Libertarianism

[JimC]

Neither Seth, nor Jonno are correct.
What Seth is missing is that merely having a few guns isn't going to mean you'll survive anarchy.

And, what Jonno forgets is that as often as not, the government is the villain. To think "it can't happen here" because we in the west are so enlightened is missing a big dose of history.

It DID happen here. It CAN happen here. And, it very likely WILL happen here (meaning somewhere in the West) again. It DID happen in Russia. It DID happen in Germany. It DID happen in Serbia. It DID happen in Yugoslavia. Bosnia happened. Mussolini happpened in Italy. Spain was a dictatorship until the 1970s.

This is not ancient history.

Parliamentary Democracy -- Republicanism -- these are the exception, not the rule.

To think one is "safe" unless the government collapses ignores not only what is possible, but what is historically the norm. To think that humans have fundamentally changed in only a generation or two, in in only a small portion of the world, is to ignore reality.

I agree, but the solution is vigilance, a free press, organised political opposition, not guns...

[Seth]

If pollution is leaving your land and is contaminating my land or is causing me physical harm, there most certainly is both force and fraud.

That's your version. I contend that there is no pollution and/or that any contaminants on your land did not come from my activities.

Then the case is brought before an arbiter who decides what the truth is.

When you support coercive government, that's exactly what you're doing.

By that standard, so do you.

Then we'll have a discussion about it....Then I tell you to cease and desist from contaminating my property and harming me.

LOL! That's your idea of a "discussion"? You tell me to cease? Again, I dispute your version of events. Now get off my property.

Then things are escalated to the next level.

They'll have to figure out how to do it without imposing the force and fraud on others.

Can't be done. You cannot produce those things without also producing pollution.

Then you cannot have those things.

It either compensates me to my satisfaction, which means creating a voluntary contract between me and the community, or it doesn't initiate the force or fraud.

Again, this just keeps getting funnier. How do you have a contract with a community? There's 400 million people in this country alone. You going to get that many to sign? And why does the compensation have to be to your satisfaction? What if the community decides you've received enough?

Because it's my property that's being taken. If I don't want to sell it at any price, you may not compel me to do so, you must find another way to achieve your goal.

You just fail to understand the difference between Libertarian government and the standard coercive "democratic" model. It's not all that different, it's mostly in how it goes about things.

The Libertarian gov't sounds even more coercive. Things are decided by shootouts and individual demands ("I demand compensation until I'm personally satisfied!")

Why should it be any different? What's mine is mine. You have no right to take it from me or damage it without my permission or compensation. The only way you can support your system is to make my property rights subordinate to the collective, and you have not justified why the collective should have any greater rights than the individual to impose its will.

[MrJonno]

The only way you can support your system is to make my property rights subordinate to the collective

Which of course they are, the only thing you own is what society says you own. You think you own your house because you paid someone else money for it. Think again own it because society recognizes your transaction

[Seth]

The only way you can support your system is to make my property rights subordinate to the collective

Which of course they are, the only thing you own is what society says you own. You think you own your house because you paid someone else money for it. Think again own it because society recognizes your transaction

No, I own property because I am able to defend that ownership. Society recognizes my ownership as a way to keep me from killing anyone who attempts to divest me of that which is mine. Society's laws are merely a mechanism by which conflicts over possession of resources are resolved by means other than the Law of the Jungle. But the basis of the right to own property is not society's permission, it is the individual's ability to find, acquire and defend those resources from being appropriated by others.

The collective has no rights in my property. Never has, never will. And if the collective tries to take what is mine, I'm justified in resisting that attempted theft using whatever force is required to thwart the theft.

If you think I'm wrong, I encourage you to try to break into my house in the middle of the night and take what is mine. I'll prove to you that I'm able to defend that ownership. It will cost you your life.

[MrJonno]

No, I own property because I am able to defend that ownership. Society recognizes my ownership as a way to keep me from killing anyone who attempts to divest me of that which is mine.

