Libertarian Party: Your Thoughts?

[FoolKiller]

Gawd that was a train wreck. I love Stossel but someone needs to kill that studio audience. I think the whole show would have been far better without the audience.

The studio audience is his number one complaint, but I he wants to try it. He even addressed it on his Blog on December 18th.

I also prefer a straight documentary format, the kind of show I did for years on ABC. I like having control over every second of air time--and more chance to rewrite and edit. That allows me to say exactly what I want to say. But those kind of shows tend to cost a fortune, and for some reason they usually don't rate any better than live shows that run on Fox. I think I'll keep trying to learn the new format. If you want to "improve" our audience by joining it, call (877) 369-8587 or e-mail stosseltix@foxbusiness.com.

Now, I have seen a few episodes where the audience is there but they don't participate and he only interacts with them if they make noise. I think he might be dropping them, but because he doesn't record his shows in the same order they air, leaving room to run the most relevant topic available for current events, it will be a while before you see the audience just being part of the background full-time.

I'm not a fan of the audience either, but Stossel is the only libertarian thinking show host on since Judge Napolitano is only given an Internet show.

Also very surprised to see someone advocating for no taxes. That's pretty far out there - even for a libertarian. I think the income tax is theft, but that doesn't stop me from advocating a flat sales tax.

I wish that hadn't come up when it did, because I think some more in-depth discussion with The Judge on that was necessary. Sure, income tax only came about in the 20th century, but had the approach not been progressive with the intent of redistribution I think an argument for its legality could have been made.

The Constitution does specifically lay out the validity of an excise tax, which sales tax falls under, if I understand it correctly, and I think that he could support that concept. At the same time he probably is thinking that the government, when restrained as laid out by the Constitution, should be able to sustain itself on land sales (they still do that?) and usage fees, which according to the GAO (pdf) usage fees bring in $233 billion now. If you moved tax funded services to usage fees it would be higher.

But looking at your tax estimates from the Tax Discrimination thread, income tax is 45% of the total budget. We legitimately could reduce the budget by 45% and do away with taxes in general.

While it may cover some of the basics, ultimately the Libertarian's greatest enemy is themselves as they cover far too wide of a breadth of topics to ever unite fully under a single tent./

How is this different than any political party or philosophy? It has to cover all topics or it isn't taken seriously. They can't just say, "We don;t think about abortion because we would disagree." But just look at what nearly held up the health care bill. Pro-life Democrats. It took a backroom deal by the president to get them to sign on.

Would you say that the problem with Democrats and Republicans cover far too wide a breadth of topics to fully unite?

The difference between many libertarian minded individuals and those who claim to be part of the major parties is that a libertarian would find many of the smaller debatable issues to not be a federal issue at all. It is something the show didn't cover, but issues such as abortion and gay marriage are not federal Congressional responsibility. They should be a states issue. For the most part gay marriage is but abortion isn't.

Much of this depends on which focus of Libertarian schools of thought you want to look at, and as of right now in the US, it is the more traditional, more conservative leaders and groups dominating the scene.

Such as? The only libertarian minded anything I see dominating a scene is Rand Paul, and while his views on things such as abortion and gay marriage may fall under the traditional view he does say that they are a states issue. However, no one would consider him conservative when they ask him about his stance on prohibitions.

And I think the prohibitions issue is where you have mislabeled libertarians as being traditional or conservative.


Or are you referring more to people like Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin who call themselves libertarians because it is what gets them invited to all the cool tea parties? Those aren't libertarians, not even close.

 

[Biggles]

Thanks for posting Foolkiller.

I actually found the audience reactions to be one of the more entertaining aspects. I also found it faintly amusing that the most "conservative" guy was the black guy - a nice "Foxy" touch!

Other than that, it was a bit like the GTPlanet Libertarian Party - Your Thoughts? thread - a bunch of libertarians sitting around talking about why libertarianism is great. Might have been more interesting if they had thrown, say, Chomsky in there?

