The Big Flaw in Libertarianism

[Uncensored2008]

How?

My neighbor sits on his front porch and smokes. If I have my front windows open, it drifts into the house.

I came up with a clever idea on how to handle this; when he's smoking, I close the windows.

 

[The T]

False equivalence, dude.

I'm obviously not smart enough to get what you're saying here.

Could you dumb it down just bit?

Nobody forces you to patronize a business that allows smoking.

OTOH, nobody can escape second-hand factory or automotive exhaust.

But Nanny Mayor Doomberg can ban smoking outside...

 

[manifold]

False equivalence, dude.

I'm obviously not smart enough to get what you're saying here.

Could you dumb it down just bit?

Nobody forces you to patronize a business that allows smoking.

OTOH, nobody can escape second-hand factory or automotive exhaust.

I wasn't comparing this to the smoking question.

I hope that clears up your confusion.

 

[amrchaos]

Prove it. Be sure to use current examples.

Be happy to.
BP
Pacific Gas & Electric
Skadden Arps
General Electric
Exxon
Ford
GM
Chrysler
Pfizer
Eli Lilly
Kaiser
Blue Cross
Most of the Fortune 100
Which of those countries has been found guilty in a court of law, for harming or killing people.
Multiple times.
All of them.
Which did the Magial Market make disappear?
None of them.

I look forward to your fact-filled and civil response.

Thank you for your service, btw.

So none of the examples you cited had any government oversight?

It was strictly the market regulating itself?


I think not.

I hate to point this out but--if those companies are regulated and they have not disappeared, then those companies would not disappear if there is no regulations.

Don't forget regulations are laws in the markets place. With both regulations and the market acting against these companies, they behave as bad as ever--removing regulations won't help the market make them disappear, but aid in allowing these companies to misbehave more!

By the way--I am not in favor of an "Strong" centralized government, but the concept of no government involvement in the market place sounds like a form of economic anarchy. I may prefer anarchy over slave-like oppression, but I dislike anarchy as well.

 

[Foxfyre]

At what point does smoke stack and automobile emissions infringe on a person's health and well being?

Pollution is an issue where reasonable regulation is necessary. Protecting the commons is a legitimate function of government.

Yes, in libertarian land (little "L") the individual's unalienable rights are supreme, but they end at the precise moment that participation or contribution is required by somebody else. If my unalienable rights are protected, I can pollute anything I want on my own space. But I do not have any right, and should not be allowed, to pollute your air, water, or soil and thereby require your participation in my activities.

The intended purpose of the federal government, as the Founders understood it, was to secure and protect our rights. And that does require some regulation to prevent us from doing physical, economic, or aethetic violence to each other.

 

[The T]

Is that a yes or a no?

Can you read?

I can. And I still don't see a yes or a no.

Did you understand the question?

Your problem IS that you wish Government to tell people what they can and can't do...probobly a huge supporter of the EPA as well? No?

Where does the Nanny-State end at the expense of liberty?

 

[manifold]

I'm also not clear on whether something done that negatively impacts another person's property value infringes on that person's health and well being. What does libertarian philosophy say about that?

 

[manifold]

Can you read?

I can. And I still don't see a yes or a no.

Did you understand the question?

Your problem IS that you wish Government to tell people what they can and can't do...probobly a huge supporter of the EPA as well? No?

Where does the Nanny-State end at the expense of liberty?

You need a new jump to conclusions mat, the one you've got is failing you miserably.

I'm just asking questions here skippy, questions that obviously make you uncomfortable.

 

[The T]

Liberty is an all or nothing proposition...do what you like under LAW but when what you do violates liberty of another individual... infringes upon life, liberty, property...is where it ends.

 

[manifold]

Liberty is an all or nothing proposition...do what you like under LAW but when what you do violates liberty of another individual... infringes upon life, liberty, property...is where it ends.

^ Ironic ******* idiot is ironically ******* idiotic!

 

[dblack]

How?

My neighbor sits on his front porch and smokes. If I have my front windows open, it drifts into the house.

I came up with a clever idea on how to handle this; when he's smoking, I close the windows.

That's one approach. I actually ran into a similar situation a couple of years ago. My neighbor got sick of closing their windows in the summertime when I had my bbq smoker running. So they asked me to move it. I did. Situation resolved. If I'd been a jackass about it, he could have sued. I can't imagine a judge or jury would have found in my favor.

 

[Oddball]

I'm also not clear on whether something done that negatively impacts another person's property value infringes on that person's health and well being. What does libertarian philosophy say about that?

Depends upon how you're defining the famously nebulous terms "...impacts another person's property value infringes on that person's health and well being".

 

[Uncensored2008]

You need a new jump to conclusions mat, the one you've got is failing you miserably.

I'm just asking questions here skippy, questions that obviously make you uncomfortable.

And I'm answering them. Answers that clearly make you very uncomfortable.

 

[manifold]

How?

My neighbor sits on his front porch and smokes. If I have my front windows open, it drifts into the house.

I came up with a clever idea on how to handle this; when he's smoking, I close the windows.

