Subject:
|
Libertarianism again.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 31 Aug 1999 09:07:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2137 times
|
| |
|
|
was: Re: Misperceptions of America (Was: Conversation w/ a LEGO Rep)
Mike Stanley <cjc@NOSPAMnewsguy.com> wrote in
> If you can't see the many ways in which that one strikes some
> of us as bogus I doubt there's any point in discussing it.
I can, but none of them strike me as realistic. The scenario itself seems
to be more or less believable, in the sense that it matches the observed
behaviour of a statistically significant number of people. Are you arguing
that no-one would ever do such a thing, or that it is unreasonable of the
people involved to do it? I assume the latter. And the primary defence is
that if they're not bound by ties to their fellow man then they are
obliged to try to con you into supporting them. It is the least cost
method of supporting themselves (cost to them, that is).
> What you probably ignored is the basic core of what a lot of us
> believe - what's mine is MINE and what's yours is YOURS. I have no
> right to your stuff, you have no right to my stuff.
Can you explain why what's yours is yours, or is it an axiom?[2] Either
is fine, but I'd like to think that you can justify such a core belief.
> with a little theft to make sure the roads are ok, the police force is
> well-staffed, ditto the fire department.
By your beliefs surely a private police force should protect the private
fire brigade, paid for by you directly. I mean, I know that there are
problems with that, but I can't see how a socialised Police forcxe fits
the Libertarian economic model.
> If you can work this crap into making yourself believe that I owe
> portion of my taxes to pay for ridiculous social programs...
Do you value community at all? Community is not a free good, therefore it
must be paid for. In your case, by theft. You seem to prefer organised
crime, but I am at a loss to know why theft should be nationalised.
Surely the libertarian would rather be burgled by a fellow individualist
from time to time than pay taxes to the parasites who inevitably
cluster wherever free money is to be had? Or do you seriously believe
that a Police department would be run without an elected governer and
its appointed supervisors, auditors and inspectors?
Mike, it seems to come down to how far each of us is willing to stick
to a theory of how perfect people should behave, and how far we are willing
to admit that in practice people are short-sighted, selfish and stupid.
The few who do think ahead rarely agree. I count both you and Larry as
apparently intelligent individuals who are mysteriously unable to see why
my green socialist position is the only rational one. This seems to be a
pattern repeated throughout history. Hence the popularity of nose-counting
to settle disputes that are not amenable to rational discussion.
As I've said to Larry in the past[1], a lot of the things that Libertarians
advocate have been shown to only work in practice if everyone does them,
and to be enormously vulnerable to the tragedy of the commons. I have yet
to see a defense of Libertarianism that addresses this, and only blind
contradiction offered from those who admit it as a problem.
To summarise, in the absence of legal restraint there are incentives to
strip mine assets, and no restraints. Take real mining. Without laws
to protect the environment the most efficient way to get coal is to
dig a hole, take out the coal, declare the local company bankrupt and
walk away. If we disallow bankruptcy (Larrys solution at one time), we
have the situation where shareholders are required to accept unlimited
liability for unknowable risks. Would dent business, no? But allowing
something as simple as a limited liability forces us to legislate to
protect people who would otherwise be able to enforce direct liability
against shareholders.
I am very interested in other solutions to both the direct scenario and
to the meta problem.
Moz
[1] see, for example,
Newsgroups: lugnet.off-topic.debate
Subject: Re: Fixing the world (was Re: Ldraw cannon
From: "Moz (Chris Moseley)" <moz1@ihug.co.nz>
Message-ID: <F3qJ0K.Dn@lugnet.com>
Xref: lugnet.com lugnet.off-topic.debate:139
I don't seem to get the Lugnet message number in there. Where is it, I wonder.
[2] yes, it's partly a wind-up and partly I really do want to know why
private property should be immutable. What justification is there for it?
Why is taxation inherently wrong? And who gets the money for discovered
things? (America, for example, or HIV)
|
|
Message has 9 Replies:
 | | Re: Libertarianism again.
|
| (...) So because a significantly significant number of people are stupid/selfish/non-f...d-thinking enough to not save ANY of their income over their entire working lives that justifies the taking of money from others to pay for their problems? (...) (25 years ago, 1-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Libertarianism again.
|
| (...) Erm, technically, I think NZ is a two postage stamp country. (...) I have a bumpersticker I haven't dared put on the back of my car yet: "caution, stupid people are breeding" (25 years ago, 1-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Libertarianism again.
|
| Mike Stanley <cjc@NOSPAMnewsguy.com> wrote (...) Yes. How we do so is the question, not whether we do it at all. Unless you have some cost-free way of removing them from society. (...) What's "yours" is vested in you by the government, and those (...) (25 years ago, 1-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Libertarianism again.
|
| <37CCA9E3.7A9A326D@voyager.net> <slrn7spbr1.86u.cjc@...S.UTK.EDU> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) No, I got it in San Diego at a headshop, but the name of the company is Socially Hazardous Stickers. (...) (25 years ago, 1-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Libertarianism again.
|
| <37CCA9E3.7A9A326D@voyager.net> <FHDLIu.AGD@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) Troller. Stop it. Much easier than sterilization is merely to stop using taxes that way. It also has the (...) (25 years ago, 1-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Libertarianism again.
|
| <FHDLGC.AAv@lugnet.com> <37CD2061.1A04C593@voyager.net> <FHDzL4.2L5@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) of SOME economic theories. Just not the ones that actually work. Keynsian economics is (...) (25 years ago, 1-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Libertarianism again.
|
| Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> wrote (...) So tell me, how do we stop them taking what is ours by brute force, or simply degrading our environment by dying in it? Even if you don't have welfare you need some way to stop homeless people coming to (...) (25 years ago, 4-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Libertarianism again.
|
| <37CD5AB2.72BA98B6@voyager.net> <FHJ1Ao.D6D@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) Simon made a sweeping statement that "economics" had said X. I merely showed that not all economics did say X. (...) (25 years ago, 4-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Libertarianism again.
|
| (...) Moz, Can you tell me what part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that resides in, because I can't find it. You sound just like my sister. "We have a right to a living wage." Really? Where is that at in the Constitution or Bill of (...) (25 years ago, 7-Sep-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
276 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
|
|
|
|
