Intro to libertarian philosophy animation

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Assuming that the individuals involved do not agree, by whom should "such issues" be "untangled" and "decided"?

[/ QUOTE ]

An arbitrator. It's not that hard, really.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh? Who appoints the arbitrator? What if one of the individuals refuses to participate or abide by the arbitrator's decision? How is the arbitrator compensated? What if one of the parties cannot afford the costs of arbitration?

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
To be blunt, that isn't a right. They have a right to be informed of the true condition of the property that they are considering purchasing, and if they don't like the condition they don't have to buy it.


[/ QUOTE ]
Well, I happen to belive that we should strive to make the earth inhabitable for not only us but also for those coming after us.

[ QUOTE ]

Your implication that some potential future owner is harmed when I "damage" my property assumes that this potential future owner (who you can't even positively identify) has a CURRENT property right in my property.

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course I realize that I cannot identify the "future owner". That's why I think there need to be laws on what you cannot do. In order to make reasonably sure that the land will still be usable in 100 years.

[ QUOTE ]

You're trying to make your personal preference into a right.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why is it reasonable that the current owner of the land, one in a never-ending string of owners, should be allowed to completely destroy it? As I said from the start, to me this is clear and plainly such a big problem that I cannot understand how anyone seriously considers it.

[vulturesrow]

Much as they dance around the issue, libertarians dont deal well with externalities. I do enjoy watching the dance however.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Libertarianism maintains that such issues should be untangled and decided on the basis of individual rights, including property rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

Assuming that the individuals involved do not agree, by whom should "such issues" be "untangled" and "decided"?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a legitimate function of the government and court system. In fact, according to libertarianism, it's the *only* legitimate function. The government (if it exists) should be strictly limited to protecting individual rights. Settling property disputes is certainly part of that.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Assuming that the individuals involved do not agree, by whom should "such issues" be "untangled" and "decided"?

[/ QUOTE ]

An arbitrator. It's not that hard, really.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh? Who appoints the arbitrator? What if one of the individuals refuses to participate or abide by the arbitrator's decision? How is the arbitrator compensated? What if one of the parties cannot afford the costs of arbitration?

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems like you are confusing libertarianism with anarcho-capitalism. The latter is a specialized subset of the former. According to libertarianism, setting property disputes (as they are now) is certainly a legitimate function of the government.

Anarcho-capitalists claim even these minimal functions can be handled by private firms, but that's a different debate...

[coffeecrazy1]

Forgive my idiocy, but what are you referring to with the word "externalities?"

[coffeecrazy1]

[ QUOTE ]
No, I'm arguing that libertarianism is a naive and generally useless political philosophy.

[/ QUOTE ] And you're doing a poor job of it, since the current, non-libertarian system of government in this country would support my claims against you.

[ QUOTE ]
But the point of libertarianism is that you don't have to consent. If we are to respect everyone's rights fully, if one single person refuses that bargain, then everyone has to stop using cars.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where are you getting this? Where does it say that libertarianism is not about having to consent? What I am for is giving people the right to say "no" when it comes to the infringing upon their property and rights...nothing more. And, frankly, the car example is false because the owner of each car does not own the road.

[ QUOTE ]
Why should they have to move? This is like me telling you to move your cabin if you don't like my sewage.


[/ QUOTE ] Apples and oranges here...see my above point about not owning the road.

[ QUOTE ]
Because of certain properties of Montana soil, if I irrigate land that is uphill from your farm, the excess water will seep down to the bedrock, pick up a lot of salt, and end up in your fields. After a decade or so, you'll get maybe half the yield you used to get. Should I be allowed to irrigate? All these may or may not be necessary evils for the modern economy, but the point is that under a strict libertarian ethic, they could not exist because of their harmful effects on their neighbors.


[/ QUOTE ] I really don't know how many times I have to say it...IT'S FINE IF THE OTHER OWNER CONSENTS! Your view of libertarianism ignores completely the fact that people want to work together to achieve greater goals. Just because they have the right to say no does not mean that they will.

[ QUOTE ]
It's just that it is logically impossible to guarantee everyone all their rights all the time.

[/ QUOTE ] I disagree. It's logically impossible guarantee people will exercise their rights all the time. Otherwise, we'd all be hermits. I'm not saying rights will not be subordinated...but I am saying that the person with the rights should be the one who decides which rights are subordinated, not some third party bureaucratic government entity.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Forgive my idiocy, but what are you referring to with the word "externalities?"

[/ QUOTE ]

"Externalities" is a boogieman that statists use to justify government intervention.

The idea is that sometimes actions have impacts on people that aren't directly involved in the action. Sometimes these are good, sometimes they are bad. A factory dumping sludge into your river is a supposed externality.

Private property rights, when properly enforced, remove externalities. If there is a definitive owner of the river, instead of it being a "common", then polluters of that river will be pursued for damages.

[PoBoy321]

Interesting animation, it brought up some of the reasoning behind libertarian philosophy that I hadn't thought about, but certainly raised some questions.

When a collective group, namely the american people, williingly decide collectively that they will enact a system of elections to appoint government officials who will act on their behalf to regulate their life, liberty and property, what is the libertarian stance on the validity of such a system? Granted, the regulation of life, liberty and property are opposed to libertarian views, but, at least as far as the video made known, they are not opposed to people willingly appointing officials act on their behalf.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting animation, it brought up some of the reasoning behind libertarian philosophy that I hadn't thought about, but certainly raised some questions.

When a collective group, namely the american people, williingly decide collectively that they will enact a system of elections to appoint government officials who will act on their behalf to regulate their life, liberty and property, what is the libertarian stance on the validity of such a system? Granted, the regulation of life, liberty and property are opposed to libertarian views, but, at least as far as the video made known, they are not opposed to people willingly appointing officials act on their behalf.

[/ QUOTE ]

The issue isn't how or even whether groups of individuals choose government officials, but rather what power does the government possess. If said officials don't initiate force against uninvolved third parties while acting on their constituents behalf, such a system would not be condemned by libertarians.