That's one approach. I actually ran into a similar situation a couple of years ago. My neighbor got sick of closing their windows in the summertime when I had my bbq smoker running. So they asked me to move it. I did. Situation resolved. If I'd been a jackass about it, he could have sued. I can't imagine a judge or jury would have found in my favor.

I can, quite easily actually. Are you aware of any real life examples of this kind of lawsuit?

 

[manifold]

I'm also not clear on whether something done that negatively impacts another person's property value infringes on that person's health and well being. What does libertarian philosophy say about that?

Depends upon how you're defining the famously nebulous terms "...impacts another person's property value infringes on that person's health and well being".

Exactly.

Please refer back to this post:

For anyone paying attention, the conversation Paulie and I are having touches upon the core issue as to why libertarian philosophy is no more sustainable than any other. It relies on a nearly universal agreement about wildly subjective superlatives that is simply unattainable. So what happens in practice is those with the power to legislate protect the liberties they cherish and shit on the ones they don't. Eventually those guys are replaced with new guys with a different set of priorities vis-a-vis liberties that matter. And with each successive crank of the wheel, liberties are eroded, it's just a fact of existence. Libertarianism doesn't solve that riddle in the slightest. As for the small government element to the philosophy, I got a bridge to sell ya. That's asking way too much from one man intoxicated with the power to legislate, let alone most of them. Libertarianism is a beautiful utopian dream, it's not a solution to anything, unfortunately.

 

[dblack]

I'm also not clear on whether something done that negatively impacts another person's property value infringes on that person's health and well being. What does libertarian philosophy say about that?

I spoke to this earlier. I'm not sure my view represents all libertarians, but that was my take on it. At some level, liberty requires us to accept the risk that other people might do things we don't like. Concepts like 'property values' are essentially the opinions of other people, and I have no right to dictate what those will be.

In as much as you are angling on zoning laws here, I don't like them much personally - and I'd think twice about buying property governed by extensive zoning. But as long as they are contained and not retroactively imposed on property owners - ie you agree to follow them when you buy the land - they're not egregious violations of our rights.

 

[dblack]

My neighbor sits on his front porch and smokes. If I have my front windows open, it drifts into the house.

I came up with a clever idea on how to handle this; when he's smoking, I close the windows.

That's one approach. I actually ran into a similar situation a couple of years ago. My neighbor got sick of closing their windows in the summertime when I had my bbq smoker running. So they asked me to move it. I did. Situation resolved. If I'd been a jackass about it, he could have sued. I can't imagine a judge or jury would have found in my favor.

I can, quite easily actually. Are you aware of any real life examples of this kind of lawsuit?

Do you? What are you imagining? That a judge would buy that I have a right to blow smoke in my neighbor's window?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I'm also not clear on whether something done that negatively impacts another person's property value infringes on that person's health and well being. What does libertarian philosophy say about that?

your issue is 100% trivial since no political philosophy has much to say about that kind of detail. The significant issues involve general concepts about the scope, size, and expense of Federal and State government. In short, its about the individuals conflict with state and Federal government, not about his conflict with another individual.

In a communist or libertarian society if you shoot your neighbor or blow smoke in his window its frowned upon.

 

[Oddball]

I'm also not clear on whether something done that negatively impacts another person's property value infringes on that person's health and well being. What does libertarian philosophy say about that?

Depends upon how you're defining the famously nebulous terms "...impacts another person's property value infringes on that person's health and well being".

Exactly.

Please refer back to this post:

For anyone paying attention, the conversation Paulie and I are having touches upon the core issue as to why libertarian philosophy is no more sustainable than any other. It relies on a nearly universal agreement about wildly subjective superlatives that is simply unattainable. So what happens in practice is those with the power to legislate protect the liberties they cherish and shit on the ones they don't. Eventually those guys are replaced with new guys with a different set of priorities vis-a-vis liberties that matter. And with each successive crank of the wheel, liberties are eroded, it's just a fact of existence. Libertarianism doesn't solve that riddle in the slightest. As for the small government element to the philosophy, I got a bridge to sell ya. That's asking way too much from one man intoxicated with the power to legislate, let alone most of them. Libertarianism is a beautiful utopian dream, it's not a solution to anything, unfortunately.

That hasn't happened in the slightest over the course of the last century, at least....The Progressive Era has been a time of the political class (reputedly) trying to pin down equally nebulous and Utopian notions as "equality", "fairness" and "universal benefits".

Also, your little missive seems to ignore the role of the common law courts and juries, which were to be the enforcement mechanism of the political laws...For example, one of the biggest reasons alcohol prohibition flamed out was that juries were refusing to convict and enforce bad law.

 

[Uncensored2008]

That's one approach. I actually ran into a similar situation a couple of years ago. My neighbor got sick of closing their windows in the summertime when I had my bbq smoker running. So they asked me to move it. I did. Situation resolved. If I'd been a jackass about it, he could have sued. I can't imagine a judge or jury would have found in my favor.

I'm sure if I asked them, they'd smoke elsewhere, but it isn't that big of a deal.