Libertarian Party: Your Thoughts?

[MrktMkr1986]

Thinking that corporations are inherently evil and must be carefully monitored and controlled gives you justification for your desire to control others.

Thinking that government is evil and must be reduced gives you justification for your desire to control others through private property. Typical conservative... typical aristocrat.

By the way, I don't believe corporations are evil. I believe that people who espouse your views make corporations do evil things.

You see many things that you don't like in the world, and you would control those things to fit with your view of the way things should be.

My view? We have public schools and that's my fault all of sudden? You sound more and more like an anarchist every time you say things like this.

To justify this control, you have to convince yourself that someone's rights are being violated.

You've got it backwards. That's exactly what you are doing. "Taxes are theft". "You make me a slave". Sounds to me like you've convinced yourself that your own rights are being violated.

To do this you have twisted the concept of rights and imagined that monopolies exist.

Imagined that monopolies exist... So what's the purpose of the legislation? Why did Samsung get fined?

It helps you justify your desire for power over others.

Right. As if private property doesn't give people power over others. For clarification, I have absolutely no desire to have power over others. This is exactly what the you want -- to not only control the means of production (and subsequently people) through the free market, but to effectively eliminate democracy in an effort to bring about an aristocratic society.

 

[Danoff]

Right. As if private property doesn't give people power over others. For clarification, I have absolutely no desire to have power over others. This is exactly what the you want -- to not only control the means of production (and subsequently people) through the free market, but to effectively eliminate democracy in an effort to bring about an aristocratic society.

I like that! "You want to control others through the FREE market."

Nice.

I think you defeated yourself nicely there. Still can't come up with a monopoly?

 

[MrktMkr1986]

I like that! "You want to control others through the FREE market."

Nice.

I thought we went over this already. There is no such thing as a "free" market. All markets are constructed. You are the one that wants to control how the market operates (using the term "free" to appeal to people's desire for freedom) in an effort to control people -- particularly those who do not own/control the means of production. Conservatives have been doing this for centuries.

The aristocracy (and even modern day conservatives like yourself) always believed that they knew better than the "common" people. You are the one with the sense of entitlement, not the poor. This explains why you are terrified of democracy -- it does not allow you alone (or the plutocrats) to make decisions that affect the people.

I believe in democracy and I believe in equity; neither of them have any place in a society ruled by Libertarians.

Still can't come up with a monopoly?

Standard Oil. If you don't believe that monopolies, price-fixing, and/or oligopolies exist (or used to exist), just say so that way we stop the runaround. There are other topics related to the party that I'd like to discuss.

 

[DeLoreanBrown]

Libertarianism stops at borders , "free trade" cannot override internal market levies or taxes and in some cases open markets are onle 'opened' once sanctions on items like steel are put in place

 

[Danoff]

Standard Oil. If you don't believe that monopolies, price-fixing, and/or oligopolies exist (or used to exist), just say so that way we stop the runaround. There are other topics related to the party that I'd like to discuss.

Dominick Armentano [professor of economics at the University of Hartford],

The little-known truth is that when the government took Standard Oil to court in 1907, Standard Oil's market share had been declining for a decade. Far from being a "monopoly," Standard's share of petroleum refining was approximately 64% at the time of trial. Moreover, there were at least 147 other domestic oil-refining competitors in the market — and some of these were large, vertically integrated firms such as Texaco, Gulf Oil, and Sun. Kerosene outputs had expanded enormously (contrary to usual monopolistic conduct); and prices for kerosene had fallen from more than $2 per gallon in the early 1860s to approximately six cents per gallon at the time of the trial. So much for the myth of the Standard Oil "monopoly."

I thought we went over this already. There is no such thing as a "free" market. All markets are constructed. You are the one that wants to control how the market operates (using the term "free" to appeal to people's desire for freedom) in an effort to control people -- particularly those who do not own/control the means of production. Conservatives have been doing this for centuries.

How do I seek to control anyone? What exactly have I advocated that would offer anyone control over anyone else?

The aristocracy (and even modern day conservatives like yourself) always believed that they knew better than the "common" people. You are the one with the sense of entitlement, not the poor.

Entitlement of what? Freedom? Yes.

This explains why you are terrified of democracy -- it does not allow you alone (or the plutocrats) to make decisions that affect the people.

I'm not terrified of democracy. Democracy works, as long as the rights of the minority are still preserved. That's the way the US government was constructed and largely how it has worked since the creation of this country.


I'm still waiting for your monoploy example...

 

[Duke]

I thought we went over this already. There is no such thing as a "free" market. All markets are constructed. You are the one that wants to control how the market operates (using the term "free" to appeal to people's desire for freedom) in an effort to control people -- particularly those who do not own/control the means of production. Conservatives have been doing this for centuries.

The aristocracy (and even modern day conservatives like yourself) always believed that they knew better than the "common" people. You are the one with the sense of entitlement, not the poor. This explains why you are terrified of democracy -- it does not allow you alone (or the plutocrats) to make decisions that affect the people.

I believe in democracy and I believe in equity; neither of them have any place in a society ruled by Libertarians.

This is precisely why I've pretty much abandoned this discussion. I just don't understand how to get around such wilful and blatant missing of the point.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Dominick Armentano [professor of economics at the University of Hartford],

The little-known truth is that when the government took Standard Oil to court in 1907, Standard Oil's market share had been declining for a decade. Far from being a "monopoly," Standard's share of petroleum refining was approximately 64% at the time of trial. Moreover, there were at least 147 other domestic oil-refining competitors in the market — and some of these were large, vertically integrated firms such as Texaco, Gulf Oil, and Sun. Kerosene outputs had expanded enormously (contrary to usual monopolistic conduct); and prices for kerosene had fallen from more than $2 per gallon in the early 1860s to approximately six cents per gallon at the time of the trial. So much for the myth of the Standard Oil "monopoly."

