The question libertarians just can’t answer

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Cap and trade is a 'market' based solution to pollution. As opposed to traditional command-and-control regulation.

No, it isn't. It is a government created distortion of the market.

Look it up.

Don't need to.

 

[Bfgrn]

Which does not justify the idea of a social contract in any way whatsoever. That people can freely contract, explicitly, with one another to defend one another has never been in question. Social contract theory says that people can be forced to defend, or pay to defend, others against their will, which is not what Bastiat is referring to in the above quote at all.

The more I talk to you self proclaimed libertarians, when certain 'words' are used you folks act like you are stepping in dogshit, even when they are describing the same concepts. There must be a list somewhere of libertarian dog shit words. Social is one of them.

Not correct. Society is wonderful. Social contract, however, has an actual meaning that has nothing to do with what Bastiat was describing in your quote.

Anything with the word 'social' to a libertarian is like a bell to Pavlov's dogs.

And to you anarchists anything with the word 'government' sends you seeking the solace of Banzai Cliffs in Saipan.

 

[Bfgrn]

No, it isn't. It is a government created distortion of the market.

Look it up.

Don't need to.

What is the 'libertarian' solution to pollution?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The more I talk to you self proclaimed libertarians, when certain 'words' are used you folks act like you are stepping in dogshit, even when they are describing the same concepts. There must be a list somewhere of libertarian dog shit words. Social is one of them.

Not correct. Society is wonderful. Social contract, however, has an actual meaning that has nothing to do with what Bastiat was describing in your quote.

Anything with the word 'social' to a libertarian is like a bell to Pavlov's dogs.

And to you anarchists anything with the word 'government' sends you seeking the solace of Banzai Cliffs in Saipan.

Just repeating the same incorrect nonsense isn't going to make it true.

A Libertarian Ode to Society | Mere Liberty

 

[Foxfyre]

Oddball and Kevin reject the concept of a community organizing itself to have a publicly funded school system or a publicly funded police force or a publicly funded fire district or a public water or sewer system in which all who are included in the incorporated area have equal right to benefit and all are expected to contribute to through their taxes or fees for service.

Perhaps they sees his local community requiring him to pay taxes or mandatory fees to fund city services as illegally coercive? Every one of those concepts is via social contract by consent of the majority of citizens who were there at the time they agreed to have the service.

It starts out with widely separated farms and ranches with undeveloped land filling in as more people take up farming. And then some enterprising soul figures out that opening a grocery store in the vicinity would be profitable as all the farmers would use it at least some of time rather than drive long distances to the nearest city. Then a hardware store, a gas station, barber shop, repair shop, etc. etc. etc., all driven by profit motive, start opening up. Eventually you have a small unincorporated community serving the area. Pretty soon you have enough folks to buy a fire truck and organize a volunteer fire department that brings down everybody's fire insurance premiums or allows them to get fire insurance at all. And then it makes sense to incorporate the village and have a city hall providing various necessary licenses and permits, etc. along with a public employee to handle the paperwork. They hire a cop to look after everybody's property and handle the drunk and disorderly.

Every step of the way it is mutual agreement, i.e. social contract, by a majority to better the quality of life, protect property, and improve security for all.

And every step of the way there are bound to be some who just don't want to do it.

There are no easy answers how to handle those who don't want to do it. Grandfathering out is one option and probably the one most utilized in the beginning. But should the unwillingness of some to agree to the social contract justify the others being unable to do it? And pass laws and rules beneficial to all? And is it coercive then to require newcomers to bend to the will of the majority already there?

Here is where Oddball and Kevin and I get crossways. In their mind they seem unable to separate the concept of social contract from mob rule and/or government dictatorship. And it is not the same thing.

And I seem to be failing miserably in explaining it to them.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Look it up.

Don't need to.

What is the 'libertarian' solution to pollution?

Private property rights. Pollution violates the private property rights that people have in their own bodies. As such, government schemes which allow some arbitrary percentage of pollution, or that allows companies to trade pollution certificates are actually less stringent regulations on pollution than libertarians would support.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Oddball and Kevin reject the concept of a community organizing itself to have a publicly funded school system or a publicly funded police force or a publicly funded fire district or a public water or sewer system in which all who are included in the incorporated area have equal right to benefit and all are expected to contribute to through their taxes or fees for service.

Perhaps they sees his local community requiring him to pay taxes or mandatory fees to fund city services as illegally coercive? Every one of those concepts is via social contract by consent of the majority of citizens who were there at the time they agreed to have the service.

