The question libertarians just can’t answer

[kaz]

Fair enough. You're entitled to your opinion. And, apparently, your own custom definition of 'liberal'. In any case, given the way sellouts like you have betrayed the Libertarian movement by keeping it hopelessly mired in false Republican promises, I'll take your label happily. Meanwhile, you can enjoy being a 'neo-con'.

Now we've uncovered another term you don't understand. "neocon." The list grows...

When it comes to politics, you are what you vote for. I voted Libertarian. You?

Obama's not a Libertarian and Romney's not a neocon, you're not climbing your way out of the hole you dug yourself into.

 

[kaz]

That's a fun straw-man.

You've offered nothing but vacuous questions you seem to think are clever supported by lots of hand waiving, that's the fact. If you had any actual ideas, I'd be totally open to them. I'm cutting every function of government back in my views to those that removal of would clearly reduce and not increase my liberty. However, I won't make the leap that a magic solution will appear, it has to make sense.

Once we remove government, bad people will buy lots of guns and band together. You're arguing that good people will cooperate and hire private security and you have no idea how the rest is going to work. My post is pretty darned accurate regarding your "plan."

No, your post is conjecture and speculation. I merely say that people would be free to defend their property as they see fit. What form that takes I can't possibly say.

My questions weren't arbitrary, they were directed to the differences between libertarians, who want to minimize government to maximize liberty, and anarchists who always answer every question like you do with a non answer. So to recap, they covered:

Defense - your answer, you don't know
Police - your answer, you don't know
Criminal and civil courts - your answer you don't know
Limited resource (e.g., land, water) management - your answer, you don't know
Fire services - your answer, you don't know
Coordination to capture criminals who commit crimes and flee - your answer, you don't know.

Didn't cover roads or travel, but I'll assume by the trend, you don't know.

Those are things which unabated clearly reduce my liberty. Which is why until you or someone has an answer besides you don't know, I'll stick with government. And the rest of government we do know sucks, I'll continue to advocate we eliminate now.

You're really dull, unless you actually want to participate in a discussion, let's let this go.

 

[kaz]

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.

I'll ask you the same question I asked Kevin. What is the libertarian answer to pollution?

Because pollution gets into 'my shit'. It infringes on my rights, it infringes on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Ah, the old "libertarians are anarchists" bit. Unless we're talking about "pollution" which can be entirely contained on someone's own property, regulating pollution is a job for government. The basic premise of libertarianism is you have the right to do anything you want, as long as you don't infringe on other's right to do the same. If someone is sending their shit down my creek or their smog in my air, they are infringing on my liberty.

As for anarchists, they won't answer the question other then that they have no idea, but the problem will be magically solved. Kevin is typical of EVERY anarchists I've ever talked to. They give zero answers to any question and yet they claim every problem will be solved.

 

[kaz]

I'll ask you the same question I asked Kevin. What is the libertarian answer to pollution?

Because pollution gets into 'my shit'. It infringes on my rights, it infringes on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The libertarian point of view is that no person has the right to unreasonably pollute the air, water, soil, or aesthetic enjoyment of his neighbor. The sticky wicket is the 'unreasonable' part. The smoke from my fireplace may go into my neighbor's air space, but that could be ruled as reasonable. Water vapor could be considered pollution by some, but it's emission as steam from a factory could be ruled as reasonable, etc. A certain amount of heat released into a river from a nuclear reactor could be considered reasonble, but not beyond a specific point. etc. The normal noise resulting from property maintenance and living our lives is reasonable--hours of blaring rap music from outdoor quadraphonic speakers is not.

There should be severe and certain civil and legal consequences for one person polluting another person's space.

Libertarians are okay with that.

What they aren't okay with is some authority telling them by what means they must stop polluting their neighbor's space rather than allowing them to use the means that is best for them.

Oh, so we just have to be nice to polluters and then they will stop. Why didn't I think of that.

Maybe we should try the same tact with murderers, rapists and child molesters?

 

[Bfgrn]

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.

I'll ask you the same question I asked Kevin. What is the libertarian answer to pollution?