"The Future of Freedom Foundation" -- lovely, another right-wing think tank.

First of all, I know that from 1900-1910 Standard Oil's market share had been in decline.

By 1890 Standard Oil controlled over 90% of the refined oil flows in the United States.

This was the exact same year that the Sherman Antitrust act created. The problem was act's limited effectiveness combined with political pressure from the trusts.

Subsequently, in 1892 the Ohio Supreme Court declared the Standard Oil Trust to be an illegal monopoly and ordered its dissolution. Although the trustees superficially complied, this decree had little overall effect because they retained control through their positions on the boards of the component companies. Standard Oil was subsequently reorganized in 1899 as a holding company under the name of Standard Oil Company of New Jersey. That state had conveniently adopted a law that permitted a parent company to own the stock of other companies.

... so it was still a monopoly while the legislation was enacted. The problem was it took too long for government to completely break up the company. It was the legislation that increased competition by penalizing Standard Oil for their actions.

How do I seek to control anyone? What exactly have I advocated that would offer anyone control over anyone else?

You seek control through property and your definition of rights. You have advocated plenty that would offer people control over others:

Where property, including land, has been taken from its rightful owners by the government or private action in violation of individual rights, we favor restitution to the rightful owners. [So slaves that were freed by the government should be returned to their rightful owners]

All rights are inextricably linked with property rights.

Our bodies are our property every bit as much as is justly acquired land or material objects.

The free market, which respects individual rights in voluntary trade with other individuals, should be allowed to function unhindered by government. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights [including slaves since our bodies are property], adjudicate disputes [between the slave and the slaveholder] and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected.

We call for the repeal of all laws that restrict anyone, including children, from engaging in voluntary exchanges of goods, services or information regarding human sexuality [child + voluntary exchange of good/services = child pornography/prostitution], reproduction, birth control or related medical or biological technologies.

We advocate the establishment of an efficient and just system of private water rights applied to all bodies of water, surface and underground. Such a system should be built upon a doctrine of first claim and use. The allocation of water should be governed by unrestricted competition and unregulated prices

This law [OSHA] denies the right to liberty and property to both employer and employee, and interferes in their private contractual relations. In particular, we would eliminate special limits on the liability of corporations for damages caused in non-contractual transactions. [so that by working at company x, the employee must sign a contract that says he/she assumes all responsibility for workplace accidents even if it is the fault of the company for not making the necessary changes to plant/property/equipment; if not then they can find another job -- besides, you only need one lung anyway!]

We advocate an end to all government attempts to dictate, prohibit, control or encourage any private lifestyle, living arrangement or contractual relationship. [so 40-year olds can "marry" 9-year olds, and/or keep children as slave laborers]

If a private employer screens prospective or current employees via questionnaires, polygraph tests, urine tests for drugs, blood tests for AIDS, or other means, this is a condition of that employer's labor contracts. Such screening does not violate the rights of employees, who have the right to boycott such employers if they choose.[and boycott a place to live and food to eat in the process]

We oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals. [this way people are "free" to contract their future labor for $1 without any government intervention.]

What happened to the Free State Project?

Entitlement of what? Freedom? Yes.

Wrong.

The term "entitlement" originally referred to aristocrats. Aristocrats had "titles" and [somehow] believed that they entitled to various things, including the deference of the "common" people (through the ownership of private property) and gold.

This unhealthy obsession with gold can be seen here:

Inflation and Depression

The Issue: Government control over money and banking is the primary cause of inflation and depression.

The Principle: Individuals engaged in voluntary exchange should be free to use as money any mutually agreeable commodity or item, such as gold coins denominated by units of weight. We support the right to private ownership of and contracts for gold.

Solutions: We call for the repeal of all legal tender laws and of all compulsory governmental units of account, as well as the elimination of all government fiat money and all government minted coins. All restrictions upon the private minting of coins must be abolished, so that minting will be open to the competition of the free market. We favor free-market banking, with unrestricted competition among banks and depository institutions of all types. The only further necessary check upon monetary inflation is the consistent application of the general protection against fraud to the minting and banking industries.

I'm not terrified of democracy. Democracy works, as long as the rights of the minority are still preserved.

You mean the rights of the aristocracy.

That's the way the US government was constructed and largely how it has worked since the creation of this country.

The US government was constructed to suit the benefits of those who fashioned themselves as freedom fighters but were nothing more than aristocrats -- or at least they tried to be.

I'm still waiting for your monopoly example...

I have yet to see you acknowledge that any market failures exist, so there's no point in continuing to ask for an example.

 

[Swift]

The US government was constructed to suit the benefits of those who fashioned themselves as freedom fighters but were nothing more than aristocrats -- or at least they tried to be.

Ok, I was quiet but I have to say something about this statement. While recently this may have some validity. The original founders of the constitution were men that knew the true meaning and feeling of oppression. I refuse to think that they want to soley prop themselves up with the new government.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Ok, I was quiet but I have to say something about this statement. While recently this may have some validity. The original founders of the constitution were men that knew the true meaning and feeling of oppression. I refuse to think that they want to soley prop themselves up with the new government.

If freedom was so important to them, why were many of the Founding Fathers slaveholders? I'm aware that some of them released the slaves in the years following the separation of the US from Britain, but still...

 

[Swift]

If freedom was so important to them, why were many of the Founding Fathers slaveholders? I'm aware that some of them released the slaves in the years following the separation of the US from Britain, but still...

Don't you think that it's possible to be raised in a culture where something is accepted and still be an advocate for freedom for the all of the CITIZENS of the country.

Slavery was horrible. But they weren't considered citizens at the time.