I like Ron Paul. I also like Dennis Kucinich. I think there's about as much chance of Ron Paul winning the Republican nomination as Kucinich winning the Democratic nomination. I might add, that were Ron Paul to win the nomination & become elected President, he would have as hard a time implementing his agenda, as Kucinich would with his agenda if he were to be elected President.

I think the debate here might take a more productive turn if the libertarians were to move on from outlining their principles (really, we get it), focussed less on guns-to-the-head, robbing Peter, & kidney theft arguments & explained more about how in practice libertarian principles could be applied. A while ago Famine asked me to prove why libertarian principles wouldn't work. That's a bit like a religious person asking an atheist to prove that god doesn't exist. Surely the onus is on libertarians to prove why in practice libertarian principles would work?

 

[Famine]

A while ago Famine asked me to prove why libertarian principles wouldn't work.

Err, no. You said that there's no proof they would work. I countered by pointing that there's no proof there isn't either - since it's never been tried. I didn't ask you to prove anything.

 

[Dotini]

Surely the onus is on libertarians to prove why in practice libertarian principles would work?

Early in this thread MrktMkr1986 provided fairly convincing arguments why Libertarianism wouldn't work in practice. No one here was able to successful refute him, as far as I could tell. Maybe he was right. But is that the point? Nothing seems to be working right now. Perhaps the situation is not savable. In that case, you might as well cling to the principles you prefer and not worry while the ship goes down. In the case that the situation is savable, the problem becomes like being lost in the woods. A good plan would be to retrace your steps to the last known positive and workable point of reference. That would be a return to a modest Republic under limited and Constitutional government. That's the charm and appeal of Libertarianism.

 

[FoolKiller]

I actually found the audience reactions to be one of the more entertaining aspects. I also found it faintly amusing that the most "conservative" guy was the black guy - a nice "Foxy" touch!

You know, because only Fox (although Stossel was doing the same thing at ABC for years) knows black libertarians.

It isn't like they have their own foundation or anything.
http://www.frederickdouglassfoundation.com/

Honestly, anyone that thinks a black conservative is either prejudiced themselves or has been sucked into what the mainstream politicians would have you believe.

There are even black members of the "racist" tea party.
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=963644

I like Ron Paul. I also like Dennis Kucinich. I think there's about as much chance of Ron Paul winning the Republican nomination as Kucinich winning the Democratic nomination. I might add, that were Ron Paul to win the nomination & become elected President, he would have as hard a time implementing his agenda, as Kucinich would with his agenda if he were to be elected President.

Do you feel that way about all elections or just presidential elections? Just curious, since there is a libertarian leaning candidate in Kentucky that is leading in the primary polling. Oh, and he is Ron Paul's son.
http://www.wbko.com/news/headlines/90712739.html

I think the debate here might take a more productive turn if the libertarians were to move on from outlining their principles (really, we get it), focussed less on guns-to-the-head, robbing Peter, & kidney theft arguments & explained more about how in practice libertarian principles could be applied. A while ago Famine asked me to prove why libertarian principles wouldn't work. That's a bit like a religious person asking an atheist to prove that god doesn't exist. Surely the onus is on libertarians to prove why in practice libertarian principles would work?

Sometimes I wonder if you do get it, based on some of your accusations about what libertarians do and don't want. And in the various threads we have tried explaining how they would be applied and all we get met with is: That won't work. So yeah, anyone using that lame defense will be called on to explain why they think it won't. I have described my personal ideas before on taxes, health care, and even linked to articles and videos by libertarian think tanks and economists explaining these practical applications.

If you aren't paying attention enough to catch on to the fact that I have worked to prove why I believe it will work better in practice via economic theory then I can't help you out any more. What you are requesting is there. Go back and read it. You will find it between your constant accusations of hyperbole, and "what about slavery" comments.

As for you claiming why you can't respond to the challenge of explaining why you think it won't work; Paul Krugman manages to try it daily using Keynesian economic theory. Granted, for almost every article he posts the CATO Institute rebuts him with a post of their own, but he does try.

