J'accuse le libertarians

RussellTuring wrote: »

Democratic? Really? It seems that a system in which you vote for your new ruler every four years or so and they get to make up whatever laws they choose with no possibility of recalling them when they do something that is completely against the wishes of the majority of the population is anything but democratic.

I agree, I prefer rules based on property rights. democracy combined with weak rights for individuals is tyrannical

20Cent wrote:

If I buy a property there are terms and conditions for the area!! WTF!! Thought one could do whatever they wanted in libertarian land.

Again back to property rights. Think of a cinema as an example, the owner has rules, and cetain behaviour wont be acceptable. As for property there could be any number of covenants depending on the area. Your rights and responsibilities would depend on what contracts you enter into VOLUNTARILY.

silverharp wrote: »

I agree, I prefer rules based on property rights.

Fantastic. Back to feudalism it is so. The fact that we don't now have real democracy is no reason to revert to a much more tyrannical way of organising society.

Suryavarman wrote: »

Considering under feudalism the vast majority of people are tied to the land and don't have property rights it is not exactly Libertarian is it?

Well yeah. Do you think that your right-libertarian world will be one in which everyone has the exact same amount of property? How long do you reckon it will be before some people start to accumulate it on a massive scale and we're back to feudalism? I'd give it fifty years.

Suryavarman wrote: »

There is already plenty of hard drugs legal, alcohol, tobacco and many prescription drugs. Look at Portugal where they have decriminalised possession of small amounts of all drugs. The usage of drugs and the crime rate have both gone down. In the Netherlands they have the lowest rate of cannabis use in Europe. All the empirical evidence points to legalisation of drugs being positive in every measure.



Whats wrong with this happening? If people do not want to associate with people of other races then they should be free to do so!

Can we go beyond the specific cases into the general. I have asked a few times but no one has answered. What happens when one person/group acting in accordance with their property rights infringes on another person/group property rights.

whatstherush wrote: »

Can we go beyond the specific cases into the general. I have asked a few times but no one has answered. What happens when one person/group acting in accordance with their property rights infringes on another person/group property rights.

An appropriate level of compensation will be found in court.

Suryavarman wrote: »

An appropriate level of compensation will be found in court.

What court has jurisdiction over two disparate groups in a libertarian society. I thought it was stateless

Suryavarman wrote: »

The state courts. You are confusing libertarianism with anarcho-capitalism. Whilst anarcho-capitalists would share much common ground with libertarians, they advocate complete abolition of the state whereas libertarians believe the state should enforce contracts and protect peoples liberties.

Ok fair enough, a libertarian supporter mentioned a stateless society earlier in the thread.

So in a libertarian society the state does exist, but its only role is to enforce contract law and protect liberties. So say we take day one in a new libertarian society how do we decide what liberties need protecting. Surely there would have to be some sort of vote among the population to decide what these should be. And as sure as days follows night these liberties that have been voted on by the population will not suit everyone. So if you asked the person that these liberties don't suit, if they lived in a libertarian society, what do you think there answer would be?

whatstherush wrote: »

Ok fair enough, a libertarian supporter mentioned a stateless society earlier in the thread.

So in a libertarian society the state does exist, but its only role is to enforce contract law and protect liberties. So say we take day one in a new libertarian society how do we decide what liberties need protecting. Surely there would have to be some sort of vote among the population to decide what these should be. And as sure as days follows night these liberties that have been voted on by the population will not suit everyone. So if you asked the person that these liberties don't suit, if they lived in a libertarian society, what do you think there answer would be?

I wouldn't agree that the liberties would have to be voted on. Personally I think that everyone should have freedom of speech, freedom of association and to do what they please with their property so long as they don't impose a cost or initiate force upon another persons property.

RussellTuring wrote: »

Would it be so hard to find some way of distinguishing yourself? Libertarianism includes anyone who desires freedom from the state, to varying degrees. "Anarcho"-capitalists are in fact more libertarian than you, as are social anarchists. You seem to be a right-libertarian of some sort so why not call yourself that or come up with another term that uniquely identifies you? Most people of your persuasion have at least the decency to capitalise the "L" instead of trying to appropriate a word that has a much more general meaning than you try to make out.

Alright then from now on I'll call myself a minarchist libertarian. I don't see any need to capitalise the "l".

I'm still waiting for answers to my last post, by the way: they weren't rhetorical questions.

Sorry I didn't notice it.

RussellTuring wrote: »

Well yeah. Do you think that your right-libertarian world will be one in which everyone has the exact same amount of property? How long do you reckon it will be before some people start to accumulate it on a massive scale and we're back to feudalism? I'd give it fifty years.

No i don't think everyone will have the same amount of property. If people wish to accumulate vast amounts of property that's their business. So long as they don't forcefully take property from other people it shouldn't matter. We still wouldn't be back to feudalism as we wouldn't have people tied to the land unless for some strange reason they did it voluntarily.