Because pollution gets into 'my shit'. It infringes on my rights, it infringes on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Ah, the old "libertarians are anarchists" bit. Unless we're talking about "pollution" which can be entirely contained on someone's own property, regulating pollution is a job for government. The basic premise of libertarianism is you have the right to do anything you want, as long as you don't infringe on other's right to do the same. If someone is sending their shit down my creek or their smog in my air, they are infringing on my liberty.

As for anarchists, they won't answer the question other then that they have no idea, but the problem will be magically solved. Kevin is typical of EVERY anarchists I've ever talked to. They give zero answers to any question and yet they claim every problem will be solved.

We agree. And I agree with Abraham Lincoln:

"The legitimate object of Government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves in their separate and individual capacities. But in all that people can individually do as well for themselves, Government ought not to interfere."
President Abraham Lincoln

 

[dblack]

Now we've uncovered another term you don't understand. "neocon." The list grows...

When it comes to politics, you are what you vote for. I voted Libertarian. You?

Obama's not a Libertarian and Romney's not a neocon, you're not climbing your way out of the hole you dug yourself into.

Where'd you get the idea I voted for Obama?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

regulating pollution is a job for government

Same could be said then regarding healthcare. Under the same guise as raising costs because of ER visits and other "harm" created by not having govt. preemptively "regulate" the market.

Same could be said regarding firearms.

This could be said under a host of reasons LOLberals use as evidence ofthe necessity of regulatory agencies.

What the govt. job is regarding pollution, is to arbitrate the conflict and enforce the rulings of those proceedings. If Dick is polluting the river and you can prove such, then you have grounds for holding dick liable. What the govt is not entitled to do, is develop guidelines for what Dick is allowed to do on his property pre-emptive to any malice that might affect his neighbors.

Otherwise, the govt. is doing the exact job it should be doing right now. And it's doing that job at the caliber that only government can do it - piss fuckin' poorly.

 

[FA_Q2]

If your approach is so great, why hasn’t any country anywhere in the world ever tried it?

Why are there no libertarian countries?

The U.S. was a libertarian country. Remember give me liberty or death? That doesn't exactly sound like Obama, now does it?

You realize I refuted that nonsensical question in the first post, right?

And yet that statement persists in a dozen threads about libertarianism. It is the knee jerk fallback along with yelling ANARCHIST that persists from almost all those that hate libertarianism without reason.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You've offered nothing but vacuous questions you seem to think are clever supported by lots of hand waiving, that's the fact. If you had any actual ideas, I'd be totally open to them. I'm cutting every function of government back in my views to those that removal of would clearly reduce and not increase my liberty. However, I won't make the leap that a magic solution will appear, it has to make sense.

Once we remove government, bad people will buy lots of guns and band together. You're arguing that good people will cooperate and hire private security and you have no idea how the rest is going to work. My post is pretty darned accurate regarding your "plan."

No, your post is conjecture and speculation. I merely say that people would be free to defend their property as they see fit. What form that takes I can't possibly say.

My questions weren't arbitrary, they were directed to the differences between libertarians, who want to minimize government to maximize liberty, and anarchists who always answer every question like you do with a non answer. So to recap, they covered:

Defense - your answer, you don't know
Police - your answer, you don't know
Criminal and civil courts - your answer you don't know
Limited resource (e.g., land, water) management - your answer, you don't know
Fire services - your answer, you don't know
Coordination to capture criminals who commit crimes and flee - your answer, you don't know.

Didn't cover roads or travel, but I'll assume by the trend, you don't know.

Those are things which unabated clearly reduce my liberty. Which is why until you or someone has an answer besides you don't know, I'll stick with government. And the rest of government we do know sucks, I'll continue to advocate we eliminate now.

You're really dull, unless you actually want to participate in a discussion, let's let this go.

Of course, you never explain why the market can't take care of any of that. You merely state that it can't. Also, you only ever brought up police, and I did state that it would likely look a lot like private security agencies look now. That's not exactly difficult to conceive. Private fire departments already exist as well. They generally charge an annual or monthly fee to customers, and if somebody hasn't paid their fee prior to their house catching fire the department will put out the fire but charge them more for doing so. Limited resources are best "managed" by well-defined property rights, as any libertarian worth their salt should know. We also have widespread private courts, where two parties come together and mediate an issue rather than going through the public court system. This is big in the business world. Capturing criminals and coordination is easy, just put a reward up for their capture.