 

[YSSMAN]

Would you say that the problem with Democrats and Republicans cover far too wide a breadth of topics to fully unite?

Yes and no. The mainstream parties prefer to gobble up movements to maintain their place in power, which often keeps their coalition together. The interesting thing has been that the Democrats are likely trying to be too inclusive, and the Republicans too exclusive, which creates an interesting dynamic as people shift around.

And I think the prohibitions issue is where you have mislabeled libertarians as being traditional or conservative.

Arguably, it is an easy mistake to make. Noam Chompsky doesn't exactly get tossed around with Ron Paul too often (that would be an amazing discussion between them, BTW). Generally speaking, at least in the US, it is a more conservative form of Libertarianism that gets the loudspeaker more often. Of course, that does not make it the only form.


There was a lovely thread on Reddit the other day about Libertarians and Progressives working together to get some work done, but for the life of me, I can't find the link. I'd never really thought out how similar some of their political stances are. Well, aside from some blatantly obvious policy changes.

 

[Dotini]

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/04/15/ron-paul-and-the-libertarian-moment/


Libertarians, and all others who want freedom and peace (Biggles), will want to read this column by Justin Raimondo at antiwar.com.

 

[Biggles]

Honestly, anyone that thinks a black conservative is either prejudiced themselves or has been sucked into what the mainstream politicians would have you believe.

Not sure what you mean - some words missing?

My point was, the black guy was the most "neo-con" in the group.

Do you feel that way about all elections or just presidential elections? Just curious, since there is a libertarian leaning candidate in Kentucky that is leading in the primary polling. Oh, and he is Ron Paul's son.

The GOP establishment might tolerate a libertarian-leaning senator from Kentucky - but a Presidential nominee? I don't see it. And the Christian Right? Corporate special interests? I commend Ron Paul for speaking up against jingoism, militarism, nationalism, zenophobia, delusional "exceptionalism", corporatism etc. but as these things seem to have come to define the larger part of the "base" of the Republican party, it's hard for me to see a genuine libertarian finding wider support from that base.

Sometimes I wonder if you do get it, based on some of your accusations about what libertarians do and don't want. And in the various threads we have tried explaining how they would be applied and all we get met with is: That won't work. So yeah, anyone using that lame defense will be called on to explain why they think it won't. I have described my personal ideas before on taxes, health care, and even linked to articles and videos by libertarian think tanks and economists explaining these practical applications.

I think if you looked objectively at these threads you would see that, first they are totally dominated by libertarians, & second many of the libertarian posts simply bludgeon any dissenting, or even questioning post with a hardcore, reductionist libertarian position. It's a bit hard to get to any practical policy discussion when any comment is met with the old chestnut of the "men with guns". When you use that ideologically extreme approach to paint your opponent into a corner you effectively paint yourself into a corner too.

Just like Kucinich & Paul, we would probably be in agreement on many topics. It might be more constructive to accentuate the positive & de-emphasize (even if it's not possible to eliminate) the negative. Libertarians insisting on a take-no-prisoners, you're-either-for-us-or-against-us approach is counter-productive.

As for you claiming why you can't respond to the challenge of explaining why you think it won't work; Paul Krugman manages to try it daily using Keynesian economic theory. Granted, for almost every article he posts the CATO Institute rebuts him with a post of their own, but he does try.

You mean Nobel prize-winning economist Paul Krugman? Yes, how surprising that the Cato institute would rebut him ... and then he would rebut them rebutting him & so on. What does that prove? There's definitely been a swing backwards & forwards between a more planned Keynesian economy & a more free-market Hayek/Friedman model over the last 60 years. Growing up in the UK I saw the country practically grind to a halt in the early '70s under the effects of a paralyzing class structure & labour unions' intransigence. A dose of Friedman was probably essential to get a moribund economy moving again. On the other hand, I don't see Hayek's predictions playing out in the Scandinavian countries which remain economically prosperous & politically free.

