Welcome to the Free Talk Live bulletin board system!
This board is closed to new users and new posts.  Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years.  Details here.
185859 Posts in 9829 Topics by 1371 Members
Latest Member: cjt26
Home Help
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  General
| | |-+  Public Property
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: Public Property  (Read 4348 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

addictedkoala

  • Guest
Public Property
« on: December 08, 2009, 10:14:29 PM »

I'm relatively new to the liberty movement, so take this simply as a question, not an attack

When it comes to public property Libertarians generally agree that it's bad and I would agree, however the thought occured to me of how we would get this to work. Specifically in regards to people in poverty. If I'm too poor (assume it's not because I'm incredibly lazy) to afford the price to go on a road, how would I get anywhere. As soon as I stepped off my land I could be charged/arrested/in trouble/etc for trespassing couldn't I? It just seems extremely restrictive for what's called the freaking liberty movement. I'm sure there's a simple explanation I'm missing.
Logged

Diogenes The Cynic

  • Cynic. Pessimist. Skeptic. Jerk.
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3727
    • View Profile
Re: Public Property
« Reply #1 on: December 08, 2009, 11:04:09 PM »

I am a libertarian, and I don't hold myself to any "party line". You don't have to conform to anyone elses political platform. So the positions that I hold are ones that I think are correct, and that I can defend because I agree with them.


That said, I think private ownership of most roads and sidewalks is inevitable. Sure you can have situations where HOA's control major sections of neighborhoods like the way it is in Irvine, CA, but for existing communities, it would be difficult to regress into private ownership of all land. For most situations, you will probably have a community NGO that runs local roads, and highways and freeways as toll roads.
Logged
I am looking for an honest man. -Diogenes The Cynic

Dude, I thought you were a spambot for like a week. You posted like a spambot. You failed the Turing test.

                                -Dennis Goddard

addictedkoala

  • Guest
Re: Public Property
« Reply #2 on: December 08, 2009, 11:35:03 PM »

I am a libertarian, and I don't hold myself to any "party line". You don't have to conform to anyone elses political platform. So the positions that I hold are ones that I think are correct, and that I can defend because I agree with them.

Oh definately, I don't hold myself to any party lines (at least I don't think) but it kind of makes me look like an idiot if I don't even know one opinion or argument for why all land being private would be a good idea while speaking with my friends. :P


That said, I think private ownership of most roads and sidewalks is inevitable. Sure you can have situations where HOA's control major sections of neighborhoods like the way it is in Irvine, CA, but for existing communities, it would be difficult to regress into private ownership of all land. For most situations, you will probably have a community NGO that runs local roads, and highways and freeways as toll roads.

ok, that does make sense. Thanks for the answer (and anyone else is welcomed to present different scenarios). So I also assume this means I can walk out of my home into the community in which I live without paying this toll just to cross the street? Cause that's really what I'm worried about  :shock:
« Last Edit: December 09, 2009, 01:03:05 AM by addictedkoala »
Logged

Diogenes The Cynic

  • Cynic. Pessimist. Skeptic. Jerk.
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3727
    • View Profile
Re: Public Property
« Reply #3 on: December 09, 2009, 12:10:58 AM »

I was not intentionally making a distinction between Libertarians/libertarians.

The cool thing about libertarian philosophy is that it is inclusive of other peoples philosophies, so if a person was a communist, they are free to live in a community where everyone who lives there agrees to share things communally. In an unincorporated area, people would have wide ranging freedoms as to what they could do on their properties, and in other communities, Muslims could live in a community where they own the entire property, and where everyone there consents to live in Sharia law, and use their internal court system.

As long as one community doesn't try to impose onto another community, there is nothing wrong being done, since the living situation is consentual, and works as a real functioning social contract. Thus, if people of one community agree to do so, they might only impose a small excise to use a road for a year, and find their own way with dealing with free riders. That way, people would not have to pay a small prive for each individual time they decide to cross the roads near their houses.
Logged
I am looking for an honest man. -Diogenes The Cynic

Dude, I thought you were a spambot for like a week. You posted like a spambot. You failed the Turing test.

                                -Dennis Goddard

addictedkoala

  • Guest
Re: Public Property
« Reply #4 on: December 09, 2009, 01:08:34 AM »

The cool thing about libertarian philosophy is that it is inclusive of other peoples philosophies, so if a person was a communist, they are free to live in a community where everyone who lives there agrees to share things communally. In an unincorporated area, people would have wide ranging freedoms as to what they could do on their properties, and in other communities, Muslims could live in a community where they own the entire property, and where everyone there consents to live in Sharia law, and use their internal court system.