I would like to repeat, of course, that this is only speculation about how these things could operate. Unlike you, I don't pretend to be omniscient.

 

[dblack]

regulating pollution is a job for government

Same could be said then regarding healthcare.

I have to disagree here. Regulating the commons is a job for government. Healthcare isn't communal property. Air, water, etc... are, and as such it's within the bounds of properly limited government to regulate them.

'Regulate' is a 'dogshit' word for we libertarians, because it's usually used to advance a statist agenda, but there is a place for it. And pollution of the commons seems, to me, an appropriate application. I don't think it's reasonable or necessary to rely on civil suits to prevent abuse.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

regulating pollution is a job for government

Same could be said then regarding healthcare.

I have to disagree here. Regulating the commons is a job for government. Healthcare isn't communal property. Air, water, etc... are, and as such it's within the bounds of properly limited government to regulate them.

'Regulate' is a 'dogshit' word for we libertarians, because it's usually used to advance a statist agenda, but there is a place for it. And pollution of the commons seems, to me, an appropriate application. I don't think it's reasonable or necessary to rely on civil suits to prevent abuse.

It might not seem reasonable or necessary, but if you want a limited govt (something we havent figured out how to do) then it is necessary.
It's always used to further the State apparatus. It always starts out as just a little bit at first. Then tghe next thing you know you have the EPA, FDA, CDA, CDC, etc..etc...etc...

Only in tyhe world where the state can be effectively limited is this workable, and it's been proven it can not be limited. Therefore, it's absurd to grant these powers to government. We'd have to let them regulate commerce, environment, healthcare, etc..etc..etc..

And pollution of the commons is very arbitrarily decided. So it's ripe for abuse from the get go.

 

[kaz]

No, your post is conjecture and speculation. I merely say that people would be free to defend their property as they see fit. What form that takes I can't possibly say.

My questions weren't arbitrary, they were directed to the differences between libertarians, who want to minimize government to maximize liberty, and anarchists who always answer every question like you do with a non answer. So to recap, they covered:

Defense - your answer, you don't know
Police - your answer, you don't know
Criminal and civil courts - your answer you don't know
Limited resource (e.g., land, water) management - your answer, you don't know
Fire services - your answer, you don't know
Coordination to capture criminals who commit crimes and flee - your answer, you don't know.

Didn't cover roads or travel, but I'll assume by the trend, you don't know.

Those are things which unabated clearly reduce my liberty. Which is why until you or someone has an answer besides you don't know, I'll stick with government. And the rest of government we do know sucks, I'll continue to advocate we eliminate now.

You're really dull, unless you actually want to participate in a discussion, let's let this go.

Of course, you never explain why the market can't take care of any of that. You merely state that it can't. Also, you only ever brought up police, and I did state that it would likely look a lot like private security agencies look now. That's not exactly difficult to conceive. Private fire departments already exist as well. They generally charge an annual or monthly fee to customers, and if somebody hasn't paid their fee prior to their house catching fire the department will put out the fire but charge them more for doing so. Limited resources are best "managed" by well-defined property rights, as any libertarian worth their salt should know. We also have widespread private courts, where two parties come together and mediate an issue rather than going through the public court system. This is big in the business world. Capturing criminals and coordination is easy, just put a reward up for their capture.

I would like to repeat, of course, that this is only speculation about how these things could operate. Unlike you, I don't pretend to be omniscient.

My choices are no idea and omniscience. Got it. To address the vague ones you brought up here.

"police, and I did state that it would likely look a lot like private security agencies look now"

- OK, on the Bonanza set, this makes sense. But in the real world when say inner city gangs with automatic weapons extort my neighbors and me, that we're going to end up doing this to this level is a bit lacking in scope to be a realistic defense. We're going to live in terror or we're going to be doing way more work than having a police force to manage it.

"Private fire departments already exist as well"

- While it's realistic in many places, it's not in cities. However, if fire departments were the only reason for government to exist, then I'd be OK doing away with it.

"Limited resources are best "managed" by well-defined property rights, as any libertarian worth their salt should know"

- Begging the question. The question is how there can be well-defined property rights when there is no general recognition of property rights. Different voluntary organizations recognize different boundaries, different water rights and other management of limited resources doesn't address how that works when they disagree.