I believe the constitution had the little guy written all over it. Not to mention a good bit of the Bible

 

[Danoff]

"The Future of Freedom Foundation" -- lovely, another right-wing think tank.

First of all, I know that from 1900-1910 Standard Oil's market share had been in decline.

This was the exact same year that the Sherman Antitrust act created. The problem was act's limited effectiveness combined with political pressure from the trusts. ... so it was still a monopoly while the legislation was enacted. The problem was it took too long for government to completely break up the company. It was the legislation that increased competition by penalizing Standard Oil for their actions.

You have yet to establish that. All I've seen is that at NO point was standard oil without competition. I'll leave you to establish why the market share decreased... I would point to that as an indication that it was not a monopoly.

You seek control through property and your definition of rights.

What? That makes no sense. What rights do I advocate that would give people controls of others. How could I use property to control others without violating their rights?

Where property, including land, has been taken from its rightful owners by the government or private action in violation of individual rights, we favor restitution to the rightful owners. [So slaves that were freed by the government should be returned to their rightful owners]

Did you seriously get this from the LP website? They're crazier than I thought. Post a link.

Our bodies are our property every bit as much as is justly acquired land or material objects.

👍

We oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals. [this way people are "free" to contract their future labor for $1 without any government intervention.]

👍 This isn't an example of control.

The term "entitlement" originally referred to aristocrats. Aristocrats had "titles" and [somehow] believed that they entitled to various things, including the deference of the "common" people (through the ownership of private property) and gold.

What has this got to do with anything?

You mean the rights of the aristocracy.

I mean the rights of any minority.

The US government was constructed to suit the benefits of those who fashioned themselves as freedom fighters but were nothing more than aristocrats -- or at least they tried to be.

Hmmm... direct attack on the founding fathers.... interesting. Explain this^^.

I have yet to see you acknowledge that any market failures exist, so there's no point in continuing to ask for an example.

I have yet to see one. Perhaps you could give me an example of a monopoly.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

What? That makes no sense. What rights do I advocate that would give people controls of others. How could I use property to control others without violating their rights?

The right to allow someone to sell themself into slavery would give people control over others. Absolute property rights with zero government intervention is how property can be used to control others. Private property and corporations have more in common with fascism than democracy and to make property rights supreme is to say "fascism" is supreme.

Because you have absolute rights (otherwise known as "entitlements"; ie. title, as in aristocracy) to your property you have final say in what to do with it. You're the boss. You're the king of your empire. It's your company so you have ultimate authority. Pure, unadulterated fascism under the pretense of liberty.

Did you seriously get this from the LP website? They're crazier than I thought. Post a link.

Certainly. See the "Solutions" section under Right to Property.

What has this got to do with anything?

Property = freedom and power

The freedom to abuse power and the power to abuse freedom. Talk about a slippery slope!

I mean the rights of any minority.

"Freedom" of association negates this.

Hmmm... direct attack on the founding fathers.... interesting. Explain this^^.

More on the Founding Fathers later... (still doing more research)

 

[ledhed]

If you are going to learn about the " foundin fathers " you need to read up your philosophers ...Locke and Roussea etc. and the period called the enlightenment . They based their theorys on the literature and thinking of the time . You also would want to learn about deism and " reason" as it pertains to that group .

 

[MrktMkr1986]

If you are going to learn about the " foundin fathers " you need to read up your philosophers ...Locke and Roussea etc. and the period called the enlightenment . They based their theorys on the literature and thinking of the time . You also would want to learn about deism and " reason" as it pertains to that group .

Thank you very much, Mike.

 

[Danoff]

The right to allow someone to sell themself into slavery would give people control over others.

Wrong. To allow someone to sell themselves into slavery gives them the power to give others control over themeselves. That's an important distinction.

Because you have absolute rights (otherwise known as "entitlements"; ie. title, as in aristocracy) to your property you have final say in what to do with it. You're the boss. You're the king of your empire. It's your company so you have ultimate authority. Pure, unadulterated fascism under the pretense of liberty.

Then you don't understand facism or liberty. To allow someone to control their property is liberty not facism. To control the property of others ... now we're getting facist. That's closer to what you advocate than what I do.

Property = freedom and power

Simply stating this does not make it true. We've been down this road before. In a libertarian society someone cannot use their property to gain control over any other person. Which means property does not equal freedom or power over others.

^^Argue directly with that line of reasoning rather than simply stating again that it is so.

The freedom to abuse power and the power to abuse freedom. Talk about a slippery slope!

No freedom to abuse power, no power to abuse freedom. Abuse would be defined as the violation of someone else's rights. No amount of freedom or property will allow that in a libertarian society.

More on the Founding Fathers later... (still doing more research)

I see, the hit and run technique. Perhaps you could wait to dig on the people who set up your country until you've finished your research.

 

[ledhed]

The Enlightenment in America

Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, many of the intellectual leaders of the American colonies were drawn to the Enlightenment. The colonies may have been founded by leaders of various dogmatic religious persuasions, but when it became necessary to unite against England, it was apparent that no one of them could prevail over the others, and that the most desirable course was to agree to disagree. Nothing more powerfully impelled the movement toward the separation of church and state than the realization that no one church could dominate this new state.


Many of the most distinguished leaders of the American revolution--Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, Paine--were powerfully influenced by English and--to a lesser extent--French Enlightenment thought. The God who underwrites the concept of equality in the Declaration of Independence is the same deist God Rousseau worshipped, not that venerated in the traditional churches which still supported and defended monarchies all over Europe. Jefferson and Franklin both spent time in France--a natural ally because it was a traditional enemy of England--absorbing the influence of the French Enlightenment. The language of natural law, of inherent freedoms, of self-determination which seeped so deeply into the American grain was the language of the Enlightenment, though often coated with a light glaze of traditional religion, what has been called our "civil religion."


