.

Perhaps that indicates that there aren't many gay, black, female libertarians?
While I see your point on how homosexual (or transgender) people in the USA would feel their world is becoming freer; I don't see reason black people or women would feel any freer in the USA than they felt 10 years ago. In any case, libertarian ideals are not opposed to civil liberties.

BTDretire

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1414
Re: Who else here is a libertarian?
« Reply #225 on: October 17, 2016, 12:09:43 PM »
Sometimes phrases mean something beyond the combination of the dictionary definitions of the words in the phrase. Free market does not mean murder for hire is ok. That's pretty much never been the definition intended by anyone that's used the phrase other then people trying to establish a straw an to attack.

I absolutely agree that sometimes phrases mean something beyond the combination of dictionary definitions of the words of the phrase.  I've noticed that it's not uncommon for a large number of people to incorrectly use a phrase.  That's why I've already provided a dictionary definition of the whole phrase 'Free Market' so there can be no confusion.  I can even provide a few more if you would like:

Free Market - an economic system in which prices and wages are determined by unrestricted competition between businesses, without government regulation or fear of monopolies. (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/free-market?s=t)

Restricting slavery is restricting competition in the market place.{/quote]

If you check closely, not a single definition of the phrase 'Free Market' prohibits selling people into slavery.  It is inconsistent to yell 'Free Market GOOD' and then argue for limiting slave trade by the government and against limiting the sale of say handguns by the government.  In both cases a 'Free Market' is being denied to the people.  You appear to want a limited market, limited to things that you personally feel should be allowed.
.

  I would argue that a 'Free Market' would need buyers that are free to earn an income and spend it getting the best value for it there earnings.
 Slavery would not be an option compatible with the term 'Free Market' in that sense.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9087
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Who else here is a libertarian?
« Reply #226 on: October 17, 2016, 12:39:00 PM »
Sometimes phrases mean something beyond the combination of the dictionary definitions of the words in the phrase. Free market does not mean murder for hire is ok. That's pretty much never been the definition intended by anyone that's used the phrase other then people trying to establish a straw an to attack.

I absolutely agree that sometimes phrases mean something beyond the combination of dictionary definitions of the words of the phrase.  I've noticed that it's not uncommon for a large number of people to incorrectly use a phrase.  That's why I've already provided a dictionary definition of the whole phrase 'Free Market' so there can be no confusion.  I can even provide a few more if you would like:

Free Market - an economic system in which prices and wages are determined by unrestricted competition between businesses, without government regulation or fear of monopolies. (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/free-market?s=t)

Restricting slavery is restricting competition in the market place.{/quote]

If you check closely, not a single definition of the phrase 'Free Market' prohibits selling people into slavery.  It is inconsistent to yell 'Free Market GOOD' and then argue for limiting slave trade by the government and against limiting the sale of say handguns by the government.  In both cases a 'Free Market' is being denied to the people.  You appear to want a limited market, limited to things that you personally feel should be allowed.
.

  I would argue that a 'Free Market' would need buyers that are free to earn an income and spend it getting the best value for it there earnings.
 Slavery would not be an option compatible with the term 'Free Market' in that sense.

As long as you're only enslaving some people (not all), there is still going to be a free market where buyers are free to earn income and spend it on the best slaves for their earnings.  The slaves won't have money, and thus can't join the market . . . but poor people never have money, and thus can't join the market.  Is there a difference?

Libertea

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 363
  • Age: 42
  • Location: USA
Re: Who else here is a libertarian?
« Reply #227 on: October 20, 2016, 01:45:52 AM »
Many in the US (particularly those who identify with libertarianism) do not feel that their world is becoming freer.

Perhaps that indicates that there aren't many gay, black, female libertarians?
I was going to say, here is the list of groups Shermer goes through as having better lives and opportunities now (both in the US and worldwide) than at any other point in human history: women, blacks, gays, and (possibly in the future) sentient animals.  To which I would add, Jews and other religious minorities, children, the impoverished, the disabled, and any other member of any other historically oppressed group that isn't a white, wealthy, landowning male (but was formerly considered the property of said white, wealthy, landowning males).  And he's right.  I'm female and descended from an ethnic minority.  If I had been born in 1875 instead of 1975, I would be unable to vote, unable to have attended college, unable to have my own career, unable to choose not to have children, unable to aspire to FI, and basically otherwise spending my life saying "how high" whenever some arranged husband of mine told me to jump.  I'm profoundly grateful that this is not the case.