I remain sceptical that the pursuit of completely unfettered free markets & "property rights" will inevitably result in increased general well-being, & that it will be possible to keep controlling corporate or private power & the abuse of the human rights of the weak by the powerful in check. I'll take the libertarian influence, but treat libertarian dogma with scepticism.

 

[FoolKiller]

Not sure what you mean - some words missing?

My point was, the black guy was the most "neo-con" in the group.

Wow, I can't believe I botched that up. I was trying to say anyone that finds a black conservative to be odd or funny is either prejudiced or buying into a MSM myth.

My issue was with your "Foxy" comment. Is it "Foxy" to have a black conservative being the most conservative on a panel, or is it mainstream media-like to perpetuate the myth that they don't even exist?

I mean, it was an NBC reporter that ran across a black man at a tea party rally and had the gall to ask him if he felt uncomfortable there.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...a_party_have_you_ever_felt_uncomfortable.html
Why should he feel uncomfortable? Why would a supposedly honest reporter even think that he should?

The GOP establishment might tolerate a libertarian-leaning senator from Kentucky - but a Presidential nominee?

I didn't say the establishment tolerated him. Quite the opposite. Senior KY senator, and high-ranking Republican, Mitch McConnell has supported Dr. Paul's opponent, Trey Grayson. Trey Grayson has also received support from Dick Cheney, and had fundraiser dinners held for him by Republicans in DC. Trust me, Rand Paul didn't become popular because he was part of the establishment.

And that is my point. A defeatist attitude regarding elections is zero reason for anyone to give up what they feel is correct and right. If I were more concerned about winning elections I wouldn't have Libertarian Party stuff on my car, nor would I have gotten interested in the Ron Paul campaign for president or the Rand Paul senate campaign before he had even announced.

It isn't about winning enough support to change things within one election cycle. It is about chipping away at the establishment and helping people to understand what it is about my principles that makes me believe in them as strongly as I do, and hopefully convincing enough people in enough time to manage to salvage my daughter's future.

And the Christian Right? Corporate special interests?

He's pro-life. Considering that corporate special interests is becoming synonymous with bailouts right now, it is no wonder people are turning their backs on that. Despite lobbyists fundraisers for Trey Grayson, Rand Paul has raised equal financial support from individuals.

I commend Ron Paul for speaking up against jingoism, militarism, nationalism, zenophobia, delusional "exceptionalism", corporatism etc. but as these things seem to have come to define the larger part of the "base" of the Republican party, it's hard for me to see a genuine libertarian finding wider support from that base.

Is it harder to find support from an established party base or as a third party? I mean, are you trying to say that it is pointless and libertarians should just step back and allow the Republicrats to run the country into a system-collapsing debt problem?

I think if you looked objectively at these threads you would see that, first they are totally dominated by libertarians, & second many of the libertarian posts simply bludgeon any dissenting, or even questioning post with a hardcore, reductionist libertarian position. It's a bit hard to get to any practical policy discussion when any comment is met with the old chestnut of the "men with guns". When you use that ideologically extreme approach to paint your opponent into a corner you effectively paint yourself into a corner too.

Is your complaint that we don't ever explain "how in practice libertarian principles could be applied" or is it that you feel you can't argue the point without being met with an ideologically extreme approach? Because I was answering your last post's accusation by pointing out that I have given examples of how they can be applied. Your response is that any comment on it by you is met with an ideological extreme approach. So, are you admitting that your previous accusation was false then, because you are now claiming to have attempted to discuss proposed applications, which you were saying didn't exist?

Just like Kucinich & Paul, we would probably be in agreement on many topics. It might be more constructive to accentuate the positive & de-emphasize (even if it's not possible to eliminate) the negative. Libertarians insisting on a take-no-prisoners, you're-either-for-us-or-against-us approach is counter-productive.

When dealing with US politics I don't see a problem with pointing at the US Constitution and saying, "follow it or you are doing it wrong."

You mean Nobel prize-winning economist Paul Krugman? Yes, how surprising that the Cato institute would rebut him ... and then he would rebut them rebutting him & so on. What does that prove?

