The question libertarians just can’t answer

[TakeAStepBack]

Did someone force you to buy the property in that particular community?

If your neighbor dumped his trash on your lawn would you say, "Well, nobody forced me to live here"? Of course not. The fact that it's my property means that I shouldn't be forced to vacate just because a group of my neighbors want to force me to pay for stuff that they want.

But does your right to your property allow you to lower the property value and quality of life for your neighbors?

Yes it does.

Quality of life is rather vague in that regard. I mean, if you adore willow trees but your neighbor is allergic to them, should you be allowed to plant them? Or is this an infringement on their quality of life?

If you work on cars and have an abundance of junkers and tires, which in turn lowers (even if only from the time of appraisal) the neighbors value, do you have the right to tell them to either clean up, leave or face fines?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Did someone force you to buy the property in that particular community?

If your neighbor dumped his trash on your lawn would you say, "Well, nobody forced me to live here"? Of course not. The fact that it's my property means that I shouldn't be forced to vacate just because a group of my neighbors want to force me to pay for stuff that they want.

But does your right to your property allow you to lower the property value and quality of life for your neighbors?

As both are subjective notions there's no way to even address that concern. For example, a neighbor flying a Mexican flag might lower the value of the property in some people's eyes. Should they be forced to put their flag away? Any line you draw in that regard would be completely arbitrary. Better to just protect everybody's absolute right to use their property as they see fit.

 

[Foxfyre]

If your neighbor dumped his trash on your lawn would you say, "Well, nobody forced me to live here"? Of course not. The fact that it's my property means that I shouldn't be forced to vacate just because a group of my neighbors want to force me to pay for stuff that they want.

But does your right to your property allow you to lower the property value and quality of life for your neighbors?

As both are subjective notions there's no way to even address that concern. For example, a neighbor flying a Mexican flag might lower the value of the property in some people's eyes. Should they be forced to put their flag away? Any line you draw in that regard would be completely arbitrary. Better to just protect everybody's absolute right to use their property as they see fit.

But you see--and I am drawing subjective and personal assumptions here so please forgive me for that--I hear you say that and it says to me that you are refusing the see the larger picture or any concept other than your absolute position on this.

That Mexican flag might cause some potential buyers to look elsewhere but that would be due to individual prejudice and could jut as easily attract other buyers. But if all your neighbors keep up their property and maintain the aesthetic beauty of the area, and your property, in plain sight of everybody else has the junked cars on blocks in the front yard, is in disrepair, weeds growing up everywhere, and is an enormous eyesore, that can affect everybody's property values. But you would not agree to a social contract that would set some standards that would protect everybody's property values, including yours?

 

[kaz]

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.

Why should I pay for someone's ER visit? Why should you?

Personal responsibility. I know it's a foreign concept to you wingnuts.

You force the hospital to have treatment, then you force the patient to have insurance, then you force insurance companies to implement endless mandates. Then you lecture us about "personal responsibility. Dude, you're just pissing on people from the trees.

 

[Ravi]

I own my property, so why should I be forced out of the community?

Did someone force you to buy the property in that particular community?

If your neighbor dumped his trash on your lawn would you say, "Well, nobody forced me to live here"? Of course not. The fact that it's my property means that I shouldn't be forced to vacate just because a group of my neighbors want to force me to pay for stuff that they want.

I didn't say you should be forced to vacate. You choose to live in a community therefore you can't pretend the community has no influence on the community as a whole.

 

[Ravi]

If your neighbor dumped his trash on your lawn would you say, "Well, nobody forced me to live here"? Of course not. The fact that it's my property means that I shouldn't be forced to vacate just because a group of my neighbors want to force me to pay for stuff that they want.

But does your right to your property allow you to lower the property value and quality of life for your neighbors?

Personally, I think one house determining the value of the houses adjacent to it is a flawed real estate practice. What's wrong with the real value of the house? Your car isn't priced by the cars you drive past on the highway, is it? See what I'm getting at?

It isn't a "practice" it is a reality. Someone opens a dump in your neighborhood and it is going to bring down real estate value.