On a somewhat completely different note, I am curious if any of you are knowledgeable about the negative income tax/minimum guaranteed income proposal as a method of promoting universal FI for all citizens.  Interestingly, the proponents of this idea stem from both ultra left like Robert Reich as well as ultra right like Milton Friedman.  I have to confess that the idea of enabling all people to achieve FI does excite and entice me.  In fact, I'm thinking this topic probably deserves its own thread since it's not specifically a libertarian issue.  I think I'm going to create one.

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4745
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Who else here is a libertarian?
« Reply #228 on: October 20, 2016, 05:09:38 AM »
Sometimes phrases mean something beyond the combination of the dictionary definitions of the words in the phrase. Free market does not mean murder for hire is ok. That's pretty much never been the definition intended by anyone that's used the phrase other then people trying to establish a straw an to attack.

I absolutely agree that sometimes phrases mean something beyond the combination of dictionary definitions of the words of the phrase.  I've noticed that it's not uncommon for a large number of people to incorrectly use a phrase.  That's why I've already provided a dictionary definition of the whole phrase 'Free Market' so there can be no confusion.  I can even provide a few more if you would like:

Free Market - an economic system in which prices and wages are determined by unrestricted competition between businesses, without government regulation or fear of monopolies. (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/free-market?s=t)

Restricting slavery is restricting competition in the market place.{/quote]

If you check closely, not a single definition of the phrase 'Free Market' prohibits selling people into slavery.  It is inconsistent to yell 'Free Market GOOD' and then argue for limiting slave trade by the government and against limiting the sale of say handguns by the government.  In both cases a 'Free Market' is being denied to the people.  You appear to want a limited market, limited to things that you personally feel should be allowed.
.

  I would argue that a 'Free Market' would need buyers that are free to earn an income and spend it getting the best value for it there earnings.
 Slavery would not be an option compatible with the term 'Free Market' in that sense.

As long as you're only enslaving some people (not all), there is still going to be a free market where buyers are free to earn income and spend it on the best slaves for their earnings.  The slaves won't have money, and thus can't join the market . . . but poor people never have money, and thus can't join the market.  Is there a difference?

People aren't products, by definition. Period. End of story. Trying to pretend libertarians support slavery is slanderous and offensive, so cut it the fuck out!

Rufus.T.Firefly

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 212
Re: Who else here is a libertarian?
« Reply #229 on: October 20, 2016, 05:58:57 AM »
Sometimes phrases mean something beyond the combination of the dictionary definitions of the words in the phrase. Free market does not mean murder for hire is ok. That's pretty much never been the definition intended by anyone that's used the phrase other then people trying to establish a straw an to attack.

I absolutely agree that sometimes phrases mean something beyond the combination of dictionary definitions of the words of the phrase.  I've noticed that it's not uncommon for a large number of people to incorrectly use a phrase.  That's why I've already provided a dictionary definition of the whole phrase 'Free Market' so there can be no confusion.  I can even provide a few more if you would like:

Free Market - an economic system in which prices and wages are determined by unrestricted competition between businesses, without government regulation or fear of monopolies. (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/free-market?s=t)

Restricting slavery is restricting competition in the market place.{/quote]

If you check closely, not a single definition of the phrase 'Free Market' prohibits selling people into slavery.  It is inconsistent to yell 'Free Market GOOD' and then argue for limiting slave trade by the government and against limiting the sale of say handguns by the government.  In both cases a 'Free Market' is being denied to the people.  You appear to want a limited market, limited to things that you personally feel should be allowed.
.

  I would argue that a 'Free Market' would need buyers that are free to earn an income and spend it getting the best value for it there earnings.
 Slavery would not be an option compatible with the term 'Free Market' in that sense.

As long as you're only enslaving some people (not all), there is still going to be a free market where buyers are free to earn income and spend it on the best slaves for their earnings.  The slaves won't have money, and thus can't join the market . . . but poor people never have money, and thus can't join the market.  Is there a difference?

