The Free Talk Live BBS
Free Talk Live => General => Topic started by: addictedkoala 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.
-
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.
-
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:
-
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.
-
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?
-
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...
.
-
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!"
-
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!
.
-
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 (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.
-
"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 (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.
-
Actually, you're right. You wouldn't be able to leave your house. Be afraid.
-
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!
-
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!"
-
"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 (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
.
-
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.
-
Reminds me of the "paths" we have snaking through Monsey. People here have built pedestrian paths here through their property for the common good.
Reminds me of the people who say that "without government no one would be nice to others because everyone would be so stuck being greedy" never back it up with actual data.
It's just envy.
-
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
.
Rob, no one here is advocating fraud, so you don't have to mention it. I think we will all agree that fraud is a bad thing.
For the sake of this argument, lets lump aggression together with force. I think they're not good, but inevitable.
Rob, another thing, I don't have to have my political logic to be approved by you. I prefer to be a self defined libertarian.
-
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
.
Rob, no one here is advocating fraud, so you don't have to mention it. I think we will all agree that fraud is a bad thing.
For the sake of this argument, lets lump aggression together with force. I think they're not good, but inevitable.
Rob, another thing, I don't have to have my political logic to be approved by you. I prefer to be a self defined libertarian.
"self-defined"...meaning you can say you're a duck after you've re-defined "duck"
aw duck...
.
-
"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 (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.
Then do please provide us with your philosophy-one that does not impose on others, that you like to use the term "libertarian"to describe. David D. Friedman presents one I respect-do you agree with his consequentialism?
As I said, I don't use the term, but academically, "libertarian" means the philosophy of non-aggression. I mentioned that "as i understand it" was my definition to someone who likely is now utterly lost. And since aggression=the state, libertarianism in its true form is anti-statism, or more clearly, anarchism. That was its initial definition.
But the word today means whatever the teller tells you. And this is good-seek your own definition.