Are we having the same conversation?

A while ago Famine asked me to prove why libertarian principles wouldn't work. That's a bit like a religious person asking an atheist to prove that god doesn't exist.

I am arguing that this statement is nothing short of a cop out as on a very regular basis a die hard Keynesian (an atheist, if you will) tries to prove Austrian economists and libertarians wrong. Sure, some of his statements are so far off that he is willing to lie later on that he ever suggested them, but he never once said he can't argue the point because it is like asking an atheist to prove God doesn't exist.

The simple fact that there are economic debates on these very issues that take place in the media all the time is a sign that you could argue this if you truly wanted to.

I remain sceptical that the pursuit of completely unfettered free markets & "property rights" will inevitably result in increased general well-being, & that it will be possible to keep controlling corporate or private power & the abuse of the human rights of the weak by the powerful in check.

Do you think that we are proposing some form of anarchy? No one is suggesting we make everyone fall in line and then turn their backs on it all to see what happens. Government has a role in preventing the human rights abuses. The simplified philosophy is very often, "do as you want without infringing anyone else's rights." Do you think that we believe that society should follow that philosophy but not enforce it?

 

[DK]

Personally I'd like to see a >2-party system working in America (i.e. where the 3rd parties are actually viable choices in an election). I think a coalition government in the Houses of Congress would be interesting to watch, but it's unlikely it'll ever happen.

 

[Joel]

I need to look around at the candidates in my riding and see if there is a Libertarian Party of Canada representative here. If there isn't one when I'm 18, I might give it a go, just for 🤬 and giggles.

 

[YSSMAN]

Personally I'd like to see a >2-party system working in America (i.e. where the 3rd parties are actually viable choices in an election). I think a coalition government in the Houses of Congress would be interesting to watch, but it's unlikely it'll ever happen.

Well, we'd have to dramatically alter the way in which our elections happen first. Despite the fact that most of the Founders would have preferred to have gone without political parties, it was a natural progression for people and their ideals to come together and form them. However, with our system identifying essentially only one winner, you really only end up seeing two rather massive parties that attempt to cater to a wide variety of ideas to create the greatest coalition possible.

I would be interested in running some numbers on the issue, especially with looking into how much power would eventually sit with the major cities and more likely than not, left-leaning parties and candidates.

 

[sumbrownkid]

I think the main problem with the Libertarian Party is that many people actually do want the government to control some aspects of society, be it economics, security, etc.

Or it's just that most people are either Democrat, Republican, or just Independent.

 

[Danoff]

I think the main problem with the Libertarian Party is that many people actually do want the government to control some aspects of society, be it economics, security, etc.

That's not just a problem for the libertarians, it's a problem for everyone. And you're right, everyone has their pet cause that they think the government should do.

 

[DK]

I think the main problem with the Libertarian Party is that many people actually do want the government to control some aspects of society, be it economics, security, etc.

Well, who would you prefer to run schools: the government or Christian fundamentalists?

 

[FoolKiller]

Well, who would you prefer to run schools: the government or Christian fundamentalists?

You say that like it is the only two choices.

 

[Omnis]

Well, who would you prefer to run schools: the government or Christian fundamentalists?

false dichotomy.

 

[Keef]

Well, who would you prefer to run schools: the government or Christian fundamentalists?

Even I wouldn't try to pass off that ridiculous generalization. Props bro.

 

[Sam48]

That's not just a problem for the libertarians, it's a problem for everyone.

Everyone meaning anyone who's not a liberal or a lefty libertarian, that is.

 

[Danoff]

Everyone meaning anyone who's not a liberal or a lefty libertarian, that is.

It's a problem for them too, they just don't realize it.

 

[niky]

Well, who would you prefer to run schools: the government or Christian fundamentalists?

false dichotomy.

Indeed... I thought public schools were already being run by the fundamentalists.

http://ncse.com/news/2009/04/setback-science-education-texas-004710

 

[DK]

You say that like it is the only two choices.

I was just saying, what if they were the only two options. Of course, I should have mentioned parents.