This is one reason that Americans should study the Enlightenment. It is in their bones. It has defined part of what they have dreamed of, what they aim to become. Separated geographically from most of the aristocrats against whom they were rebelling, their revolution was to be far less corrosive--and at first less influential--than that in France.

Think on this when you order your freedom fries .

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~brians/hum_303/enlightenment.html

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~brians/hum_303/voltaire.html

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/modsbook10.html

http://www.iep.utm.edu/h/humelife.htm

Follow this to an encyclopedia of philosophy...

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/

"Good and evil, reward and punishment, are the only motives to a rational creature: these are the spur and reins whereby all mankind are set on work, and guided." (Locke.)

The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is Reason. I have never used any other, and I trust I never shall.

Your affectionate friend and fellow-citizen,

THOMAS PAINE

http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/Paine/AOR-Frame.html

I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life.

I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy.

But, lest it should be supposed that I believe in many other things in addition to these, I shall, in the progress of this work, declare the things I do not believe, and my reasons for not believing them.

I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.

All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.

I do not mean by this declaration to condemn those who believe otherwise; they have the same right to their belief as I have to mine. But it is necessary to the happiness of man, that he be mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe.

It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that mental lying has produced in society. When a man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind, as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime. He takes up the trade of a priest for the sake of gain, and in order to qualify himself for that trade, he begins with a perjury. Can we conceive any thing more destructive to morality than this?

Are these guys the origional Libertarians or did the Libertarian party seek to improve on their thoughts on liberty ?

Danoffs the modern Paine ( in the a** ) Think about it ...and then go to the thread on ...just about anything .. I think he's far from a mind whore

 

[MrktMkr1986]

To allow someone to sell themselves into slavery gives them the power to give others control over themeselves. That's an important distinction.

^^ And this is the justification for the reinstitution of slavery ^^​

To allow someone to control their property is liberty not facism.

In a libertarian society someone cannot use their property to gain control over any other person. Which means property does not equal freedom or power over others.

No freedom to abuse power, no power to abuse freedom. Abuse would be defined as the violation of someone else's rights. No amount of freedom or property will allow that in a libertarian society.

^^Argue directly with that line of reasoning rather than simply stating again that it is so.

If freedom is supposed to be the absence of coercion, then the amount of freedom a person has is the extent to which they can act without being coerced to do (or not to do) something against their will. If a person (or government) cannot legally do anything with someone else's property (as this constitutes an initiation of force) then, your only guaranteed freedom is determined by the amount of property you have. You claim that the redistribution of wealth is wrong because taking someone else's property to give to another is depriving the "original owner" of freedom in order to give to another. If that's the case then depriving a non-owner access to property is depriving them of freedom in order to increase the freedom of the "original owner".

Freedom and unrestricted property right go hand in hand.

Found that quote here.

Now don't get me wrong -- I know property rights can be conducive to respecting freedom, but the unrestricted right to property will inevitably lead to some people with property and others without (as with ANY scarce resource). Again, without property one is completely subject to the will of others and that is far from being "free" -- regardless of how you want to define it.

Private property is essential to freedom. I don't deny this. "Unrestricted private property rights" is fascistic because it allows people who have a lot of property to exploit those who do not have property. There's nothing to stop a person from hiring a private police force (modern-day Pinkertons ) and giving them the order to shoot anyone that trespasses onto their property (even by accident) -- because ultimately the owners of the property have final authority. There's nothing to stop a person from using their private property to traffic everything from illegal substances (a so-called victimless crime) to slaves who have purportedly "chosen" to be slaves. There's nothing to stop a corporation from exhausting a natural resource on it's own private property because of short-term thinking and profiteering. There's nothing to stop a corporation from dumping toxic waste into the river that it "owns" (thanks, GE, for the Hudson River; nothing like the taste of PCB-tainted striped bass for dinner). And the list goes on...

Another problem inherent to Libertarianism is the fact that negative rights in and of themselves place restrictions on individual liberty. So in that sense, positive rights are no different than negative rights. Both are non-consensual limitations on freedom. So if a person's freedom can be limited without consent with negative rights, it would be silly to say that these are the only non-consensual limitations on freedom.

"Freedom of contract" (the Libertarian justification for slavery) under unequal circumstances (where someone has property and someone else does not) will increase inequality between individuals producing social relationships which are based on hierarchy (Conservatism) and domination (Fascism) -- not unlike the way the US used to operate from 1776-1865 (and arguably to 1964).

Now, the Libertarian Party, is a *capitalist* party. It's in favor of what *I* would regard a *particular form* of authoritarian control. Namely, the kind that comes through private ownership and control, which is an *extremely* rigid system of domination -- people have to... people can survive, by renting themselves to it, and basically in no other way... I do disagree with them *very* sharply, and I think that they are not..understanding the *fundamental* doctrine, that you should be free from domination and control, including the control of the manager and the owner.

There isn't much point arguing about the word "libertarian." It would make about as much sense to argue with an unreconstructed Stalinist about the word "democracy" -- recall that they called what they'd constructed "peoples' democracies." The weird offshoot of ultra-right individualist anarchism that is called "libertarian" here happens to amount to advocacy of perhaps the worst kind of imaginable tyranny, namely unaccountable private tyranny. If they want to call that "libertarian," fine; after all, Stalin called his system "democratic." But why bother arguing about it?

... an essential feature of a decent society, and an almost defining feature of a democratic society, is relative equality of outcome -- not opportunity, but outcome. Without that you can't seriously talk about a democratic state... These concepts of the common good have a long life. They lie right at the core of classical liberalism, of Enlightenment thinking... Like Aristotle, [Adam] Smith understood that the common good will require substantial intervention to assure lasting prosperity of the poor by distribution of public revenues.