This actually brings up one more question I have, hypothetically speaking lets say you have 2 different communities with differing philosophies, what happens if someone from one kills a person in the other? Obviously we know murder is wrong regardless of political standing, but without a universal law who deals with it?
Logged

NHArticleTen

  • Guest
Re: Public Property
« Reply #5 on: December 09, 2009, 08:49:28 AM »

The cool thing about libertarian philosophy is that it is inclusive of other peoples philosophies, so if a person was a communist, they are free to live in a community where everyone who lives there agrees to share things communally. In an unincorporated area, people would have wide ranging freedoms as to what they could do on their properties, and in other communities, Muslims could live in a community where they own the entire property, and where everyone there consents to live in Sharia law, and use their internal court system.

This actually brings up one more question I have, hypothetically speaking lets say you have 2 different communities with differing philosophies, what happens if someone from one kills a person in the other? Obviously we know murder is wrong regardless of political standing, but without a universal law who deals with it?

that has been a big question throughout history

when the drone operators blast wedding parties, who holds them accountable now?

today, most people live amongst one or more unknown persons who have raped and maimed and murdered

the only way to deter this is to be totally against aggression/force/fraud and encourage others as well to become students and advocates of the Philosophically Mature Non-Aggression Principle

and...of course...to hold domestic bureaucrats to the same standards as foreign bureaucrats regarding aggression/force/fraud

for example, Saddam Hussein was held to a different standard than other human beings who have the power to send and/or recall Amerikan Mercenaries and Covert Mission Operators from foreign and domestic ground

one is no less guilty than another...

.
Logged

BobRobertson

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 929
    • View Profile
Re: Public Property
« Reply #6 on: December 09, 2009, 10:51:18 AM »

one is no less guilty than another....

It is important to remember that the Nuremberg Defense (I was only following orders) works, for agents of whatever government is presently in power.

Or in the now immortal words of Eli Rivera, "It's just a job!"
Logged
"I regret that I am now to die in the belief that the useless sacrifice of themselves by the generation of 1776 to acquire self-government and happiness to their country is to be thrown away by the unwise and unworthy passions of their sons, and that my only consolation is to be that I live not to weep over it."
-- Thomas Jefferson, April 26th 1820

NHArticleTen

  • Guest
Re: Public Property
« Reply #7 on: December 09, 2009, 12:24:42 PM »

Public Property, the proper disposal thereof

The voters shall conduct a vote by ballot initiative to determine whether they would rather:

A: Vote to sell all public property at open public auction and to receive a portion of the proceeds thereof, except that no public employee shall receive any such portion thereof

B: Blow it all up

C: Bulldoze it all flat

D: Argue endlessly over it, shedding blood repeatedly until the bureaucrats get bored with the bloodsport bread and circuses and release the bioweapon to get rid of all the peasants

enjoy!

.
Logged

thersites

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 110
  • Government Child Care
    • View Profile
    • Sandusky County Politics Examiner
Re: Public Property
« Reply #8 on: December 09, 2009, 07:58:43 PM »

I'm relatively new to the liberty movement, so take this simply as a question, not an attack

When it comes to public property Libertarians generally agree that it's bad and I would agree, however the thought occured to me of how we would get this to work. Specifically in regards to people in poverty. If I'm too poor (assume it's not because I'm incredibly lazy) to afford the price to go on a road, how would I get anywhere. As soon as I stepped off my land I could be charged/arrested/in trouble/etc for trespassing couldn't I? It just seems extremely restrictive for what's called the freaking liberty movement. I'm sure there's a simple explanation I'm missing.

"libertarian" philosophy 101, at least as its usually put forth, relies on the axiom that initiating force(violence of some sort-physical force), is wrong. It remains wrong if a group of people get together in colorful costumes and call it "law".

MANY "libertarians" -usually called "left-libertarians", don't believe in private property-particularly land- as its currently understood either...since it involves an initiation of force(to their view at least...and I have trouble arguing against it, frankly).

Myself, I don't even use the term libertarian. That said, if you really are interested, and not trolling, most of what you've read above in this thread is derived from Murray Rothbard's theorizing. I'd suggest giving him a read, virtually everything he ever wrote is available online for free http://mises.org/literature.aspx?action=author&ID=299 Here. You are always better off going to the source. But always remember the use of force when reading everyone Rothbard is not perfect on this, even,  IMHO.
Logged
"your body is not a temple, it's an amusement park" Anthony Bourdain

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-11204-Sandusky-County-Politics-and-History-Examiner

Diogenes The Cynic

  • Cynic. Pessimist. Skeptic. Jerk.
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3727
    • View Profile
Re: Public Property
« Reply #9 on: December 09, 2009, 10:11:53 PM »



"libertarian" philosophy 101, at least as its usually put forth, relies on the axiom that initiating force(violence of some sort-physical force), is wrong. It remains wrong if a group of people get together in colorful costumes and call it "law".

MANY "libertarians" -usually called "left-libertarians", don't believe in private property-particularly land- as its currently understood either...since it involves an initiation of force(to their view at least...and I have trouble arguing against it, frankly).