People aren't products, by definition. Period. End of story. Trying to pretend libertarians support slavery is slanderous and offensive, so cut it the fuck out!

+1

This thread has been derailed long enough by a semantics argument over the definition of a free market. There is literally no one here who supports slavery. Let's stop beating a dead (straw) horse. There are more interesting discussions to be had.
"I have worked my way up from nothing to a state of extreme poverty"

~ Groucho Marx

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 26143
  • Age: -999
  • Location: Traveling the World
Re: Who else here is a libertarian?
« Reply #230 on: October 20, 2016, 07:30:22 AM »
People aren't products, by definition. Period. End of story. Trying to pretend libertarians support slavery is slanderous and offensive, so cut it the fuck out!

+1

This thread has been derailed long enough by a semantics argument over the definition of a free market. There is literally no one here who supports slavery. Let's stop beating a dead (straw) horse. There are more interesting discussions to be had.

Okay, so that example derailed it, but the point of there is no free markets, just choosing which restrictions we want, remains.

If the slavery one is bogus to you, fair enough, but are you okay with every other example?  Are you okay with nuclear bombs being sold to anyone, for example, because it's a completely free market?

What about someone who prefers you don't interfere in their economic activity of hiring a hit man.

You're going to claim all of these, and more, are straw men, but that's just a no true scotsman problem: whatever market activity we come up with that you don't like, you'll claim it's egregious and a straw man, and it wouldn't be allowed even in a true free market.

If you're okay with it (selling drugs, for example), you'll say it's fine (while others might say it was a straw man), but if you aren't, you'll claim of course it should be regulated, but it's still a free market.

A free market is allowing everything. Not you picking and choosing and calling it still free.

The point is, there is no one who wants a truly free market, it's just where we each draw the line.
We are two former teachers who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, and now travel the world full time with a kid.
If you want to know more about me, or how we did that, or see lots of pictures, this Business Insider profile tells our story pretty well.
We (occasionally) blog at AdventuringAlong.com.
You can also read my forum "Journal."

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4745
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Who else here is a libertarian?
« Reply #231 on: October 20, 2016, 08:22:59 AM »
If the slavery one is bogus to you, fair enough, but are you okay with every other example?  Are you okay with nuclear bombs being sold to anyone, for example, because it's a completely free market?

What about someone who prefers you don't interfere in their economic activity of hiring a hit man.

You write those to examples as if they are somehow equivalent, but they are not.

In the first example, you conflate owning a thing with using a thing. There is no problem with merely owning a weapon; using it to harm people is an entirely separate issue. Conversely, if we were to assume that ownership should be restricted based on the mere potential for something to be used to harm someone, then I would argue nobody should be allowed to own cars!

For all you know, the buyer of a nuclear weapon wants to display it in his museum or remove the plutonium to charge the time circuits in his DeLorean or put it to some other constructive use.

The second example is different because there is no real difference between hiring somebody to perform a service and performing the service yourself, and in this case the service itself is (similarly to slavery) invalid by definition because it inherently infringes upon somebody's rights.

In any case, there is a clear, bright-line distinction between what can be (categorically!) included in the definition of a free market and what can't: you simply ask "does selling this product or service inherently -- not merely potentially, depending on some factor unrelated to the sale itself -- directly infringe upon someone's rights?"

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 26143
  • Age: -999
  • Location: Traveling the World
Re: Who else here is a libertarian?
« Reply #232 on: October 20, 2016, 08:44:42 AM »
I don't know what the person is going to use the nuclear bomb for, and neither do you.

But that's none of our business, in a free market.  You're okay with a nuclear bomb being sold to anyone, then?

What about me hiring a company to rid myself of all this nuclear waste byproduct by dumping it somewhere--say, Antarctica, or the ocean?  You wouldn't interfere with that economic transaction, right?
We are two former teachers who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, and now travel the world full time with a kid.
If you want to know more about me, or how we did that, or see lots of pictures, this Business Insider profile tells our story pretty well.
We (occasionally) blog at AdventuringAlong.com.
You can also read my forum "Journal."

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 26143
  • Age: -999
  • Location: Traveling the World
Re: Who else here is a libertarian?
« Reply #233 on: October 20, 2016, 08:50:37 AM »
Let's not forget, in a completely free market, there are no consumer protections.

