|
|
#51
10-12-2005, 12:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Intro to libertarian philosophy animation
[ 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. [/ QUOTE ] So are you saying that libertarians are only opposed to the current American system of government with regards to international issues? Who are these "uninvolved third parties"? Non-americans? Nonvoting americans? Americans who did not vote for the candidates who were ultimately elected? 
|
|
#52
10-12-2005, 12:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Swing your partner \'round and \'round!
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr /> 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. [/ QUOTE ] Who owns the air?
|
|
#53
10-12-2005, 01:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Intro to libertarian philosophy animation
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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. [/ QUOTE ] So are you saying that libertarians are only opposed to the current American system of government with regards to international issues? [/ QUOTE ] No. [ QUOTE ] Who are these "uninvolved third parties"? Non-americans? Nonvoting americans? Americans who did not vote for the candidates who were ultimately elected? [/ QUOTE ] Anyone required to sacrifice his or her liberty or property to the government against his (or her) will. The "American people" are made up of individuals. The government steals a significant portion of my income (i.e. "taxes"), forbids me to do this, compels me to do that, etc etc. I never consented to any of it. This essay explains what I mean
|
|
#54
10-12-2005, 01:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Intro to libertarian philosophy animation
[ 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... [/ QUOTE ] Once you have the government resolving disputes, then libertarianism is done. The rest is just an excercise in line drawing. Which is not to say that debates about the exercise are not worth having. But we can lose the high-falootin' "consent" and "liberty" rhetoric, and we can stop calling taxes "theft".
|
|
#55
10-12-2005, 01:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Swing your partner \'round and \'round!
[ QUOTE ]
Who owns the air? [/ QUOTE ] Nobody. However, everyone breathes it, and pollution can damage you. If someone pollutes the air and causes you damages, sue them. Take action. Don't back a system that lets people damage others with impunity.
|
|
#56
10-12-2005, 01:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Intro to libertarian philosophy animation
[ QUOTE ]
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 ] If (and only if) everyone (and I mean EVERYone) agrees, then it's fine. If there are dissenters, the the resulting regime is coercing some. Don't aggregate everyone into a single collective that makes one decision.
|
|
#57
10-12-2005, 01:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Intro to libertarian philosophy animation
[ QUOTE ]
Once you have the government resolving disputes, then libertarianism is done. [/ QUOTE ] I agree. [ QUOTE ] The rest is just an excercise in line drawing. Which is not to say that debates about the exercise are not worth having. But we can lose the high-falootin' "consent" and "liberty" rhetoric, and we can stop calling taxes "theft". [/ QUOTE ] In other words, "stop making my desire to oppress others look bad by using the correct terms".
|
|
#58
10-12-2005, 01:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Intro to libertarian philosophy animation
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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... [/ QUOTE ] Once you have the government resolving disputes, then libertarianism is done. The rest is just an excercise in line drawing. Which is not to say that debates about the exercise are not worth having. But we can lose the high-falootin' "consent" and "liberty" rhetoric, and we can stop calling taxes "theft". [/ QUOTE ] If the government really never initiated force (which would imply among many other things, that it didn't impose compulsory taxation), and strictly limited itself to a police and court system which only enforced laws protecting individual rights (i.e. retaliatory force), then few if any libertarians would object. If you prefer not to call this "libertarianism" we can give it a different name if it makes you happy.
|
|
#60
10-12-2005, 02:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Swing your partner \'round and \'round!
[ QUOTE ]
Sue before whom? I certinly don't accept your court to rule over me, I want mine, and mine says I can pollute as much as I like. [/ QUOTE ] Free market laws and courts
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
