The Big Flaw in Libertarianism

[manifold]

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?

That it's legal for you to operate a bbg smoker on your property and you can't control the wind.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

That it's legal for you to operate a bbg smoker on your property and you can't control the wind.

one would have a limited right to to operate a smoker or radio, etc etc. THe judge would rule based on the details of a particular situation in a communist or libertarian society

 

[manifold]

I'm actually quite amenable to the idea of having disputes resolved via the court system rather than via ironclad government regulation. But I wonder how many people who profess libertarian ideals contradict those ideals by supporting tort reform?

 

[Oddball]

I'm actually quite amenable to the idea of having disputes resolved via the court system rather than via ironclad government regulation. But I wonder how many people who profess libertarian ideals contradict those ideals by supporting tort reform?

The best tort reform is fully informed juries.

Fully Informed Jury Association

One of the biggest problems with the court system is that it has been hijacked by the political class, which includes judges, who have been demanding that juries kowtow to the edicts of the political elites and their judicial oligarchy.

 

[dblack]

I'm actually quite amenable to the idea of having disputes resolved via the court system rather than via ironclad government regulation. But I wonder how many people who profess libertarian ideals contradict those ideals by supporting tort reform?

Good question. I'm fairly suspicious of most tort reform. Deep pockets lawsuits seem a little out of hand, and to the extend that the legal system can be characterized as a good-ole-boys club of lawyers and judges stroking each other, there is definitely a problem. But I'm not big on arbitrary limits on damage settlements and the like.

 

[The T]

I'm actually quite amenable to the idea of having disputes resolved via the court system rather than via ironclad government regulation. But I wonder how many people who profess libertarian ideals contradict those ideals by supporting tort reform?

The best tort reform is fully informed juries.

Fully Informed Jury Association

One of the biggest problems with the court system is that it has been hijacked by the political class, which includes judges, who have been demanding that juries kowtow to the edicts of the political elites and their judicial oligarchy.

Yep. Another vehicle of legislation from the judiciary.

 

[Foxfyre]

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".

This is one area that there has been some conflict within the libertarian community. Some object to zoning laws, for instance, as such are seen as restricting individual property rights.

Somebody like me, however, WANTS zoning laws not arbitrarily decided by government, but enforceable by law when they are formed via social contract of the people. I don't WANT somebody opening a bar or hardware store next door to my house. I don't WANT the neighbors to be allowed to so trash their property that it downgrades the value of everybody else's. If we don't want cars up on blocks in front yards or dump trucks parked in front of houses on the street every night, there should be ordinances to protect the aesthetic quality of and property values within a residential neighborhood.

 

[Contumacious]

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".

This is one area that there has been some conflict within the libertarian community. Some object to zoning laws, for instance, as such are seen as restricting individual property rights.

Somebody like me, however, WANTS zoning laws not arbitrarily decided by government, but enforceable by law when they are formed via social contract of the people. I don't WANT somebody opening a bar or hardware store next door to my house. I don't WANT the neighbors to be allowed to so trash their property that it downgrades the value of everybody else's. If we don't want cars up on blocks in front yards or dump trucks parked in front of houses on the street every night, there should be ordinances to protect the aesthetic quality of and property values within a residential neighborhood.

You don't need zoning laws for that - you are looking for - like we have here in Houston - deed restrictions.

.

 

[Foxfyre]

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".

This is one area that there has been some conflict within the libertarian community. Some object to zoning laws, for instance, as such are seen as restricting individual property rights.

Somebody like me, however, WANTS zoning laws not arbitrarily decided by government, but enforceable by law when they are formed via social contract of the people. I don't WANT somebody opening a bar or hardware store next door to my house. I don't WANT the neighbors to be allowed to so trash their property that it downgrades the value of everybody else's. If we don't want cars up on blocks in front yards or dump trucks parked in front of houses on the street every night, there should be ordinances to protect the aesthetic quality of and property values within a residential neighborhood.

You don't need zoning laws for that - you are looking for - like we have here in Houston - deed restrictions.

.

But isn't that just a different way of imposing the same restrictions? I think I prefer zoning laws that can be more easily amended and adjusted as unforeseen things come up.

 

[Oddball]

This is one area that there has been some conflict within the libertarian community. Some object to zoning laws, for instance, as such are seen as restricting individual property rights.

Somebody like me, however, WANTS zoning laws not arbitrarily decided by government, but enforceable by law when they are formed via social contract of the people. I don't WANT somebody opening a bar or hardware store next door to my house. I don't WANT the neighbors to be allowed to so trash their property that it downgrades the value of everybody else's. If we don't want cars up on blocks in front yards or dump trucks parked in front of houses on the street every night, there should be ordinances to protect the aesthetic quality of and property values within a residential neighborhood.

You don't need zoning laws for that - you are looking for - like we have here in Houston - deed restrictions.

.

But isn't that just a different way of imposing the same restrictions? I think I prefer zoning laws that can be more easily amended and adjusted as unforeseen things come up.

Zoning is a local issue.

But it also used to be that many business owners lived upstairs in the apartments they maintained above their shops.....Something outlawed by modern zoning codes.

Funny how these "new urbanism" and "smart growth" thingies work, huh?

 

[bayoubill]

You don't need zoning laws for that - you are looking for - like we have here in Houston - deed restrictions.

.

But isn't that just a different way of imposing the same restrictions? I think I prefer zoning laws that can be more easily amended and adjusted as unforeseen things come up.

Zoning is a local issue.

But it also used to be that many business owners lived upstairs in the apartments they maintained above their shops.....Something outlawed by modern zoning codes.

Funny how these "new urbanism" and "smart growth" thingies work, huh?

the term "smart growth" has always given me the creeps...

has an elitist mommy-state "we know what is best for you whether you like it or not" ring to it...