I can lie, cheat, etc.  Buyer beware.

I can claim anything I want about my product, and you can't regulate that via demanding truth on my labeling.  Scammers abound in a completely free market.

There are also no protections like Child Labor laws, or worker's rights.  If they're willing to be screwed over (even if they only do so because the alternative is to starve), * em.

I don't think you want a free market Jack.  You want one with less restrictions and regulations than what we have now. So do I.  But neither of us want a totally free market.
We are two former teachers who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, and now travel the world full time with a kid.
If you want to know more about me, or how we did that, or see lots of pictures, this Business Insider profile tells our story pretty well.
We (occasionally) blog at AdventuringAlong.com.
You can also read my forum "Journal."

robartsd

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1003
Re: Who else here is a libertarian?
« Reply #234 on: October 20, 2016, 09:05:15 AM »
In the first example, you conflate owning a thing with using a thing. There is no problem with merely owning a weapon; using it to harm people is an entirely separate issue. Conversely, if we were to assume that ownership should be restricted based on the mere potential for something to be used to harm someone, then I would argue nobody should be allowed to own cars!
There are threads on this forum where people speculate that in the future we will not be allowed to own cars that we drive ourselves - only self-driving cars should be allowed.

I identify with libertarian philosophy and see the same bright line as Jack - the right to make, own, buy, or sale something is entirely different than the right to use that thing to cause harm.

Let's not forget, in a completely free market, there are no consumer protections.

I can lie, cheat, etc.  Buyer beware.

I can claim anything I want about my product, and you can't regulate that via demanding truth on my labeling.  Scammers abound in a completely free market.
No, it's easy enough to see that misrepresenting the truth is causing harm to others. That harm can be treated as a criminal offense.

There are also no protections like Child Labor laws, or worker's rights.  If they're willing to be screwed over (even if they only do so because the alternative is to starve), * em.
I agree that a libertarian free market would not have any child labor laws or other worker protections (except for worker safety). Private organizations (including voluntary labor unions and charities) would have every opportunity voluntarily assist these people from being forced to work under unfair employment agreements through free market activities.

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 26143
  • Age: -999
  • Location: Traveling the World
Re: Who else here is a libertarian?
« Reply #235 on: October 20, 2016, 09:10:34 AM »
I agree that a libertarian free market would not have any child labor laws or other worker protections (except for worker safety).

Why are you interfering with my economic activity with your "worker safety" regulations?  I demand a free market.

If the worker is willing to enter into the employer-employee relationship of his own free will (despite not really having any alternatives--but, like you said, maybe some charity will take him up), that's our business, not yours.
We are two former teachers who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, and now travel the world full time with a kid.
If you want to know more about me, or how we did that, or see lots of pictures, this Business Insider profile tells our story pretty well.
We (occasionally) blog at AdventuringAlong.com.
You can also read my forum "Journal."

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4745
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Who else here is a libertarian?
« Reply #236 on: October 20, 2016, 09:20:46 AM »
I don't know what the person is going to use the nuclear bomb for, and neither do you.
economic transaction, right?

But that's none of our business, in a free market.  You're okay with a nuclear bomb being sold to anyone, then?

If I sell my car to somebody I don't know what they're going to use it for either. Maybe they'll use it as the getaway car in a bank robbery or run somebody over with it. Does that mean cars shouldn't be allowed to be bought and sold?

What about me hiring a company to rid myself of all this nuclear waste byproduct by dumping it somewhere--say, Antarctica, or the ocean?  You wouldn't interfere with that economic transaction, right?

Now you're trying to conflate the issue with the "tragedy of the commons." They need to be considered separately.

First of all, if we assume that dumping the waste in Antarctica or the ocean infringes on the rights of third parties, then the question is, are you hiring the company to dispose of the waste and specifically instructing them to do it in a way that causes harm, or are you hiring the company to dispose of the waste in general, and the company unilaterally decides to do it improperly? If the former, then the transaction is disallowed for the same reason hiring a hitman is; otherwise it's a perfectly valid transaction and any attempt to prevent that damage should be focused on the actions of the company afterward, not on the transaction.