Suryavarman wrote: »

Alright then from now on I'll call myself a minarchist libertarian. I don't see any need to capitalise the "l".

Sorry if that was a bit of a rant there. The appropriation of the word by the right is just a personal annoyance of mine. I don't prefer it personally, but many do like to use the capital letter to distinguish themselves from anarchists or the left.

Sorry I didn't notice it.



No i don't think everyone will have the same amount of property. If people wish to accumulate vast amounts of property that's their business. So long as they don't forcefully take property from other people it shouldn't matter. We still wouldn't be back to feudalism as we wouldn't have people tied to the land unless for some strange reason they did it voluntarily.

But serfs voluntarily entered into contracts with their lords for the promise of the protection afforded by their vast wealth. Why wouldn't people do this again? And are you saying that you envision a world where people who accumulate vast wealth and power will not abuse it, contrary to what happens now?

Suryavarman wrote: »

I wasn't aware of the distinction, thanks for pointing that out. You learn something new everyday

You're welcome.

I'll admit that I don't know too much about feudalism but from what I know it seems that only lords and their serfs were protected by rule of law. That would help account for why people became serfs as it would have been unsafe to remain a freeman. I'm also pretty sure that some people would have been forced into serfdom. This been possible due to a higher legal status of the lords. Seen as we would continue to have equality before law in a minarchist society as we do now it wouldn't be possible for people to be forced into serfdom.

Well in fact I disagree that we currently have equality before the law. Do not the rich often receive more lenient rulings than the poor? In a world with the basis of law in property rights, surely those with more of it would be favourably treated. For example, how do you propose we decide where and how to build a new road, or housing development? Does everyone in the affected area have an equal say on the matter and decide on a contractor together, do we have a state roads authority or do we just let people buy land as they please and start to build?

Another reason for people becoming serfs of course would have been from being too poor as a freeman to look after themselves. Seen as we have become vastly more wealthy since then, most people can give themselves a good standard of living without having to resort to such measures. For people that aren't able to look after themselves would hopefully receive charity.

Nevertheless, they still chose to sacrifice some of their liberty for security. And your hope that they would receive charity could be just as easily applied to feudal times. The fact is they didn't and so entered serfdom. Do people today not do things they would rather not because they feel they have no other choice, despite how wealthy we apparently are nowadays?

There would obviously be some people who would try and abuse their wealth and power as they do now. In a minarchist society where the government has a lot less influence in society and the economy the chances for people to abuse their wealth and power would be extremely limited.

The chances for politicians and bureaucrats to abuse their power would be limited, of course, but how would a weaker state make it harder for those with the means to do as they please? Power vacuums are quickly filled.

RussellTuring wrote: »

Well in fact I disagree that we currently have equality before the law. Do not the rich often receive more lenient rulings than the poor?

I was thinking more along the lines of people not being discriminated against on the basis of race through the law(with the exception of the minimum wage law of course ). On the subject of more lenient sentences with rich people i'm sure this could be changed by editing the law and leaving less room for interpretation when it comes to sentencing.

In a world with the basis of law in property rights, surely those with more of it would be favourably treated. For example, how do you propose we decide where and how to build a new road, or housing development? Does everyone in the affected area have an equal say on the matter and decide on a contractor together, do we have a state roads authority or do we just let people buy land as they please and start to build?

Not at all, I don't see how this would be the case at all. The law isn't really based on property rights, the law just recognises that people have property rights and that those rights must be respected and protected.

For example, how do you propose we decide where and how to build a new road, or housing development? Does everyone in the affected area have an equal say on the matter and decide on a contractor together, do we have a state roads authority or do we just let people buy land as they please and start to build?

The only people that would have a say in the matter would be those that own the property or those that would have their property affected. For example if someone wanted to build a road or an airport beside your house, you would probably be entitled to compensation due to the noise having an impact upon the value of your house. Another example would be if someone was to build a power plant near your property, again you would have a right to compensation due to a negative impact due to pollution having an adverse health effect and lowering the value of your property.

Nevertheless, they still chose to sacrifice some of their liberty for security. And your hope that they would receive charity could be just as easily applied to feudal times. The fact is they didn't and so entered serfdom. Do people today not do things they would rather not because they feel they have no other choice, despite how wealthy we apparently are nowadays?

The fact is we are much wealthier and charity is much more widespread nowadays. Look at the poor countries of Africa, where to the best of my knowledge they don't have serfdom. If serfdom can be avoided in these countries I don't see why it couldn't be avoided here.

The chances for politicians and bureaucrats to abuse their power would be limited, of course, but how would a weaker state make it harder for those with the means to do as they please? Power vacuums are quickly filled.

I believe it would be harder because people with the means to do so usually use the power of politicians to pass favourable laws. Therefore if we limit the power of politicians to pass these laws, we limit the ability of the rich to abuse their power. Of course they will still be able to use their power to bribe law enforcers but that is a fault with all systems not just minarchism. Maybe through tougher laws that could be stamped out though.