 

[FoolKiller]

I was just saying, what if they were the only two options. Of course, I should have mentioned parents.

If they were the only two options I would petition for non-religious private schools to be allowed to function, as we have now.

And I wasn't talking about parents, although home schooling is also an option. It is an often forgotten, and often poorly stereotyped option but it is an option.

 

[Sam48]

And I wasn't talking about parents, although home schooling is also an option. It is an often forgotten, and often poorly stereotyped option but it is an option.

It worked for me.

 

[Biggles]

I thought I should post my reply here ...

The entire philosophy is based on logic…. If you do not agree it is logical, use logic to refute it.

It’s an accepted principle of logical argument that the burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or proposition, not on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made. But even beyond that, your demand is really very peculiar. Are you implying that you believe libertarian philosophy is the only logical philosophy that has been presented in the two thousand five hundred years since Socrates, Plato & Aristotle - that it isn’t possible that there is another political, social or economic philosophy that might also be “logical”?

Then you go on to offer the information that:

Libertarians often disagree within themselves.

How is it possible, that on the one hand, libertarian philosophy is irrefutably logical & yet it is still able engender disagreement among libertarians? To talk about libertarianism as being simply “logical" flies in the face of the fascinating, varied & often contradictory history of libertarian thought. Which particular version of libertarianism are you proposing as the irrefutably logical one?

The fact is that some of the most significant “disagreements” within libertarian philosophy are precisely those that I have drawn attention to in previous posts, & they are concerns that have been central to libertarian thought going back to Locke.

From my reading, it seems that libertarians of all stripes agree that the fundamental right is the right to self, however the right to property that follows from this is much less clear. I have already made the point that property rights cannot be considered in isolation from how the property was obtained &/or apportioned in the first place.

Starting with Locke’s formulation, that natural resources, such as land, come to be rightfully owned by the first person to appropriate them, as long as that person leaves "enough and as good" for others, a whole range of different & often conflicting views have been put forward by libertarian thinkers to explain the circumstances & conditions under which individuals have the right to appropriate “unowned” property or natural resources. It is an issue that appears to be far from settled.

“Left libertarians” like the Geogists or social anarchists have a strong commitment to personal liberty & self-ownership, but combine this with an egalitarian view regarding natural resources asserting that no individual has the right to claim private ownership of resources to the detriment of others. This view is in clear contradiction of the approach of “right-libertarians”.

My own personal favourite has to be Murray Rothbard, who leaned so far to the right that he came back around & found common cause with leftist radicals in the ‘60’s.

http://williamgillis.blogspot.com/2007/11/all-power-to-soviets-following-is.html

Whatever approach is taken to this issue it is clear to any reasonable observer that the justice of the current distribution of property depends on circumstances in the past. As the history of the world is full of systemic rights violations, it is clear that the present distribution of legal rights over resources were not arrived at justly. You may choose to ignore this fact for pragmatic reasons, but you cannot possibly assert an irrefutable logical or moral foundation for libertarianism without addressing this fundamental issue.

 

[Famine]

It’s an accepted principle of logical argument that the burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or proposition, not on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made.

Indeed. However I only ever see logical positions given by those arguing for Libertarian mindsets and never by those arguing against it. You, in particular, have form on this front - in the face of a logic-driven argument, you turn tail, cite hyperbole, complain about history and refer to tyranny.

The argument for is logical. If you wish to present a valid argument against, be logical. I keep inviting you to do this. You keep ignoring me.

But even beyond that, your demand is really very peculiar.

It's not a demand. It's an invitation. You wish to argue against a position arrived at by logic but you never use logic to do so. The only way to undermine an argument arrived at by logic is to show that it is not logical.

Are you implying that you believe libertarian philosophy is the only logical philosophy that has been presented in the two thousand five hundred years since Socrates, Plato & Aristotle - that it isn’t possible that there is another political, social or economic philosophy that might also be “logical”?

I don't recall ever saying nor implying this. Present their logical merits - it can be part of your logical assault.