The "tragedy of the commons" issue of whether dumping nuclear waste in the ocean infringes on the rights of third parties is more complicated, especially because you're expecting me to try to apply libertarian solutions within a non-libertarian legal framework. The trouble is that in once sense nobody "owns" the ocean, so nobody's rights of ownership are infringed. In another sense the oceans "belong to" everyone collectively, so everybody's rights are infringed. The Libertarian solution would be to assign ownership of the ocean (and every other "commons") to some entity, so that when the company tries to dump the waste into the ocean that entity can defend its rights (by suing the company for trespassing and/or vandalism, or by extracting payment in return for permission to dump, or whatever). The potential disadvantages of that solution are beyond the scope of this post.

desertadapted

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 62
Re: Who else here is a libertarian?
« Reply #237 on: October 20, 2016, 09:23:38 AM »
Do the libertarians on the feed have any actual government, at any point in the entire history of humankind, that you would hold up as your highest exemplar of libertarian ideals in practice?  I cannot think of any examples, but I'm not enough of a history buff for my lack of imagination to mean all that much.  The discussion seems quite esoteric, so I was curious about, you know, real life examples of a what a really libertarian society might look like in actual real life.

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 26143
  • Age: -999
  • Location: Traveling the World
Re: Who else here is a libertarian?
« Reply #238 on: October 20, 2016, 09:40:00 AM »
I don't know what the person is going to use the nuclear bomb for, and neither do you.
economic transaction, right?

But that's none of our business, in a free market.  You're okay with a nuclear bomb being sold to anyone, then?

If I sell my car to somebody I don't know what they're going to use it for either. Maybe they'll use it as the getaway car in a bank robbery or run somebody over with it. Does that mean cars shouldn't be allowed to be bought and sold?

Quote
You're okay with a nuclear bomb being sold to anyone, then?
We are two former teachers who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, and now travel the world full time with a kid.
If you want to know more about me, or how we did that, or see lots of pictures, this Business Insider profile tells our story pretty well.
We (occasionally) blog at AdventuringAlong.com.
You can also read my forum "Journal."

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4745
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Who else here is a libertarian?
« Reply #239 on: October 20, 2016, 09:41:02 AM »
I don't think you want a free market Jack.  You want one with less restrictions and regulations than what we have now. So do I.  But neither of us want a totally free market.

Did I say I did?

(The answer is no. There is a difference between explaining a position and taking that position myself. Edit: in a Cathy-esqe manner, I will point out that I also did not say that I did not want it. I am clarifying that I have not taken a position either way.)

All I've been doing -- for the third time on three separate pages of the thread -- is refuting the false assumptions and piss-poor reasoning of people who appear to be repeatedly trying to demonize and slander all libertarians as "hat[eful] and bigot[ed]" slavemongers!
« Last Edit: October 20, 2016, 09:52:57 AM by Jack »

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 26143
  • Age: -999
  • Location: Traveling the World
Re: Who else here is a libertarian?
« Reply #240 on: October 20, 2016, 09:44:00 AM »
We are two former teachers who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, and now travel the world full time with a kid.
If you want to know more about me, or how we did that, or see lots of pictures, this Business Insider profile tells our story pretty well.
We (occasionally) blog at AdventuringAlong.com.
You can also read my forum "Journal."

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9087
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Who else here is a libertarian?
« Reply #241 on: October 20, 2016, 10:48:41 AM »
Sometimes phrases mean something beyond the combination of the dictionary definitions of the words in the phrase. Free market does not mean murder for hire is ok. That's pretty much never been the definition intended by anyone that's used the phrase other then people trying to establish a straw an to attack.

I absolutely agree that sometimes phrases mean something beyond the combination of dictionary definitions of the words of the phrase.  I've noticed that it's not uncommon for a large number of people to incorrectly use a phrase.  That's why I've already provided a dictionary definition of the whole phrase 'Free Market' so there can be no confusion.  I can even provide a few more if you would like:

Free Market - an economic system in which prices and wages are determined by unrestricted competition between businesses, without government regulation or fear of monopolies. (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/free-market?s=t)

Restricting slavery is restricting competition in the market place.{/quote]

If you check closely, not a single definition of the phrase 'Free Market' prohibits selling people into slavery.  It is inconsistent to yell 'Free Market GOOD' and then argue for limiting slave trade by the government and against limiting the sale of say handguns by the government.  In both cases a 'Free Market' is being denied to the people.  You appear to want a limited market, limited to things that you personally feel should be allowed.
.