It starts out with widely separated farms and ranches with undeveloped land filling in as more people take up farming. And then some enterprising soul figures out that opening a grocery store in the vicinity would be profitable as all the farmers would use it at least some of time rather than drive long distances to the nearest city. Then a hardware store, a gas station, barber shop, repair shop, etc. etc. etc., all driven by profit motive, start opening up. Eventually you have a small unincorporated community serving the area. Pretty soon you have enough folks to buy a fire truck and organize a volunteer fire department that brings down everybody's fire insurance premiums or allows them to get fire insurance at all. And then it makes sense to incorporate the village and have a city hall providing various necessary licenses and permits, etc. along with a public employee to handle the paperwork. They hire a cop to look after everybody's property and handle the drunk and disorderly.

Every step of the way it is mutual agreement, i.e. social contract, by a majority to better the quality of life, protect property, and improve security for all.

And every step of the way there are bound to be some who just don't want to do it.

There are no easy answers how to handle those who don't want to do it. Grandfathering out is one option and probably the one most utilized in the beginning. But should the unwillingness of some to agree to the social contract justify the others being unable to do it? And pass laws and rules beneficial to all? And is it coercive then to require newcomers to bend to the will of the majority already there?

Here is where Oddball and Kevin and I get crossways. In their mind he seems unable to separate the concept of social contract from mob rule and/or government dictatorship. And it is not the same thing.

And I seem to be failing miserably in explaining it to them.

You're correct that we see the social contract as nothing more than mob rule. Perhaps, however, it's Oddball and I that are failing to explain why that is to you.

 

[kaz]

The more I talk to you self proclaimed libertarians, when certain 'words' are used you folks act like you are stepping in dogshit, even when they are describing the same concepts. There must be a list somewhere of libertarian dog shit words. Social is one of them.

Heh... some truth to that.

Of course, liberals have their own 'dogshit' words ('individual', 'freedom', etc..)

Oh. I see, the extremism of libertarians must be explained away as everyone else is also extreme. Liberals do not subscribe to the right wing definitions applied to them. Liberals have no problem with 'individual' or 'freedom'. As a matter of fact liberals strongly believe in individual excellence, personal distinction and freedom.

I look forward to a world which will be safe not only for democracy and diversity but also for personal distinction.
President John F. Kennedy

The Greek definition of happiness is full use of ones powers along the lines of excellence.
President John F. Kennedy

Live and let live. Stay out of my shit and I'll stay out of yours. Everyone has the right to do what they want as long as they don't infringe on other's rights. Government should not take people's property by force. Government should not tell us what to do with our bodies. The military should just defend the US and not get involved in other people's business.

If you think about it libertarians are actually the moderates.

 

[kaz]

Oddball and Kevin reject the concept of a community organizing itself to have a publicly funded school system or a publicly funded police force or a publicly funded fire district or a public water or sewer system in which all who are included in the incorporated area have equal right to benefit and all are expected to contribute to through their taxes or fees for service.

Perhaps they sees his local community requiring him to pay taxes or mandatory fees to fund city services as illegally coercive? Every one of those concepts is via social contract by consent of the majority of citizens who were there at the time they agreed to have the service.

It starts out with widely separated farms and ranches with undeveloped land filling in as more people take up farming. And then some enterprising soul figures out that opening a grocery store in the vicinity would be profitable as all the farmers would use it at least some of time rather than drive long distances to the nearest city. Then a hardware store, a gas station, barber shop, repair shop, etc. etc. etc., all driven by profit motive, start opening up. Eventually you have a small unincorporated community serving the area. Pretty soon you have enough folks to buy a fire truck and organize a volunteer fire department that brings down everybody's fire insurance premiums or allows them to get fire insurance at all. And then it makes sense to incorporate the village and have a city hall providing various necessary licenses and permits, etc. along with a public employee to handle the paperwork. They hire a cop to look after everybody's property and handle the drunk and disorderly.

Every step of the way it is mutual agreement, i.e. social contract, by a majority to better the quality of life, protect property, and improve security for all.

And every step of the way there are bound to be some who just don't want to do it.

There are no easy answers how to handle those who don't want to do it. Grandfathering out is one option and probably the one most utilized in the beginning. But should the unwillingness of some to agree to the social contract justify the others being unable to do it? And pass laws and rules beneficial to all? And is it coercive then to require newcomers to bend to the will of the majority already there?

Here is where Oddball and Kevin and I get crossways. In their mind he seems unable to separate the concept of social contract from mob rule and/or government dictatorship. And it is not the same thing.

And I seem to be failing miserably in explaining it to them.

You're correct that we see the social contract as nothing more than mob rule. Perhaps, however, it's Oddball and I that are failing to explain why that is to you.

At least foxfyre and oddball are trying. You're just saying that a solution will magically appear. You don't know ... exactly ... how it will work, so you can't tell us ... anything ... about how it will work.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Oddball and Kevin reject the concept of a community organizing itself to have a publicly funded school system or a publicly funded police force or a publicly funded fire district or a public water or sewer system in which all who are included in the incorporated area have equal right to benefit and all are expected to contribute to through their taxes or fees for service.