How is it possible, that on the one hand, libertarian philosophy is irrefutably logical & yet it is still able engender disagreement among libertarians?

Relatively easily.

To talk about libertarianism as being simply “logical" flies in the face of the fascinating, varied & often contradictory history of libertarian thought. Which particular version of libertarianism are you proposing as the irrefutably logical one?

Who said anything about it being irrefutable? For the sake of bees, man, I keep asking you to disprove it logically. That's about as far away from irrefutable as you can get.

But, no. You prefer to just sling mud, accuse this site of being a Libertarian cabal, whine about ideological tyranny and so on and so forth. If I want to show maths is wrong, I use maths to do it. If I want to show logic is wrong, I'd use logic to do it.

From my reading, it seems that libertarians of all stripes agree that the fundamental right is the right to self, however the right to property that follows from this is much less clear. I have already made the point that property rights cannot be considered in isolation from how the property was obtained &/or apportioned in the first place.

Yes. You've argued it morally, but at no point have you addressed it logically. You haven't logically demonstrated why £5 in my pocket from my own endeavours is different to £5 in my pocket granted to me in a Last Will and Testament from a family member. Perhaps that £5 is at the end of a long chain of money earned by ancestors originally stolen from another individual or profit from the slave trade (I do, after all, have freemason ancestors and am English).

You may choose to ignore this fact for pragmatic reasons, but you cannot possibly assert an irrefutable logical or moral foundation for libertarianism without addressing this fundamental issue.

It has been addressed. You need to demonstrate, with logic, that this £10 note I'm holding, given to me by a friend for a service I recently provided but asked no recompense is not mine to give to someone else for a service they provide.

You talk of pragmatism - is it pragmatic or is it logic (or both) to give ownership of all land in all countries to those who can prove an aboriginal link? As a guide to the logical side of that argument, they would also need to prove original ownership of that land - assuming that it hasn't changed much in the last 200,000 years (which it probably will have done) and they were not a member of a nomadic aboriginal people - which rather begs the question of what proof would be sufficient. Not to mention the catastrophic nature of proving an aboriginal link - James May (BBC Top Gear presenter) is one of the most English people who ever existed and is English as far back on his family tree as he is aware, yet has a Germanic DNA profile with a 2% Asian-origin genome. Why, logically, would he not be entitled to live in the house he bought on the land it is and where would he be entitled to live and own land if not that which he has bought?

History is a guide. It's a guide to stop doing what is wrong - to stop marginalising people and pretend they don't have any rights because their genitals are in a different place, or they have a different skin colour or because you'd quite like to build a house there and a funny-talking guy who likes shiny beads and appears to be wearing a bison has a campfire and a tent made from cow where you'd like your kitchen to be. History is not an excuse to stop you making the hard decisions required to do right by everyone.

 

[FoolKiller]

Whatever approach is taken to this issue it is clear to any reasonable observer that the justice of the current distribution of property depends on circumstances in the past. As the history of the world is full of systemic rights violations, it is clear that the present distribution of legal rights over resources were not arrived at justly. You may choose to ignore this fact for pragmatic reasons, but you cannot possibly assert an irrefutable logical or moral foundation for libertarianism without addressing this fundamental issue.

Well, regarding Rothbard's look at reparations, I have a proclamation of amnesty and pardon for being of European decent.
http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/gift.html

 

[Biggles]

You continue to treat the complex matter of human relations as a simple matter of arithmetics.

This ignores the fact that libertarianism is a philosophy that seeks to base itself on moral principles founded in "natural rights".

This ignores the fact that there are wide differences of opinion between libertarians as to how, in practice, to implement those moral principles.