"We also have widespread private courts, where two parties come together and mediate an issue rather than going through the public court system"

- On your Bonanza set fantasy world, sure. But if one person defrauds another person or destroys their property, Virginia, they aren't going to agree to arbitration. So what are you going to do?

"This is big in the business world. Capturing criminals and coordination is easy, just put a reward up for their capture."

This shows the childlike simplicity of the anarchist mind. Let's start with the most obvious. OK, so how does anyone know that bounties offered are for actual crimes? By that system, anyone could put a bounty on anyone for any reason. You're arguing well for why we DO need a government.

"Of course, you never explain why the market can't take care of any of that. You merely state that it can't"

- Actually I"m giving you the examples that I don't know how would be done, and asking you since your position is that we don't need government. That you're sitting there expecting me to prove your view explains the difficulty I'm having getting specfiics.

 

[kaz]

regulating pollution is a job for government

Same could be said then regarding healthcare

...

Same could be said regarding firearms.

...

This could be said under a host of reasons LOLberals use as evidence ofthe necessity of regulatory agencies.

No, it can't. The question was to libertarians, and our premise is that everyone can do what they want as long as they don't infringe on other's right to do the same. Someone polluting our property violates that premise. Your examples don't.

 

[Erand7899]

I'll ask you the same question I asked Kevin. What is the libertarian answer to pollution?

Because pollution gets into 'my shit'. It infringes on my rights, it infringes on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Ah, the old "libertarians are anarchists" bit. Unless we're talking about "pollution" which can be entirely contained on someone's own property, regulating pollution is a job for government. The basic premise of libertarianism is you have the right to do anything you want, as long as you don't infringe on other's right to do the same. If someone is sending their shit down my creek or their smog in my air, they are infringing on my liberty.

As for anarchists, they won't answer the question other then that they have no idea, but the problem will be magically solved. Kevin is typical of EVERY anarchists I've ever talked to. They give zero answers to any question and yet they claim every problem will be solved.

We agree. And I agree with Abraham Lincoln:

"The legitimate object of Government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves in their separate and individual capacities. But in all that people can individually do as well for themselves, Government ought not to interfere."
President Abraham Lincoln

I also agree with Abraham Lincoln, but only in so much as government is a multi-tiered entity. All governmental interference should be at the lowest level of government possible, consistent with effective and efficient results. That means that all services provided to citizens should be by local government whenever feasible, state government when necessary, and rarely, if ever, by the federal government.

If we held to that model, we would not even be having this discussion.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

regulating pollution is a job for government

Same could be said then regarding healthcare

...

Same could be said regarding firearms.

...

This could be said under a host of reasons LOLberals use as evidence ofthe necessity of regulatory agencies.

No, it can't. The question was to libertarians, and our premise is that everyone can do what they want as long as they don't infringe on other's right to do the same. Someone polluting our property violates that premise. Your examples don't.

They most certainly can be.

Firearms. Someone fires off a gun on their porperty, misses the target and hits your cattle. It's the same exact premise. Then it could be argued that we need regulation to make sure that people aren't firing their arms off as it could violate someone's property. Just as one example. Or that they shoud have to take safety courses in order to own the firearms.

I didn't say the govt should do nothing. Their role is to protect property/individual rights. if they are regulating pre-emptively, then it's doing the job you want to see. Just over the extent to which you wish to see it done.

otherwise they are responsible for the arbitration of an infringement, not the pre-empive enforcement of things that could potentially lead to an infringement.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

My questions weren't arbitrary, they were directed to the differences between libertarians, who want to minimize government to maximize liberty, and anarchists who always answer every question like you do with a non answer. So to recap, they covered:

Defense - your answer, you don't know
Police - your answer, you don't know
Criminal and civil courts - your answer you don't know
Limited resource (e.g., land, water) management - your answer, you don't know
Fire services - your answer, you don't know
Coordination to capture criminals who commit crimes and flee - your answer, you don't know.

Didn't cover roads or travel, but I'll assume by the trend, you don't know.