 

[Foxfyre]

You don't need zoning laws for that - you are looking for - like we have here in Houston - deed restrictions.

.

But isn't that just a different way of imposing the same restrictions? I think I prefer zoning laws that can be more easily amended and adjusted as unforeseen things come up.

Zoning is a local issue.

But it also used to be that many business owners lived upstairs in the apartments they maintained above their shops.....Something outlawed by modern zoning codes.

Funny how these "new urbanism" and "smart growth" thingies work, huh?

In some places that is still allowed. Certainly it would not have been objected to by any libertarian. How in the world would somebody living in an apartment over their place of business violate anybody else's enjoyment or appreciation or value of their property? So any restrictions of that is an unacceptable law in my world.

 

[kaz]

So the biggest flaw I find in Libertarianism is the belief that companies will regulate themselves, if simply left alone. History proves this is not the case

QFS, Quoted for Stupidity.

This isn't the libertarian view, the view is the consumers will "regulate" the market. No libertarian says what you did. You write all this stuff like it's a serious question, then don't even state our views right. It's an exercise in wasting our time. For you, all roads lead to government. That is all your posts says, or any other of your posts...

 

[Oddball]

But isn't that just a different way of imposing the same restrictions? I think I prefer zoning laws that can be more easily amended and adjusted as unforeseen things come up.

Zoning is a local issue.

But it also used to be that many business owners lived upstairs in the apartments they maintained above their shops.....Something outlawed by modern zoning codes.

Funny how these "new urbanism" and "smart growth" thingies work, huh?

In some places that is still allowed. Certainly it would not have been objected to by any libertarian. How in the world would somebody living in an apartment over their place of business violate anybody else's enjoyment or appreciation or value of their property? So any restrictions of that is an unacceptable law in my world.

In most places it has been grandfathered in.

Zoning regs now almost universally prohibit the mixing of such commercial & residential types of arrangements as a matter of course.

 

[manifold]

But isn't that just a different way of imposing the same restrictions? I think I prefer zoning laws that can be more easily amended and adjusted as unforeseen things come up.

Zoning is a local issue.

But it also used to be that many business owners lived upstairs in the apartments they maintained above their shops.....Something outlawed by modern zoning codes.

Funny how these "new urbanism" and "smart growth" thingies work, huh?

In some places that is still allowed. Certainly it would not have been objected to by any libertarian. How in the world would somebody living in an apartment over their place of business violate anybody else's enjoyment or appreciation or value of their property? So any restrictions of that is an unacceptable law in my world.

I might be mistaken, but I don't think it's actually 'outlawed' as much as it's been rendered impractical by being zoned as commercial rather than residential, which carries significantly higher property tax rates.

 

[Oddball]

Zoning is a local issue.

But it also used to be that many business owners lived upstairs in the apartments they maintained above their shops.....Something outlawed by modern zoning codes.

Funny how these "new urbanism" and "smart growth" thingies work, huh?

In some places that is still allowed. Certainly it would not have been objected to by any libertarian. How in the world would somebody living in an apartment over their place of business violate anybody else's enjoyment or appreciation or value of their property? So any restrictions of that is an unacceptable law in my world.

I might be mistaken, but I don't think it's actually 'outlawed' as much as it's been rendered impractical by being zoned as commercial rather than residential, which carries significantly higher property tax rates.

Bingo.

This also drastically reduces the number of much vaunted. "affordable housing" units, which were available to employees working in the given businesses or in the neighborhoods, in those upstairs urban apartment complexes.

 

[bayoubill]

So the biggest flaw I find in Libertarianism is the belief that companies will regulate themselves, if simply left alone. History proves this is not the case.

The historical examples to which you allude are situations where companies gained an unfair advantage due to favorable governmental action of one sort or another...

If companies are left to fend for themselves, and sink or swim without any sort of legislative or other governmental action that favors them over others, then, yes, they will be effectively (and brutally) regulated by the marketplace...

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

If companies are left to fend for themselves, and sink or swim without any sort of legislative or other governmental action that favors them over others, then, yes, they will be effectively (and brutally) regulated by the marketplace...

Good point !!!. Consumer capitalist regulators send 10,000 companies into bankruptcy every month in their quest to only buy what they think is the best quality and price. Thats how we got from the stone age to here! Liberal regulation can only slow the brutal process down.


Libertarians and conservatives are pro capitalism and anti-business in the sense that they are willing to let 10,000 go bankrupt every month.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I can't find much to disagree with here. I'll just reiterate that agreement on the purpose of government is great, but that and bag of chips at best might cure the munchies (that seems to be a common ailment among my 'libertarian' friends ).

On the contrary, agreement on the purpose of government gets us a lot more than a bag of chips. It's what created the Constitution, which still stands as a bulwark against intrusive and expansive government - even as the original consensus has dissipated.

It is fair to point out we've lost much of that agreement, which is why I raise the issue so often here. I think the key to saving libertarian government is to reaffirm that fundamental agreement on the purpose of government. We need charismatic leaders who will remind us why constitutionally limited government is important, even to teach us what it means in the first place. Much of the discord we experience in politics is due to disagreement, or ignorance, on the basic principals of our government.

I wonder if you would agree to passing an ironclad law, or preferably a Constitutional amendment, that would forbid anyone in the federal government from using the people's money to benefit any group, entity, or demographic that does not benefit everybody else regardless of political affliliation or socioeconomic status?

That is the only way I see that we will ever return to a Constitutionally limited government.

What do you think the General Welfare clause is?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

What do you think the General Welfare clause is?

"Our tenet ever was that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money. ." - Thomas Jefferson




"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please...Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect.- Madison

"With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." --James Madison