  I would argue that a 'Free Market' would need buyers that are free to earn an income and spend it getting the best value for it there earnings.
 Slavery would not be an option compatible with the term 'Free Market' in that sense.

As long as you're only enslaving some people (not all), there is still going to be a free market where buyers are free to earn income and spend it on the best slaves for their earnings.  The slaves won't have money, and thus can't join the market . . . but poor people never have money, and thus can't join the market.  Is there a difference?

People aren't products, by definition. Period. End of story.

By what definition?


Trying to pretend libertarians support slavery is slanderous and offensive, so cut it the fuck out!

I didn't say that libertarians support slavery.  I was arguing the opposite.  The fact that libertarians don't support slavery is proof that most libertarians don't support a free market (although they often claim to).

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4745
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Who else here is a libertarian?
« Reply #242 on: October 20, 2016, 11:04:25 AM »
People aren't products, by definition. Period. End of story.

By what definition?

I answered that a month ago. On that note, have you decided between supporting slavery and converting to veganism yet?

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9087
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Who else here is a libertarian?
« Reply #243 on: October 20, 2016, 11:21:20 AM »
People aren't products, by definition. Period. End of story.

By what definition?

I answered that a month ago. On that note, have you decided between supporting slavery and converting to veganism yet?

You didn't answer anything at all.  You typed 'Natural Rights' and then waved your hands around.

See post #196 (and a whole bunch others on page 4).

The error with your question about veganism lies in your presupposition that I adhere to your own personal philosophical framework.

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4745
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Who else here is a libertarian?
« Reply #244 on: October 20, 2016, 12:01:46 PM »
People aren't products, by definition. Period. End of story.

By what definition?

I answered that a month ago. On that note, have you decided between supporting slavery and converting to veganism yet?

You didn't answer anything at all.  You typed 'Natural Rights' and then waved your hands around.

See post #196 (and a whole bunch others on page 4).

The error with your question about veganism lies in your presupposition that I adhere to your own personal philosophical framework.

The universe of potential philosophical frameworks can be divided into two groups: the group where the same rules apply to you and everyone else, and the group where the rules for you differ from the rules for everybody else. All possible philosophies in the first group must necessarily include a concept equivalent to the one often described as "natural rights" or "the golden rule", while all possible philosophies in the second group must necessarily devolve to "might makes right."

If whatever your philosophical framework is falls into the first group, then my argument forcing you to choose between slavery or veganism (or abandoning your claim equating people with animals) holds. If it falls into the second group then you have no inherent objection to violence and the only real reason you distinguish between violence against animals and violence against people is because you feel like doing so.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9087
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Who else here is a libertarian?
« Reply #245 on: October 20, 2016, 12:32:22 PM »
People aren't products, by definition. Period. End of story.

By what definition?

I answered that a month ago. On that note, have you decided between supporting slavery and converting to veganism yet?

You didn't answer anything at all.  You typed 'Natural Rights' and then waved your hands around.

See post #196 (and a whole bunch others on page 4).

The error with your question about veganism lies in your presupposition that I adhere to your own personal philosophical framework.

The universe of potential philosophical frameworks can be divided into two groups: the group where the same rules apply to you and everyone else, and the group where the rules for you differ from the rules for everybody else. All possible philosophies in the first group must necessarily include a concept equivalent to the one often described as "natural rights" or "the golden rule", while all possible philosophies in the second group must necessarily devolve to "might makes right."

Can you list everything that you would consider to be a 'natural right' so that I can better understand your argument?

Certainly, the golden rule is not a good example for your point.  I might be into rough anonymous S&M . . . the golden rule would dictate that I should therefore assume everyone else is also, and assault them with knobby dildos.



If whatever your philosophical framework is falls into the first group, then my argument forcing you to choose between slavery or veganism (or abandoning your claim equating people with animals) holds.

Agreed.  If I believe in 'natural rights' and I believe that there is no difference between animals and people, this logic follows.