Anarcho-capitalism, in my opinion, is a doctrinal system which, if ever implemented, would lead to forms of tyranny and oppression that have few counterparts in human history. There isn't the slightest possibility that its (in my view, horrendous) ideas would be implemented, because they would quickly destroy any society that made this colossal error. The idea of "free contract" between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke, perhaps worth some moments in an academic seminar exploring the consequences of (in my view, absurd) ideas, but nowhere else. I should add, however, that I find myself in substantial agreement with people who consider themselves anarcho-capitalists on a whole range of issues; and for some years, was able to write only in their journals. And I also admire their commitment to rationality -- which is rare -- though I do not think they see the consequences of the doctrines they espouse, or their profound moral failings.

But, that's the whole point of corporatization -- to try to remove the public from making decisions over their own fate, to limit the public arena, to control opinion, to make sure that the fundamental decisions that determine how the world is going to be run -- which includes production, commerce, distribution, thought, social policy, foreign policy, everything -- are not in the hands of the public, but rather in the hands of highly concentrated private power. In effect, tyranny unaccountable to the public.

 

[ledhed]

Noam Chomski is one of the biggest asswipes on the planet .

 

[Duke]

Honestly, by falling back on Noam Chomsky, you've automatically surrendered the argument as far as I'm concerned. You just categorically refuse to get it.

 

[Danoff]

^^ And this is the justification for the reinstitution of slavery ^^​

No it isn't. Let's take an example where one person sells themselves physically to another person. Prostitution. Let's take another example, allowing a person to engage in dangerous medical testing. Let's take another example, a maid or housekeeper. None of these are slavery. Each is a voluntary act in which a person decides what they are willing to do for money. That's not slavery, slavery does not begin with a choice.

If freedom is supposed to be the absence of coercion, then the amount of freedom a person has is the extent to which they can act without being coerced to do (or not to do) something against their will.

Coercion is a nebulous word that you've chosen on purpose so you can play "hide the salami" er.. I mean.. "hide the ball". Freedom is supposed to be the absence of force. Coercion is inevitable. A television commerical is coercion. A friend telling you that a particular restaurant is good is coercion. Freedom means absence of force.

If a person (or government) cannot legally do anything with someone else's property (as this constitutes an initiation of force) then, your only guaranteed freedom is determined by the amount of property you have.

Wrong. It is not determined by the amount of property, but rather, the existance of property (including one's body), and the freedom to obtain it (ie: not being forcibly prevented from obtaining it in a free exchange).

You claim that the redistribution of wealth is wrong because taking someone else's property to give to another is depriving the "original owner" of freedom in order to give to another. If that's the case then depriving a non-owner access to property is depriving them of freedom in order to increase the freedom of the "original owner".

Wrong again. The original owner obtained that property in a free exchange (one without the use of force). The "non-owner" seeks to obtain the property without a free exchange (force).

Now don't get me wrong -- I know property rights can be conducive to respecting freedom, but the unrestricted right to property will inevitably lead to some people with property and others without (as with ANY scarce resource).

So?

Again, without property one is completely subject to the will of others and that is far from being "free" -- regardless of how you want to define it.

You have yet to establish this. So far you have asserted this at least a dozen times without explaining it. But I think you try to explain it below...

There's nothing to stop a person from hiring a private police force (modern-day Pinkertons ) and giving them the order to shoot anyone that trespasses onto their property (even by accident) -- because ultimately the owners of the property have final authority.

That would be breaking the law. We have laws to protect people from being killed by others - even in accidental trespassing cases. In this example, the people who did the shooting would be tried for murder, and the one who hired would be tried for conspiracy. You seem to forget over and over that in the libertarian world, the little guy has rights too.

There's nothing to stop a person from using their private property to traffic everything from illegal substances (a so-called victimless crime) to slaves who have purportedly "chosen" to be slaves.

So you mean they could grow drugs and hire people to grow them... what's the problem?

There's nothing to stop a corporation from exhausting a natural resource on it's own private property because of short-term thinking and profiteering.

Calling it a natural resource isn't the same thing as calling it a "national" resource. If you own the property, you own the oil within as well.

There's nothing to stop a corporation from dumping toxic waste into the river that it "owns" (thanks, GE, for the Hudson River; nothing like the taste of PCB-tainted striped bass for dinner). And the list goes on...

Well if GE owned the Hudson River and the pollution spread to no other river or land owned by anyone other than GE, this would be parallel. If, however, GE does not own the Hudson river then GE has violated someone else's property rights (perhaps the public).

Another problem inherent to Libertarianism is the fact that negative rights in and of themselves place restrictions on individual liberty.

Liberty only exists because of "negative" rights. Rights are the very foundation of liberty. Without them, it simply does not exist. So to say that "negative" rights place restrictions on liberty is silly, they create liberty.

So in that sense, positive rights are no different than negative rights.

Wrong. "Positive" rights as you have defined them remove liberty, "negative" rights as you have defined them establish liberty.

So if a person's freedom can be limited without consent with negative rights, it would be silly to say that these are the only non-consensual limitations on freedom.

"Negative" rights as you think of them are the smallest set. They are the set of rights necessary for liberty to exist. Anything else is a removal of liberty. Here's an example.

You have the right not to be murdered. Without this right, there is no liberty. You cannot be free in a society where murder is allowed - because force removes freedom.

Here is an example of your "positive" rights.

You have the right to someone else's property because you are in need. This does not establish liberty, this is force, but the other way around. This is the "person in need" initiating force against someone else. Again, force removes freedom.