This ignores the fact that libertarians do argue that it is necessary to address rights violations from the past. For example:

The same is true of the abolition of slavery in the United States. The slaves gained their freedom, it is true, but the land, the plantations that they had tilled and therefore deserved to own under the homestead principle, remained in the hands of their former masters. Furthermore, no reparations were granted the slaves for their oppression out of the hides of their masters. Hence the abolition of slavery remained unfinished, and the seeds of a new revolt have remained to intensify to the present day. Hence, the great importance of the shift in Negro demands from greater welfare handouts to "reparations", reparationsfor the years of slavery and exploitation and for the failure to grant the Negroes their land, the failure to heed the Radical abolitionist's call for "40 acres and a mule" to the former slaves. In many cases, moreover, the old plantations and the heirs and descendants of the former slaves can be identified, and the reparations can become highly specific indeed.

It is not enough to call simply for defense of "the rights of private property"; there must be an adequate theory of justice in property rights, else any property that some State once decreed to be "private" must now be defended by libertarians, no matter how unjust the procedure or how mischievous its consequences”

Murray Rothbard ("American intellectual, individualist anarchist, author, and economist of the Austrian School who helped define modern libertarianism")

is it pragmatic or is it logic (or both) to give ownership of all land in all countries to those who can prove an aboriginal link?

The logic would be extremely difficult to disentangle - & the issue is not restricted to crimes against aboriginals, but all crimes & right's violations - which is why the simplistic "5 Pounds in your pocket" is not a reasonable logical analogy. As far as the pragmatism is concerned, these issues have historically tended to be resolved in favour of those with the wealth & power to influence the outcome to their benefit.

No, I no longer think of there being a Libertarian cabal in these forums, as there doesn't seem to be a firm commitment to any coherent set of beliefs. In the end, I have no idea what philosophical position you're promoting, other than the insistence on the logic that the 5 Pounds in your pocket is yours & nobody else's.

Incidentally, I understand that living in Yorkshire you're unlikely to have any contact with people from the North American First Nations, but you should be aware of the fact that they wouldn't appreciate being referred to as:

a funny-talking guy who likes shiny beads and appears to be wearing a bison has a campfire and a tent made from cow

& that there are hundreds of continuing land claim disputes in Canada & the US concerning violations of treaty rights.

 

[Famine]

You continue to treat the complex matter of human relations as a simple matter of arithmetics.

No. You just think I do. You think I got married to my wife - the ultimate in human relations - based on maths?

Maybe you do.

The logic would be extremely difficult to disentangle - & the issue is not restricted to crimes against aboriginals, but all crimes & right's violations - which is why the simplistic "5 Pounds in your pocket" is not a reasonable logical analogy. As far as the pragmatism is concerned, these issues have historically tended to be resolved in favour of those with the wealth & power to influence the outcome to their benefit.

No, I no longer think of there being a Libertarian cabal in these forums, as there doesn't seem to be a firm commitment to any coherent set of beliefs. In the end, I have no idea what philosophical position you're promoting, other than the insistence on the logic that the 5 Pounds in your pocket is yours & nobody else's.

And despite yet another invitation for you to use logic to prove logic wrong, you run away and say it's "simplistic". Surely if it's "simplistic" you'll have no problem defeating it with simple logic, no?

Incidentally, I understand that living in Yorkshire you're unlikely to have any contact with people from the North American First Nations, but you should be aware of the fact that they wouldn't appreciate being referred to as:

& that there are hundreds of continuing land claim disputes in Canada & the US concerning violations of treaty rights.

I've visited more American states than some Americans. You also missed the point. Again. On purpose, most likely. Again. But for your sake, that's how they were viewed back when their land was taken off them - and I'm sure they appreciated it even less back then. I notice you didn't object to women being referred to as people with their genitals in a different place, but then that wouldn't be quite as effective as a tool to divert attention away from the fact you're yet again refusing to use logic to defeat logic as I keep asking you to, preferring to concentrate on minutiae against which you can rail.

I keep giving you opportunities to defeat logic using logic. You keep ignoring them. I wonder why this is.

 

[Biggles]

Well, regarding Rothbard's look at reparations, I have a proclamation of amnesty and pardon for being of European decent.

You lucky bastard ...

http://aaeblog.com/2009/07/24/walte...ray-rothbard-or-forty-acres-of-bad-arguments/