Myself, I don't even use the term libertarian. That said, if you really are interested, and not trolling, most of what you've read above in this thread is derived from Murray Rothbard's theorizing. I'd suggest giving him a read, virtually everything he ever wrote is available online for free http://mises.org/literature.aspx?action=author&ID=299 Here. You are always better off going to the source. But always remember the use of force when reading everyone Rothbard is not perfect on this, even,  IMHO.

Not all libertarians hold the view that the non aggression principle is axiomatic.
Logged
I am looking for an honest man. -Diogenes The Cynic

Dude, I thought you were a spambot for like a week. You posted like a spambot. You failed the Turing test.

                                -Dennis Goddard

Bill Brasky

  • Guest
Re: Public Property
« Reply #10 on: December 10, 2009, 12:35:36 AM »

Actually, you're right.  You wouldn't be able to leave your house.  Be afraid. 
Logged

Cognitive Dissident

  • Amateur Agorist
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3916
    • View Profile
Re: Public Property
« Reply #11 on: December 10, 2009, 04:18:01 AM »

Oh, please...most Americans are in debt, and they're buying plasma TVs...I think you'd be able to afford a few cents toll--after all, you're paying the taxes that pay the tolls...and don't claim the poor don't pay those taxes.  They pay excise taxes, sales taxes, property taxes (through their rent) ad naseam.

Besides, charging isn't the only way they'd be paid for, and the REALLY poor wouldn't be driving, so they'd probably be allowed to walk down the side of the road free if they stay out of traffic.  I mean...really!
Logged

mikehz

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8033
    • View Profile
    • Day by Day
Re: Public Property
« Reply #12 on: December 10, 2009, 08:02:20 AM »

They have private roads in Mexico. Anyone can walk on them. But, to drive on them, you have to pay.  There is a development near my house where I walk all the time. Private roads. No one asks me to pay when I walk on the streets or ride my bike.

Even in the US, the government doesn't care how poor you are--if you want to drive on the road, you have to pay (via the gas tax).

If you're really so concerned about the poor, then consider this: The biggest item in any poor person's budget is not food or rent. It's taxation. Even if they don't pay income tax, they still must pay the multitude of other taxes, many of which are built into the products they buy. (Even a gallon of milk or a loaf of bread has dozens of little hidden taxes built in, including taxes on the gas used to transport it to the store). Just try telling the store clerk, "Oh, that's okay--I don't have to pay the sales tax. I'm poor!"
Logged
"Force always attracts men of low morality." Albert Einstein

NHArticleTen

  • Guest
Re: Public Property
« Reply #13 on: December 10, 2009, 08:10:27 AM »



"libertarian" philosophy 101, at least as its usually put forth, relies on the axiom that initiating force(violence of some sort-physical force), is wrong. It remains wrong if a group of people get together in colorful costumes and call it "law".

MANY "libertarians" -usually called "left-libertarians", don't believe in private property-particularly land- as its currently understood either...since it involves an initiation of force(to their view at least...and I have trouble arguing against it, frankly).

Myself, I don't even use the term libertarian. That said, if you really are interested, and not trolling, most of what you've read above in this thread is derived from Murray Rothbard's theorizing. I'd suggest giving him a read, virtually everything he ever wrote is available online for free http://mises.org/literature.aspx?action=author&ID=299 Here. You are always better off going to the source. But always remember the use of force when reading everyone Rothbard is not perfect on this, even,  IMHO.

Not all libertarians hold the view that the non aggression principle is axiomatic.

if one believes in the initiation of aggression or force or fraud...one is most certainly NOT a "libertarian" except that the wordsters have torched it's definition

.
Logged

Diogenes The Cynic

  • Cynic. Pessimist. Skeptic. Jerk.
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3727
    • View Profile
Re: Public Property
« Reply #14 on: December 10, 2009, 01:33:34 PM »

They have private roads in Mexico. Anyone can walk on them. But, to drive on them, you have to pay.  There is a development near my house where I walk all the time. Private roads. No one asks me to pay when I walk on the streets or ride my bike.

Even in the US, the government doesn't care how poor you are--if you want to drive on the road, you have to pay (via the gas tax).

If you're really so concerned about the poor, then consider this: The biggest item in any poor person's budget is not food or rent. It's taxation. Even if they don't pay income tax, they still must pay the multitude of other taxes, many of which are built into the products they buy. (Even a gallon of milk or a loaf of bread has dozens of little hidden taxes built in, including taxes on the gas used to transport it to the store). Just try telling the store clerk, "Oh, that's okay--I don't have to pay the sales tax. I'm poor!"

Reminds me of the "paths" we have snaking through Monsey. People here have built pedestrian paths here through their property for the common good.
Logged
I am looking for an honest man. -Diogenes The Cynic

Dude, I thought you were a spambot for like a week. You posted like a spambot. You failed the Turing test.

                                -Dennis Goddard
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  General
| | |-+  Public Property

// ]]>

Page created in 0.019 seconds with 32 queries.