"Freedom of contract" (the Libertarian justification for slavery) under unequal circumstances (where someone has property and someone else does not) will increase inequality between individuals producing social relationships

Inequality is inherent in all succesful social strucures. It is unavoidable and not to be considered a negative affect. Choices must have consequences. Without consequences (equality), choices are irrelevant. This leads to the destruction of society because there must be incentive to produce.

 

[Duke]

Brian, I've said this before, and it bears repeating. You may deny it but your arguments here prove you wrong:

Until you give up the idea that inequality is the same thing as unfairness, all of your deductions following from that point will be based on a false precept.

You've denied that you equate these things before, but your every point shows that (perhaps unconciously, perhaps not) you do associate inequality as prima facie evidence of unfairness.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

No it isn't. Let's take an example where one person sells themselves physically to another person. Prostitution. Let's take another example, allowing a person to engage in dangerous medical testing. Let's take another example, a maid or housekeeper. None of these are slavery. Each is a voluntary act in which a person decides what they are willing to do for money. That's not slavery, slavery does not begin with a choice.

Coercion is a nebulous word that you've chosen on purpose so you can play "hide the salami" er.. I mean.. "hide the ball". Freedom is supposed to be the absence of force. Freedom means absence of force.

Wrong. It is not determined by the amount of property, but rather, the existance of property (including one's body), and the freedom to obtain it (ie: not being forcibly prevented from obtaining it in a free exchange).

Wrong again. The original owner obtained that property in a free exchange (one without the use of force). The "non-owner" seeks to obtain the property without a free exchange (force).

That would be breaking the law. We have laws to protect people from being killed by others - even in accidental trespassing cases. In this example, the people who did the shooting would be tried for murder, and the one who hired would be tried for conspiracy. You seem to forget over and over that in the libertarian world, the little guy has rights too.

Calling it a natural resource isn't the same thing as calling it a "national" resource. If you own the property, you own the oil within as well.

Liberty only exists because of "negative" rights. Rights are the very foundation of liberty. Without them, it simply does not exist. So to say that "negative" rights place restrictions on liberty is silly, they create liberty.

Wrong. "Positive" rights as you have defined them remove liberty, "negative" rights as you have defined them establish liberty.

"Negative" rights as you think of them are the smallest set. They are the set of rights necessary for liberty to exist. Anything else is a removal of liberty. Here's an example.

You have the right not to be murdered. Without this right, there is no liberty. You cannot be free in a society where murder is allowed - because force removes freedom.

Here is an example of your "positive" rights.

You have the right to someone else's property because you are in need. This does not establish liberty, this is force, but the other way around. This is the "person in need" initiating force against someone else. Again, force removes freedom.

According to Libertarians, force can be initiated in order to protect property rights, and property rights can be violated without initiating force(e.g. copyright violations).

We condemn all coercive monopolies. In order to abolish them, we advocate a strict separation of business and State.

This includes patents, trademarks, and copyrights, but I digress.

By using this definition

Freedom means absence of force.

you can't claim that you're always opposed to the initiation of force. Even if I am allowed to act within my rights without anyone initiating force against me, this leads us back to the consequence of your property rights determining the extent of your guaranteed freedom. I may very well be "free" in a Libertarian society, but only with more property would I be able to guarantee my freedom.

However, let's say we use Rothbard's defintion of freedom:

We are now in a position to see how the libertarian defines the concept of "freedom" or "liberty." Freedom is a condition in which a person's ownership rights in his own body and his legitimate material property are not invaded, are not aggressed against. ... Freedom and unrestricted property right go hand in hand.

If that's the case, then the "free" market respects everyone's freedom to act within their own rights. If that's the case then what determines freedom is what rights are legal under Libertarian law. Now since the right to property is absolute, then (as Rothbard put it) freedom and property are one in the same. Therefore, the conclusion that can logically be drawn from YOUR definition of freedom (since freedom and property rights are the same) is that:

The more property you have the more guaranteed freedom you have.

Without any property people are not free (or at the very least they have no guaranteed freedom) because they cannot act without relying on charity and/or being permitted to use someone else's property. This is an aristocracy. The nobles owned the land and the serfs (whose only guaranteed freedom was dependent upon charity of the noble) relied on the nobles. This is why Conservatives are afraid of ROW. It decreases the reliance of the "common" people on those with property -- the redistribution of wealth is inimical to the social class hierarchy that Libertarian/Conservative policies hope to force on people.

Another glaring contradiction within the Libertarian camp is the belief that all forms of "the redistribution of wealth" is wrong (positive rights vs negative rights). According to the party platform:

The purpose of a justice system is to provide restitution to those suffering a loss at the expense of those who caused that loss. In the case of violent crimes, an additional purpose is to defend society from the continued threat of violence.

Solutions: We support the following:

a) restitution for the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or wrongdoer;

Since this apparently is a "right" that everyone shares regardless of how much property they have implies that the financial/legal resources needed to prosecute/defend should be available to everyone. If that's the case, then someone with no property/money etc. should be given the financial/legal resources that did not originally belong to them. Also, forcible redistribution (according to the platform) will occur if a person wins the case. So there's at least 2 situations where Libertarians will allow the redistribution of wealth. The right to have a lawyer and (if one wins the case) the right to just compensation are both POSITIVE RIGHTS as they both require a good/service to be provided through the action of another person or group. So what makes this any different than any other form of ROW?

In response to the rest of your arguments, I have these yes/no questions to ask:

• Are all voluntary transactions fair or just?
• Are voluntary transactions the only type of transaction that is fair or just?
• Does redistribution demand a violation of liberty (as you define it in the negative sense)?

Inequality is inherent in all succesful social strucures.

Agreed, but efforts to mitigate this inequality are what Progressives are all about.

It is unavoidable and not to be considered a negative affect.