Those are things which unabated clearly reduce my liberty. Which is why until you or someone has an answer besides you don't know, I'll stick with government. And the rest of government we do know sucks, I'll continue to advocate we eliminate now.

You're really dull, unless you actually want to participate in a discussion, let's let this go.

Of course, you never explain why the market can't take care of any of that. You merely state that it can't. Also, you only ever brought up police, and I did state that it would likely look a lot like private security agencies look now. That's not exactly difficult to conceive. Private fire departments already exist as well. They generally charge an annual or monthly fee to customers, and if somebody hasn't paid their fee prior to their house catching fire the department will put out the fire but charge them more for doing so. Limited resources are best "managed" by well-defined property rights, as any libertarian worth their salt should know. We also have widespread private courts, where two parties come together and mediate an issue rather than going through the public court system. This is big in the business world. Capturing criminals and coordination is easy, just put a reward up for their capture.

I would like to repeat, of course, that this is only speculation about how these things could operate. Unlike you, I don't pretend to be omniscient.

My choices are no idea and omniscience. Got it. To address the vague ones you brought up here.

"police, and I did state that it would likely look a lot like private security agencies look now"

- OK, on the Bonanza set, this makes sense. But in the real world when say inner city gangs with automatic weapons extort my neighbors and me, that we're going to end up doing this to this level is a bit lacking in scope to be a realistic defense. We're going to live in terror or we're going to be doing way more work than having a police force to manage it.

"Private fire departments already exist as well"

- While it's realistic in many places, it's not in cities. However, if fire departments were the only reason for government to exist, then I'd be OK doing away with it.

"Limited resources are best "managed" by well-defined property rights, as any libertarian worth their salt should know"

- Begging the question. The question is how there can be well-defined property rights when there is no general recognition of property rights. Different voluntary organizations recognize different boundaries, different water rights and other management of limited resources doesn't address how that works when they disagree.

"We also have widespread private courts, where two parties come together and mediate an issue rather than going through the public court system"

- On your Bonanza set fantasy world, sure. But if one person defrauds another person or destroys their property, Virginia, they aren't going to agree to arbitration. So what are you going to do?

"This is big in the business world. Capturing criminals and coordination is easy, just put a reward up for their capture."

This shows the childlike simplicity of the anarchist mind. Let's start with the most obvious. OK, so how does anyone know that bounties offered are for actual crimes? By that system, anyone could put a bounty on anyone for any reason. You're arguing well for why we DO need a government.

"Of course, you never explain why the market can't take care of any of that. You merely state that it can't"

- Actually I"m giving you the examples that I don't know how would be done, and asking you since your position is that we don't need government. That you're sitting there expecting me to prove your view explains the difficulty I'm having getting specfiics.

Inner city ghettos are a result of government interference in the first place. Allow these people to contract for real jobs without punishing them with minimum wage laws, or drug laws, and suddenly they have no reason to resort to violence. That said, there's no reason private security agencies, who have a profit motive to keep you and your property safe, would do any worse than police departments now, who don't have such a motive. Other than your little "Bonanza" quip, of course.

Here we go again. "Private fire departments aren't realistic in big cities." Why?

When there's a disagreement about property rights you go to the courts. Obviously.

It would be in everybody's interest to defend themselves in legitimate, reputable courts, lest they be branded criminals. Courts wouldn't require that you show up and defend yourself, but not doing so seems particularly foolhardy.

Responsible bounty hunters would only go through reputable bounty agencies. Otherwise they risk becoming criminals themselves.

No, you merely shoot down any explanation as not being "realistic" or as being "Bonanza" without explaining why they wouldn't work.

 

[kaz]

Same could be said then regarding healthcare

...

Same could be said regarding firearms.

...

This could be said under a host of reasons LOLberals use as evidence ofthe necessity of regulatory agencies.

No, it can't. The question was to libertarians, and our premise is that everyone can do what they want as long as they don't infringe on other's right to do the same. Someone polluting our property violates that premise. Your examples don't.

They most certainly can be.

Firearms. Someone fires off a gun on their porperty, misses the target and hits your cattle. It's the same exact premise. Then it could be argued that we need regulation to make sure that people aren't firing their arms off as it could violate someone's property. Just as one example. Or that they shoud have to take safety courses in order to own the firearms.

