Intro to libertarian philosophy animation

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Dump or don't dump...I don't care. If you choose to dump, then you can do so, but you do not have the right to choose to dump your sewage such that it enters my property, unless I say it is okay. As to the means of keeping your sewage out of my section of creek, I could care less, so long as it gets done. Getting it inspected or it costing $10,000 is not my concern, nor is it an impinging of your rights. In fact, it is simply the cost of exercising those rights responsibly. No one ever said freedom was free.

[/ QUOTE ]
My point is that this is actually an incredibly restrictive philosophy. If you want to guarantee that no one is ever affected negatively by anyone else's actions, that necessitates an enormous and intrusive government for enforcement. Your utopia of liberty actually turns into a very restrictive society where no one can do anything.


[/ QUOTE ]

The error in this "criticism" is that you claim a logical consequence of a libertarian philosophy is that it implies no one may do anything which "negatively affects" to any degree another person or his property. The damage must non-negligible; that is decided in context on an individual basis. This criterion is already common in criminal and civil law, and there is nothing non-libertarian about that.

Most libertarians would agree, for example, that one does not have the right to emit fatal concentrations of poisonous gas which may waft into another person's property. This obviously is a non-negligible initiation of force. On the other hand, the mere act of breathing produces a small amount of carbon dioxide, but that is not sufficient to claim a libertarian philosophy demands that your neighbor must hold his breath.

To what degree constitutes "non-negligible" harm is certainly a legitimate matter of debate, and those issues may indeed be complex, in which both parties of a dispute may have legitimate claims. Libertarianism maintains that such issues should be untangled and decided on the basis of individual rights, including property rights. Similarly, government regulations regarding pollution should be defined on that same basis.

[ QUOTE ]

I agree with you about gay marriage, etc. It's just that in the real world, people have overlapping and conflicting rights, and it's naive to simply say, "Everyone has rights and they should always be respected."

[/ QUOTE ]

In the real world, libertarianism implies that such complex issues should be decided on the basis of individual rights. There is nothing "naive" about that, and your characterization is a strawman.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
There's a huge difference between bestiality and being carnivorous. It's perfectly alright to be a meat-eating libertarian [who] shuns acts of bestiality.

One type of animal eating the flesh of another is totally natural. However, sex between different types of animals, for the most part is unnatural.

[/ QUOTE ]
You cannot proceed with a construction of political ideology having as starting axioms both "natural laws" and human choice --aka liberty. Sooner or later, you run into unsurpassable contradictions.

Either bestiality is a human choice (and the other animals have no say in it, just like they have no say when we eat them) or it is against the laws of nature (and we have no business screwing a goat). BTW, it should be easily proven that getting screwed is a better/lighter fate than getting eaten. (Hmm, that last one could be misconstrued by perverts here [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img].)

You should know already that there is little or nothing "natural" about man-made morality.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
You know, turning new people on to the libertarian ideal is going to be pretty hard if we get labeled as approving of bestiality like you do.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the age-old misunderstanding about proponents of freedom. When I defend the right of a person to wear the swastika, salute like a Roman and sing Horst Vessel, this does NOT mean that I support Nazist ideas or that I "approve" of fascism.

It means what it says it means. It means that I support the right to have Nazi ideas. It's a completely different thing.

I do not support bestiality and I do not intend to get married to another man any time soon. But I have no problem whatsoever with other people who (in fact, I support their right to) get married as a couple of two males. Nor with people who wanna [censored] a goat.

...I wonder what PETA thinks about tender loving relationships between men and their goats, by the way.

[edthayer]

[ QUOTE ]

This is the age-old misunderstanding about proponents of freedom. When I defend the right of a person to wear the swastika, salute like a Roman and sing Horst Vessel, this does NOT mean that I support Nazist ideas or that I "approve" of fascism.

It means what it says it means. It means that I support the right to have Nazi ideas. It's a completely different thing.

I do not support bestiality and I do not intend to get married to another man any time soon. But I have no problem whatsoever with other people who (in fact, I support their right to) get married as a couple of two males. Nor with people who wanna [censored] a goat.

...I wonder what PETA thinks about tender loving relationships between men and their goats, by the way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, we agree. Very well said, Cyrus.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There's a huge difference between bestiality and being carnivorous. It's perfectly alright to be a meat-eating libertarian [who] shuns acts of bestiality.

One type of animal eating the flesh of another is totally natural. However, sex between different types of animals, for the most part is unnatural.

[/ QUOTE ]
You cannot proceed with a construction of political ideology having as starting axioms both "natural laws" and human choice --aka liberty. Sooner or later, you run into unsurpassable contradictions.

Either bestiality is a human choice (and the other animals have no say in it, just like they have no say when we eat them) or it is against the laws of nature (and we have no business screwing a goat). BTW, it should be easily proven that getting screwed is a better/lighter fate than getting eaten. (Hmm, that last one could be misconstrued by perverts here [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img].)

You should know already that there is little or nothing "natural" about man-made morality.

[/ QUOTE ]
Just say you don't think [censored] a goat is abusive toward the goat or abuse of animals for human pleasure is acceptable in your opinion. Quit with the semantic jig already.

EDIT: I stand firmly behind my belief that using animals for sustenance is part of the natural order. Abusing animals is not. And frankly, I don't understand why you say natural order must be separated from political ideology.

[Darryl_P]

Sounds like sound reasoning to me. Taking it further, then, I assume your stance is the same on a human who abuses animals to satisfy his psychological needs? You respect people's right to do that even though you don't agree with it?

After all, it can be argued that beating a dog 10 times a day is still not as bad as killing him, right?

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
I could care less if you want your part of the creek to be a cesspool

[/ QUOTE ]
I think this is my main problem with the libertarian thought. I'm not greatly read up on the subject, but at least as presented here this is a major drawback, one that is large enough for me to dismiss the idea, even though parts of it is great.

So, I'm free to do what I want with my land, poison it as much as I like, as long as it doesn't seep into your property, right?

So, what about those most affected by this poisoning? Those who will have this land when I'm dead and gone. Why do we completely ignore their right to a poison-free environment?

This, among other things, is why I strongly belive we need a government and a set of laws to protect the environment (for example).

[ 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"?

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
So, I'm free to do what I want with my land, poison it as much as I like, as long as it doesn't seep into your property, right?

So, what about those most affected by this poisoning? Those who will have this land when I'm dead and gone. Why do we completely ignore their right to a poison-free environment?

[/ 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.

Do I owe damages to the "future owner" of my car when I wreck it? No, the damage is taken into account when the two parties negotiate the sale.

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.

Maybe the future property owner doesn't mind a poisoned piece of property. Maybe he just wants a cheap piece of land to park some rusted out cars on.

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

[tylerdurden]

[ 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.