Here you're telling me what I should consider negative and what I should consider positive, rather than leaving that up for a vote.

Choices must have consequences. Without consequences (equality), choices are irrelevant. This leads to the destruction of society because there must be incentive to produce.

It's not about eliminating consequences... it's about finding the right balance between equality and efficiency.

Communists/Marxists did it wrong by worshipping equality and rejecting efficiency. You and your Libertarian/"Anarcho"-Capitalist/Conservative friends are doing it wrong by worshipping efficiency and rejecting equality. Marxists wanted to build a "religion" around the elimination of social classes and exploitation regardless of the consequences. You seem to want to build a "religion" around the free market and absolute property rights regardless of the consequences.

To the comments about Noam Chomsky:

Honestly, by falling back on Noam Chomsky, you've automatically surrendered the argument as far as I'm concerned. You just categorically refuse to get it.

Noam Chomski is one of the biggest asswipes on the planet .

Duke: I was not falling back on Chomsky for anything. I only displayed the quotes because I thought they were interesting. Did you read any of what I wrote? The quotes have nothing to do with what I wrote (which is why I placed them afterward).

Mike: He probably is one of the biggest asswipes on the planet, but just because I quoted him doesn't mean that I think his ideas are correct. I just thought the quotes were interesting.

For example, if I quote David Duke it's not because I necessarily agree with his assertions...

Brian, I've said this before, and it bears repeating. You may deny it but your arguments here prove you wrong:

Until you give up the idea that inequality is the same thing as unfairness, all of your deductions following from that point will be based on a false precept.

You've denied that you equate these things before, but your every point shows that (perhaps unconciously, perhaps not) you do associate inequality as prima facie evidence of unfairness.

Then how would explain Jim Crow and Apartheid?

 

[Danoff]

According to Libertarians, force can be initiated in order to protect property rights, and property rights can be violated without initiating force(e.g. copyright violations).

Yes, force can be initiated to protect property rights. For example, you can kill someone who is attacking you. You can use force to defend your freedom, but you have to keep in mind that the court will decide whether you were in fact defending your property.

...and yes, property rights can be violated without initiating force. Here's a good example. You sign a contract, the person you sign it with breaks the contract. They have now violated your property (by contract) without initiating force.

What's your point?

By using this definition you can't claim that you're always opposed to the initiation of force.

Of course not. Some force is absolutely warranted, like protecting yourself and your property from others who would violate your rights. But this is always subject to review by the courts.

Even if I am allowed to act within my rights without anyone initiating force against me, this leads us back to the consequence of your property rights determining the extent of your guaranteed freedom. I may very well be "free" in a Libertarian society, but only with more property would I be able to guarantee my freedom.

Totally wrong. You would be free in a libertarian society an the police and courts will gaurantee that anyone who violates your rights be punished. Your freedom is gauranteed by law.

If that's the case, then the "free" market respects everyone's freedom to act within their own rights. If that's the case then what determines freedom is what rights are legal under Libertarian law. Now since the right to property is absolute, then (as Rothbard put it) freedom and property are one in the same.

No. Freedom and property are two completely different things. Your freedom is to own property and not have it forcibly stolen from you. How much property you have is up to you, but the same basic freedom applies.

Therefore, the conclusion that can logically be drawn from YOUR definition of freedom (since freedom and property rights are the same) is that:

The more property you have the more guaranteed freedom you have.

No. Your freedom is guaranteed by law and the enforcement of that law. Not by some anarchistic notion that you must amass property to defend it.

Without any property people are not free (or at the very least they have no guaranteed freedom) because they cannot act without relying on charity and/or being permitted to use someone else's property.

Wrong again. One always owns their body (and nobody will sign that away unless they wanted to die for some reason). One who has nothing but their body does not need to rely on charity to be able to act. One who has nothing but their body can still get a job - voluntarily perform labor for money. In many cases that person can get a loan. It is not necessary that one who has nothing but themselves must rely on charity. But so what if they did rely on charity? That doesn't make them any less free. They are still free to earn money and purchase possessions. They are still free (by law) to do anything and everything that the richest person in the country is free to do.

This is an aristocracy. The nobles owned the land and the serfs (whose only guaranteed freedom was dependent upon charity of the noble) relied on the nobles.

BIG BIG jump here. You need to be more diciplined with your arguments. This is a complete and total change from everything you laid out to lead to this. At what point in a libertarian society can a "noble" own a "serf". Not to mention that historically nobles owned serfs FROM BIRTH BY DEFACTO , not out of the volition of the individual. The freedom of every individual to own property, enter into contracts, defend their property (etc. etc.) is gauranteed to every individual by law. Not rich individuals, not poor individuals, every individual.

This is why Conservatives are afraid of ROW. It decreases the reliance of the "common" people on those with property -- the redistribution of wealth is inimical to the social class hierarchy that Libertarian/Conservative policies hope to force on people.

ROW is bad for one reason and one reason only. It isn't just (ie: it isn't earned by those who are getting it, and it is forcibly taken from those who have). That's it.

Since this apparently is a "right" that everyone shares regardless of how much property they have implies that the financial/legal resources needed to prosecute/defend should be available to everyone. If that's the case, then someone with no property/money etc. should be given the financial/legal resources that did not originally belong to them. Also, forcible redistribution (according to the platform) will occur if a person wins the case. So there's at least 2 situations where Libertarians will allow the redistribution of wealth. The right to have a lawyer and (if one wins the case) the right to just compensation are both POSITIVE RIGHTS as they both require a good/service to be provided through the action of another person or group. So what makes this any different than any other form of ROW?

Those are not examples of ROW. Those are examples of (1) state services, and (2) punishment for crimes. ROW refers to the taking of possessions from those who have them and giving them to those who do not, simply because they did not have them. Not out of retribution for wrongs done, and not as a state service (which would necessarily need to be available to everyone).