If it falls into the second group then you have no inherent objection to violence and the only real reason you distinguish between violence against animals and violence against people is because you feel like doing so.

No.  The error you're making is in assuming that anyone who doesn't believe in 'natural rights' automatically believes in "might makes right".  I don't think you can support this position logically, but I guess it depends on your answer to my question about what you define 'natural rights' to be.

Spork

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5759
    • Spork In The Eye
Re: Who else here is a libertarian?
« Reply #246 on: October 20, 2016, 12:35:46 PM »
People aren't products, by definition. Period. End of story. Trying to pretend libertarians support slavery is slanderous and offensive, so cut it the fuck out!

+1

This thread has been derailed long enough by a semantics argument over the definition of a free market. There is literally no one here who supports slavery. Let's stop beating a dead (straw) horse. There are more interesting discussions to be had.

Okay, so that example derailed it, but the point of there is no free markets, just choosing which restrictions we want, remains.


No... Pretty much every post in this thread is a derail.  I haven't counted, but I bet it's 10-1.  This was a "who else here is a libertarian" thread.  It's pretty much become the "you guys are stupid".  "No we are not, you are" thread. 

This is why we can't have nice things.
Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4745
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Who else here is a libertarian?
« Reply #247 on: October 20, 2016, 01:19:23 PM »
Can you list everything that you would consider to be a 'natural right' so that I can better understand your argument?

Certainly, the golden rule is not a good example for your point.  I might be into rough anonymous S&M . . . the golden rule would dictate that I should therefore assume everyone else is also, and assault them with knobby dildos.

No, your example is bad -- you're conflating a consensual act with a non-consensual one. The consent or lack thereof is the essential difference!

If you believe you need someone's consent to do something to them, and I ask you "why," then any possible answer would be some variation of "because they have natural rights."

But I guess you're right that the golden rule is a weaker condition, since it doesn't quite work if the set of things you would not like "done unto you" is the empty set. (i.e, if you're okay with being raped, or being murdered, or being imprisoned, or being censored, or being stolen from, etc.) I guess it's theoretically possible for someone who feels that way to exist, so congratulations, you found a[n unrealistic] counterexample.

tonysemail

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 726
  • Location: San Jose, CA
Re: Who else here is a libertarian?
« Reply #248 on: October 20, 2016, 01:43:10 PM »
Do the libertarians on the feed have any actual government, at any point in the entire history of humankind, that you would hold up as your highest exemplar of libertarian ideals in practice?  I cannot think of any examples, but I'm not enough of a history buff for my lack of imagination to mean all that much.  The discussion seems quite esoteric, so I was curious about, you know, real life examples of a what a really libertarian society might look like in actual real life.

I'm not a libertarian, but I found the question interesting.
I'd also be interested in hearing the answer.

I couldn't really google an answer, but this guy asserts an opinion-
http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/has-a-libertarian-society-ever-existed/

other people say it doesn't matter and I'd agree with that.
https://fee.org/articles/why-are-there-no-libertarian-countries/


and here are some fun stories I ran across while searching.
a libertarian country scam in chile-
http://www.vice.com/read/atlas-mugged-922-v21n10

a micronation in europe-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberland

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9087
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Who else here is a libertarian?
« Reply #249 on: October 20, 2016, 05:18:00 PM »
Can you list everything that you would consider to be a 'natural right' so that I can better understand your argument?

Certainly, the golden rule is not a good example for your point.  I might be into rough anonymous S&M . . . the golden rule would dictate that I should therefore assume everyone else is also, and assault them with knobby dildos.

No, your example is bad -- you're conflating a consensual act with a non-consensual one. The consent or lack thereof is the essential difference!

If you believe you need someone's consent to do something to them, and I ask you "why," then any possible answer would be some variation of "because they have natural rights."

But I guess you're right that the golden rule is a weaker condition, since it doesn't quite work if the set of things you would not like "done unto you" is the empty set. (i.e, if you're okay with being raped, or being murdered, or being imprisoned, or being censored, or being stolen from, etc.) I guess it's theoretically possible for someone who feels that way to exist, so congratulations, you found a[n unrealistic] counterexample.

Are you not able to list the natural rights you've referred to so often in this thread?