Perhaps they sees his local community requiring him to pay taxes or mandatory fees to fund city services as illegally coercive? Every one of those concepts is via social contract by consent of the majority of citizens who were there at the time they agreed to have the service.

It starts out with widely separated farms and ranches with undeveloped land filling in as more people take up farming. And then some enterprising soul figures out that opening a grocery store in the vicinity would be profitable as all the farmers would use it at least some of time rather than drive long distances to the nearest city. Then a hardware store, a gas station, barber shop, repair shop, etc. etc. etc., all driven by profit motive, start opening up. Eventually you have a small unincorporated community serving the area. Pretty soon you have enough folks to buy a fire truck and organize a volunteer fire department that brings down everybody's fire insurance premiums or allows them to get fire insurance at all. And then it makes sense to incorporate the village and have a city hall providing various necessary licenses and permits, etc. along with a public employee to handle the paperwork. They hire a cop to look after everybody's property and handle the drunk and disorderly.

Every step of the way it is mutual agreement, i.e. social contract, by a majority to better the quality of life, protect property, and improve security for all.

And every step of the way there are bound to be some who just don't want to do it.

There are no easy answers how to handle those who don't want to do it. Grandfathering out is one option and probably the one most utilized in the beginning. But should the unwillingness of some to agree to the social contract justify the others being unable to do it? And pass laws and rules beneficial to all? And is it coercive then to require newcomers to bend to the will of the majority already there?

Here is where Oddball and Kevin and I get crossways. In their mind he seems unable to separate the concept of social contract from mob rule and/or government dictatorship. And it is not the same thing.

And I seem to be failing miserably in explaining it to them.

You're correct that we see the social contract as nothing more than mob rule. Perhaps, however, it's Oddball and I that are failing to explain why that is to you.

At least foxfyre and oddball are trying. You're just saying that a solution will magically appear. You don't know ... exactly ... how it will work, so you can't tell us ... anything ... about how it will work.

I'm not going to pretend to be omniscient, sorry. Though the post you quoted is a separate discussion entirely from the one you're referring to.

 

[Synthaholic]

To demonstrate:
WHO is a libertarian, and who is not? Names in the public discourse, please. Discuss.

Perpetual candidate/loser Gary Johnson.


...and that's it.

 

[kaz]

You're correct that we see the social contract as nothing more than mob rule. Perhaps, however, it's Oddball and I that are failing to explain why that is to you.

At least foxfyre and oddball are trying. You're just saying that a solution will magically appear. You don't know ... exactly ... how it will work, so you can't tell us ... anything ... about how it will work.

I'm not going to pretend to be omniscient, sorry. Though the post you quoted is a separate discussion entirely from the one you're referring to.

That certainly would have taken my career a long way when I was in management and management consulting.

Interesting proposal kaz, what's your plan? How will that work?

What!?!? Do you think I'm omniscient? We just do it and then the solution will appear! It involves private security or something, how the heck am I supposed to know how it's going to work????

Now that I own my own company, I suppose I could approaching planning that way. I'm not going to though....

 

[dblack]

Look it up.

Don't need to.

What is the 'libertarian' solution to pollution?

Libertarians aren't opposed to the commons in principle (though they will often object to the extent others would take the concept). I don't know any of them who would seriously entertain the idea that the air we breathe should be private property, for example.

And to the extent that government maintains a commons it should endeavor to keep it clean and usable by everyone. But we lean more toward punishing those who pollute, rather than dictating general behavior in the name of limiting pollution. Pollution of the commons isn't an area where libertarian ideas offer any 'easy' solutions in my view.

 

[kaz]

To demonstrate:
WHO is a libertarian, and who is not? Names in the public discourse, please. Discuss.

Perpetual candidate/loser Gary Johnson.


...and that's it.

We agree on that. I was totally unimpressed. He seemed to me like a tertiary libertarian at best who wanted some attention, so he went to the party that nominated him for the attention. Second election in a row the "libertarians" did that. Bob Barr a Libertarian, right.

Libertarians telling me they couldn't vote Republican, so they voted for Republicans running as Libertarians are frankly for me hard to take seriously.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

At least foxfyre and oddball are trying. You're just saying that a solution will magically appear. You don't know ... exactly ... how it will work, so you can't tell us ... anything ... about how it will work.

I'm not going to pretend to be omniscient, sorry. Though the post you quoted is a separate discussion entirely from the one you're referring to.

That certainly would have taken my career a long way when I was in management and management consulting.

Interesting proposal kaz, what's your plan? How will that work?

