Subject:
|
Re: Rights to free goods? (was Re: What happened?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 30 Jun 1999 00:44:51 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
lpieniazek@novera.com!nomorespam!
|
Viewed:
|
1050 times
|
| |
|
|
Whoops... first time round was just mailed to Frank, meant to post this
instead, so here it is.
Frank Filz wrote:
>
> Larry,
>
> I would like to understand the Libertarian principle better, but am
> finding it hard to understand from your responses in the various debates
> that have occured.
Right. that's because I'm Libertarian Macho Flashing(tm). I do it all
the time. I'm not this over the top out in public, trust me.
For a somewhat more level headed approach to getting the info, you might
surf to the LP site http://www.lp.org and scope out the
philosophy/positions section.
The Statement of Principles are the fundamental beliefs deriving from
the basic principle that people have the right to do as they please
insofar as they don't infringe on the rights of others to do the same.
The Platform derives from the Statement of Principles and outlines what
specific things, in alignment with them, are being advocated as part of
the presidential election.
The Program is more of a grass roots, here's what we'd do about X, sort
of document.
> What is the Libertarian view laws and law enforcement? We can all
> certainly agree that murder and theft are crimes (though we may disagree
> as to exactly what is considered murder and theft, especially as
> pertains to government actions). How does the Libertarian principle say
> that crime should be dealt with?
We tend to put more stock in the common laws than the more arcane
regulations. Things like burglary, arson, theft, assault, rape, murder,
negligence, and so forth tend to be easier to see and deal with than
things like regulations about how much fat can be left in a steak.
We're very pro law and order and believe that, unlike today, it is the
duty of the police to respond and that police can be held liable for
failure to enforce laws (that is, they can be malfeasant).
> Do we have a police force? If so, how is it chosen, regulated, and funded?
Funding is the biggie. Get that right and the rest follows. Most
libertarians (Small l) are minimalist government rather than say,
anarcho-capitalist. That is, they recognise the need for a government,
and recognise that in order to carry out proper functions, it needs
funding.
But how do you fund a government "voluntarily"? Taxing everyone is
effective (and some taxes are better than others (1)) but defeats the
principle of getting people to pay for services rendered.
I don't want to go too far down this road but do want to point out that
there are mechanisms for funding government that are user fee based.
That's why I'm against capital punishment, I want criminals to work to
compensate their victims and the police and courts that delivered
justice to them. Voluntary contract insurance (in which you forfeit your
right to sue in civil court unless you paid in advance, but certainly
still can work out private arrangements or binding arbitration) is
another mechanism for funding.
> What is the Libertarian view on protecting the environment? Does it
> agree at all that the environment should be protected? If the
> environment is to be protected, how do we "pay" for that?
This is thorny. I tend to take the view that private property rights,
enforced correctly, go along way to preventing pollution. That is, if I
build a dump and it leaches into your ground water, I am liable for
trespass, assault, criminal negligence, you name it. And no hiding
behind shell corporations to avoid responsibility. Corporate officers
are liable for the actions of their companies, including jail for murder
if flagrant enough.
> How do we
> punnish
(2)
> someone for poluting a river, or is the fact that he lives
> upstream of me mean that he has a higher claim to the water, and if I
> want cleaner water, I have be willing to live farther upstream? I guess
> given a perfect market, what would end up happening is that the value of
> the clean water is sufficient that enough rivers will be left
> unpolluted, but how do we get there?
your last assertion is where we want to get to. You don't have a right
to let water leave your property any dirtier than when it came in...
It's hard to get from
here to there, which is why there never will be a libertopia. There is
no perfect society. But there are better ones than this one and that's
the direction we want to go in...)
> The perfect society would also have plenty of
> artists and museums, and plenty would be just as open as the current
> government run museums.
By definition, my taste is better than the government's. The best
museums, even today, are private. So is the best art. Government grants
are bad money and bad money drives out good.
> I think the hardest thing is how do we move from a governmental society
> to a Libertarian society? There are a lot of strings to unwind.
Yup. But the way to start is to unwind the easy ones, get some quick
wins, and spark debate on unwinding the harder ones. Lots of easy stuff
has already been privatised and the sky didn't fall. In fact we've got
ourselves a nice little economic boom going for a number of reasons that
directly relate to free markets and free minds.
Who would have thought 10 years ago that privatising social security
would even be mentioned as a serious option? So I'm hopeful.
1 - Although I don't like any tax, I'd rank them this way, best to
worst:
- flat tax in which everyone pays exactly the same fee per year. No
exemptions, if you can't pay, you work it off in January or find
charity/loans to cover it for you.
- fixed percentage sales tax that applies to all goods and services. No
exemptions.
- fixed percentage property tax that applies to all property. No
exemptions. (sensing a theme here yet?)
- fixed percentage of income, same percentage for everyone, first
dollar to last, no exemptions.
- other kinds of sales taxes which have varying amounts of fiddling,
the less the better
The current property tax and the current income tax, with their arcane
exemptions and loop holes are so bad they don't make the list, even at
the bottom. They have to go.
2 - was that punnish deliberate?
--
Larry Pieniazek larryp@novera.com http://my.voyager.net/lar
- - - Web Application Integration! http://www.novera.com
NOTE: I have left CTP, effective 18 June 99, and my CTP email
will not work after then. Please switch to my Novera ID.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
433 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