You obviously can't defend your ownership against the army sending a tank division down your street to take it or even a few criminal gang members who want to take it

[Gawdzilla Sama]

That trout rant is classic "Damned if they do, damned if the don't."

[Seth]

No, I own property because I am able to defend that ownership. Society recognizes my ownership as a way to keep me from killing anyone who attempts to divest me of that which is mine.

You obviously can't defend your ownership against the army sending a tank division down your street to take it or even a few criminal gang members who want to take it

That I may be unsuccessful in defending my property does not render the taking of it by those to whom it does not belong moral or ethical. It just means they have superior force. Law of the Jungle. And when they invoke that law, I will invoke it too by doing my best to kill anyone who attempts to take what's mine. Who wins is anything but certain.

And you're quite wrong, I'm perfectly capable of taking on a few, or even many armed criminals. A tank division? Probably not directly, but I guarantee you the government (particularly its leaders) would not enjoy a moment's peace after doing so, for so long as I'm alive. Sometimes it's wise to run away and fight another day, in another way. And that too I'm prepared and trained to do.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNmX0Rqi ... ploademail[/youtube]

[Coito ergo sum]

What is that guy's overall point here? That some libertarians are simplistic?

He seems to be suggesting that libertarianism advocates that the federal government has a monopoly on force -- which it does not. He also says that libertarians are advocating something about a war between the civilian population and the federal government.

This guy is not making much sense.

A better teacher here might be Milton Friedman:

[aspire1670]

The only way you can support your system is to make my property rights subordinate to the collective

Which of course they are, the only thing you own is what society says you own. You think you own your house because you paid someone else money for it. Think again own it because society recognizes your transaction

No, I own property because I am able to defend that ownership. Society recognizes my ownership as a way to keep me from killing anyone who attempts to divest me of that which is mine. Society's laws are merely a mechanism by which conflicts over possession of resources are resolved by means other than the Law of the Jungle. But the basis of the right to own property is not society's permission, it is the individual's ability to find, acquire and defend those resources from being appropriated by others.

The collective has no rights in my property. Never has, never will. And if the collective tries to take what is mine, I'm justified in resisting that attempted theft using whatever force is required to thwart the theft.

If you think I'm wrong, I encourage you to try to break into my house in the middle of the night and take what is mine. I'll prove to you that I'm able to defend that ownership. It will cost you your life.

Nope. You own property because you inherited it and property law defends it for you. Default on any mortgage against your property (if there is one) and you will be out on your ear, guns or no.

[Svartalf]

They just may have to outgun him to repo the place or car.

[aspire1670]

They just may have to outgun him to repo the place or car.

Just toss him a pie and he'll putty in the repo's hands.

[Coito ergo sum]

The collective has no rights in my property. Never has, never will. And if the collective tries to take what is mine, I'm justified in resisting that attempted theft using whatever force is required to thwart the theft.
.

Here i have to disagree with you. They do. For example, even if you own a piece of property, law enforcement can get a warrant to come on your property and search it, all they need is probable cause. They don't even need that if they have articulable exigent circumstances. And, if you don't have a fence, then anyone can walk on your property to knock on your front door.

If you have a stream or river on your property, you can't dump oil and paint thinner into it and let it run off into other people's yards or property, either (or at least the State can make laws regulating that behavior), etc. If an endangered species of eagle nests on your property, you can't kill the bird or chop down it's nest, etc.

I'm not sure if you're writing about what you think "should be" rather than what "is." Certainly the State does have the power, even under our constitution as currently written, to regulate the uses of private property. The Constitution even provides for your property to be taken for a public use against your will, provided they give you what they and/or a court determines to be just compensation. Taking your property by the State is a pretty huge inroad into an absolute property right, isn't it?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

They just may have to outgun him to repo the place or car.

Seeth in a gunfight.

[laklak]

So what if he inherited it? It's his. Is inherited property somehow different from any other form of property? Sounds a bit sour-grapey to me.