What!?!? Do you think I'm omniscient? We just do it and then the solution will appear! It involves private security or something, how the heck am I supposed to know how it's going to work????

Now that I own my own company, I suppose I could approaching planning that way. I'm not going to though....

That's a fun straw-man.

 

[flacaltenn]

No mention of any "social contract" there, junior....Just free people coming together to form voluntary associations, with no mention of compelling others to join in...Coercing others into the association being, of course, base premise of the modern "social contract".

You really, really suck at this...Best go play with your Legos.

Have the butler explain it to you. Tell him not to use the word bound pea brain definition. The words 'social contract' do not appear, but the concept is very clearly supported.


"If every person has the right to defend even by force — his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right."
Frédéric Bastiat

That's the tragedy of reading the Cliff Note version.. OR the results of willful editing..

FoxFyre had the relevent full quote a couple pages back....

"If every person has the right to defend -- even by force -- his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right -- its reason for existing, its lawfulness -- is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force -- for the same reason -- cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups."

Which was it BFgrn?? Willful editing or lazy vetting?

Clearly the conclusion aligns PERFECTLY with the non-initiation of force belief behind libertarians.. Pretty good swipe at your Dear Collectivism arguments.. Thanks for playing..

 

[dblack]

To demonstrate:
WHO is a libertarian, and who is not? Names in the public discourse, please. Discuss.

Perpetual candidate/loser Gary Johnson.


...and that's it.

We agree on that. I was totally unimpressed. He seemed to me like a tertiary libertarian at best who wanted some attention, so he went to the party that nominated him for the attention. Second election in a row the "libertarians" did that. Bob Barr a Libertarian, right.

Libertarians telling me they couldn't vote Republican, so they voted for Republicans running as Libertarians are frankly for me hard to take seriously.

Really? You voted for Romney and you're willing to badmouth libertarians who voted for Johnson???

I'd say I agreed with Johnson on approximately 90% of the issues. With Romney on approximately 10%. If you throw in the rest of the party platform and the fact that the party as a whole is still dominated by neocons - it's a no brainer.

 

[Bfgrn]

Don't need to.

What is the 'libertarian' solution to pollution?

Private property rights. Pollution violates the private property rights that people have in their own bodies. As such, government schemes which allow some arbitrary percentage of pollution, or that allows companies to trade pollution certificates are actually less stringent regulations on pollution than libertarians would support.

Private property rights? Hey Kevin, WHAT CEO lives at his polluting factory? Or even in the same country? Does pollution respect 'property' boundaries? Does pollution respect state boundaries??

You need to come up with a plan for externalities.

 

[kaz]

Perpetual candidate/loser Gary Johnson.


...and that's it.

We agree on that. I was totally unimpressed. He seemed to me like a tertiary libertarian at best who wanted some attention, so he went to the party that nominated him for the attention. Second election in a row the "libertarians" did that. Bob Barr a Libertarian, right.

Libertarians telling me they couldn't vote Republican, so they voted for Republicans running as Libertarians are frankly for me hard to take seriously.

Really? You voted for Romney and you're willing to badmouth libertarians who voted for Johnson???

That's not what I said. Seriously, you just skim posts, you don't read them do you? I'm tired of repeating points that you don't read either. If you want to address what I actually said, I'm here.

I'd say I agreed with Johnson on approximately 90% of the issues. With Romney on approximately 10%. If you throw in the rest of the party platform and the fact that the party as a whole is still dominated by neocons - it's a no brainer.

You're a liberal who's a libertarian wanna be, so those percents sound about right. And Johnson's views become a lot more kosher when he changed what nomination he was seeking.

 

[Bfgrn]

No mention of any "social contract" there, junior....Just free people coming together to form voluntary associations, with no mention of compelling others to join in...Coercing others into the association being, of course, base premise of the modern "social contract".

You really, really suck at this...Best go play with your Legos.

Have the butler explain it to you. Tell him not to use the word bound pea brain definition. The words 'social contract' do not appear, but the concept is very clearly supported.


"If every person has the right to defend even by force — his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right."
Frédéric Bastiat

That's the tragedy of reading the Cliff Note version.. OR the results of willful editing..

FoxFyre had the relevent full quote a couple pages back....

"If every person has the right to defend -- even by force -- his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right -- its reason for existing, its lawfulness -- is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force -- for the same reason -- cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups."

Which was it BFgrn?? Willful editing or lazy vetting?

Clearly the conclusion aligns PERFECTLY with the non-initiation of force belief behind libertarians.. Pretty good swipe at your Dear Collectivism arguments.. Thanks for playing..

The added context does not change the premise AT ALL:

1) a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force.

2) Thus the principle of collective right -- its reason for existing, its lawfulness -- is based on individual right.