Someone dumping their raw sewage in my water or blowing their smoke onto my property IS infringing on my rights.

Someone owning a gun isn't. Someone shooting a gun and it and hitting my cow is. Therefore, the apples to apples comparison is they are responsible for shooting my cow is where they infringed on my rights and what they should be accountable for.

I didn't say the govt should do nothing. Their role is to protect property/individual rights. if they are regulating pre-emptively, then it's doing the job you want to see. Just over the extent to which you wish to see it done.

No, it's not. That something could be used to infringe on my rights is an entirely different argument that could be applied to anything, and is meaningless. A book can be used to infringe on my rights. You've taken a clear standard and turned it into a murky one. There is no comparison.

otherwise they are responsible for the arbitration of an infringement, not the pre-empive enforcement of things that could potentially lead to an infringement.

Ding, ding, ding, this is the apples to apples standard. In the pollution, they were not accountable for the potential to infringe on my rights, they were responsible for infringing on my rights.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Someone dumping their raw sewage in my water or blowing their smoke onto my property IS infringing on my rights.

Someone owning a gun isn't. Someone shooting a gun and it and hitting my cow is. Therefore, the apples to apples comparison is they are responsible for shooting my cow is where they infringed on my rights and what they should be accountable for.

Apples to oranges. Obviously pouring sewage in teh water is an infringement of your rights. Obviously having sewage is not infringing on your rights. That's the whoel point, dude. Shoud the government tell Dick how to deal with his sewage? Should there be an enforcement team that comes by and makes sure Dick is following procedure with the sewage, or is it a matter of arbitration IF Dick is found dumping in the water, then you take dick to court.

Same applies with the gun. Owning one is not an infringement of your right. Same with sewage. Shooting one off where your property has been damaged is an infringement and therefore, the courts arbitrate as such and enforce the outcome of the proceedings.

No, it's not. That something could be used to infringe on my rights is an entirely different argument that could be applied to anything, and is meaningless. A book can be used to infringe on my rights. You've taken a clear standard and turned it into a murky one. There is no comparison.

That's the point. You're the one not being consistent here. Yes, a book, like sewage, could infringe on your rights. Thats why we have courts to make determinations who is liable and at what cost they are liable. The only difference you're arguing here is that you think govt should regulate the use of land to pre-emptively curtail any POTENTIAL infringement, while the same standard isnt applied to guns or books.

Ding, ding, ding, this is the apples to apples standard. In the pollution, they were not accountable for the potential to infringe on my rights, they were responsible for infringing on my rights.

Yet, you said it's the govt job to regulate pollution. So which is it. Do you want them to arbitrate the act of infringing or to pre-emptively regulate so that we may curtail a potential infringement. You're the one not being clear here.

 

[Synthaholic]

regulating pollution is a job for government

Same could be said then regarding healthcare.

I have to disagree here. Regulating the commons is a job for government. Healthcare isn't communal property. Air, water, etc... are, and as such it's within the bounds of properly limited government to regulate them.

'Regulate' is a 'dogshit' word for we libertarians, because it's usually used to advance a statist agenda, but there is a place for it. And pollution of the commons seems, to me, an appropriate application. I don't think it's reasonable or necessary to rely on civil suits to prevent abuse.

Healthcare costs are certainly communal, when people without insurance go to emergency rooms for minor ailments.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Same could be said then regarding healthcare.

I have to disagree here. Regulating the commons is a job for government. Healthcare isn't communal property. Air, water, etc... are, and as such it's within the bounds of properly limited government to regulate them.

'Regulate' is a 'dogshit' word for we libertarians, because it's usually used to advance a statist agenda, but there is a place for it. And pollution of the commons seems, to me, an appropriate application. I don't think it's reasonable or necessary to rely on civil suits to prevent abuse.

Healthcare costs are certainly communal, when people without insurance go to emergency rooms for minor ailments.

Thanks for bringing in the LOLberal argument for me. See, dblack? This is why the line has to be extremely clear upon which powers belong to the government over the individual. If not, it quickly turns into these types of arguments about communal property. Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

People like synth here, can sway the average 90 or less IQ citizen to see that as rational and therefore, get govt. involved in regulating or downright taking over things such as healthcare.