• Are all voluntary transactions fair or just?
• Are voluntary transactions the only type of transaction that is fair or just?
• Does redistribution demand a violation of liberty (as you define it in the negative sense)?

1) I can't think of any that aren't.
2) Yes.
3) Yes.

Agreed, but efforts to mitigate this inequality are what Progressives are all about.

Efforts to mitigate inequality have the lovely side effect of mitigating responsibility and consequences... which is why it erodes at society.

 

[ledhed]

Mike: He probably is one of the biggest asswipes on the planet, but just because I quoted him doesn't mean that I think his ideas are correct. I just thought the quotes were interesting.

I took the time to read his stuff and try to see where he is comming from. I do not find his crap interesting anymore , nor do I appreciate his motivation behind his crap
To me he represents all the things I cant stand about elitist non reasoning - nincompoops and other radical idiots . He has become a " fad " or a cache amongst the slacker set and other psuedo intellectuals . The fact that they would " adopt " this guy and buy into the " fad " aspect of the cult of Noamski indicates they are intellectually bankrupt . I am almost to the point that I believe if Noamski is saying something is " bad " then its really very good .

 

[Carl.]

I took the time to read his stuff and try to see where he is comming from. I do not find his crap interesting anymore , nor do I appreciate his motivation behind his crap

Out of curiosity, what changed your mind about finding his "crap" interesting?

To me he represents all the things I cant stand about elitist non reasoning - nincompoops and other radical idiots . He has become a " fad " or a cache amongst the slacker set and other psuedo intellectuals . The fact that they would " adopt " this guy and buy into the " fad " aspect of the cult of Noamski indicates they are intellectually bankrupt

I haven't read a lot of Chomsky, but I agree with a lot of what I've read so far... I guess that makes me an intellectually bankrupt radical idiot/slacker/pseudo-intellectual. Anyway, great way to make your point, I should do the same on Rand's readers.


There's something I've found that just made my day. (links not safe for the humour-impaired libertarians)

LIBERTARIANISM IN TWO LESSONS:

http://world.std.com/~mhuben/onelesson.html
http://world.std.com/~mhuben/twolesson.html

My favorite line:

Of course libertarianism is compatible with Christianity! Just substitute "the market" for "Jesus", and ask "What would the market do?"

 

[Danoff]

Carl,

Here's a quote from the links you posted.

"Gang rape is democracy. Five people say "Yes," one person says "No," and the majority rules. Which is why gang rape is legal in every state."

Is this funny? I think it's stupid. Women outnumber men anyway. Ever hear of the phrase "it's funny because it's true"?

 

[Carl.]

Women outnumber men anyway.

You take this way too seriously Danoff, and this wasn't meant to be.

 

[Danoff]

You take this way too seriously Danoff, and this wasn't meant to be.

It's not about taking it seriously or not. It's about whether it is funny. I went to those links expecting a good laugh at my own opinions. What I ended up reading though was from someone who was very confused.

Some of it was funny, let me drag up an example of one that is funny:

Criticism of libertarianism is destructive. Criticism of society by libertarians is constructive.
America's fastest declining political party!

Here are examples of confusion...

Taxation is slavery, but rent is not. Even if you pay more in rent, even if you have also chosen where you pay taxes.
A practice common in business is insufferable by government. Pay for government services? Insufferable!

 

[Carl.]

It's not about taking it seriously or not. It's about whether it is funny. I went to those links expecting a good laugh at my own opinions. What I ended up reading though was from someone who was very confused.

Some of it was funny, let me drag up an example of one that is funny:

Criticism of libertarianism is destructive. Criticism of society by libertarians is constructive.
America's fastest declining political party!

Here are examples of confusion...

Taxation is slavery, but rent is not. Even if you pay more in rent, even if you have also chosen where you pay taxes.
A practice common in business is insufferable by government. Pay for government services? Insufferable!

I didn't say I fully agreed with everything in there, on some point he is indeed confused, or has spoken with confused libertatarians. And obviously not all of them are funny, but some of them really cracked me up.

Children, criminals, death cultists, and you all have the same inalienable right to own any weaponry: conventional, chemical, biological, or nuclear

Better to abolish all regulations, consider everything as property, and solve all controversy by civil lawsuit over damages. The US doesn't have enough lawyers, and people who can't afford to invest many thousands of dollars in lawsuits should shut up.

The "Party of Oxymoron": "Individualists unite!"

Minimal government is whatever we say it is, and we don't agree.

Yes, the symbol of the Libertarian Party is a Big Government Statue. It's not supposed to be funny or ironic!

Count only the benefits of libertarianism, count only the costs of government.

Public schools are a monopoly: a staggering 80% of American children attend them in thousands of independently run school districts. Microsoft is not a monopoly: only 95% of computers use MSWindows.

DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT the fact that the Internet came from a government project.

All government activity is use of force, and thus volence. Yes, this includes public libraries: don't you see the violence inherent in the creation of public libraries?

Only markets, promoted by those wise liberals of the 18th century, can solve coordination problems. Democratic representative governments, which were foisted upon us by those same deluded liberals of the 18th century, result in chaos and difficulty finding good servants.

When government provides a service, it is a crutch. When private enterprise provides the same service, you are a manly man to purchase it.

Big media have a virulent anti-business bias because they report on harmful business practices. Truth is no defense against our accusations of bias, nor is the observation that big media ARE big business.

 

[Danoff]

Public schools are a monopoly: a staggering 80% of American children attend them in thousands of independently run school districts. Microsoft is not a monopoly: only 95% of computers use MSWindows.

I like this one. That is a confused person who claimed that public schools are a monopoly.