 

[FA_Q2]

I am confused by the view of all things public as an aberration. That is wrong in of itself. There are services that the government can and should provide. IF we set up a government that sticks with that principal and leave out the vague ‘general welfare’ crap then we can have a successful government.

Govt. will always look to expand its power. If not, the constitution would have actually worked. I didn't. It's the same argument as "if we only had a more efficient govt" line you here from peopel that advocate regulatory agencies and see their failures and say "we just need to do it better..."

It's not going to happen. Ever. You can not contain power when you give it government. The best you can do is absolutely and staunchly hold them to specific and well defined roles and never deviate from them.

As for public police not being in violation of libertarian principles, the only way that works is if funding is completely voluntary. Otherwise the act of theft for funding is against the NAP.

And

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.

That is a misnomer though TASB. ALL governments degrade no matter how well you set it up. Libertarian government is going to be no different. Just because they are going to go astray at some point does not mean that you cannot set up a basic regulatory structure for those things that need to be regulated and put strict controls in place to ensure that your freedoms last as long as possible. Then, you add a system that allows the people te reign government back in if needed easily and you might have a system that stands to last awhile.

You cannot throw an entire concept out just because governments like to abuse them though. That is like reinventing the wheel and making it a square. Simply not effective and more destructive than what you started with.

Put in place REAL and STRICT safeguards and it can work.

I know. That's why if we're talking government, Im libertarian, if we're talking society, I'm a full blown anarcho-capitalist. Government and the State haev proven to be failures and yet, we just keep trying. The real failure is the idea of government in total. it will always corrupt because power corrupts and with that goes the rights we tried to secure.
The entire notion is a failure.

Anarcho-capitalism is a straight out impossibility though. Without some sort of balancing all you are doing is shifting the power that was once in governments hands over to another entity. That is simply not tenable. That power is there, the best that we can do is set up an institution that safe guards our rights from others wanting to encroach on them. Such a system is a necessity and ‘government’ is simply the name that it is called. Power does corrupt and that is why we need to define and control government as much as possible BUT that power vacuum does not simply vanish because the government vanishes. It is the same manner that guns work on. If I take all the gens out of homes that does not mean that we are now safe from criminals. Without the ability to defend yourself the need to defend yourself does not vanish. It actually makes it all that much stronger.

I also understand that you find the funding through taxation a violation of the NAP but you know that I disagree with you somewhat on that concept. You know my opinion on that subject. That is rather immaterial to the point though. However it is funded, I do not believe in a private police force is a good idea for the reasons stated. I explain that a little better to another poster further down.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

OK, so this power is being shifted you say, but don't address to where. So where is the power moved to if the monopoly on the use of force and violenced is removed from government?

 

[FA_Q2]

A private police force would be better because it would have the profit motive to incentivize it to do a good job. Public police forces have no such incentive, and thus can essentially get away with doing whatever they want. That's why there is so much police abuse.

I'm not referring to volunteer fire departments, I'm referring to actual private for profit fire departments.

Rural/Metro Fire Department is a private company providing high-quality, cost-effective fire service. Rural/Metro Fire Department is not funded by tax dollars. We are a subscription based fire department supported through annual fees by a yearly membership.

https://www.ruralmetrofire.com/

Thank you for the link to the fire department. I can see that as working somewhat though there might still need to be a communal funding element in order for that business to fight a fire on land that is not owned. Essentially, what is the motive for them to put out a fire that is raging across a forest that no one owns/upkeeps or cares about? Eventually it could threaten a thousand homes but once it does, then it is too late. Even in the link, that company is paid by the government for those cases. I will have to think on that further. Thank you for giving me something to chew on.

As for the police, profit motive is not the best way of going about this though. I agree that in any voluntary exchange of goods, profit motive is not only strong but the best way of offering a variety of service with the best efficiency. We are not talking about a good here though. Instead we are talking about your freedom and rights. That is what the police do; they enforce those rights through law. When the police (and all this is equally applicable to courts) are for sale than your rights are also for sale. What makes you think that the police will not simply look away when their best customer decides to take a few slaves or murder an enemy? Sure, you can buy off the cops now as well but that is not easy or reasonable on a mass scale. When you privatize the protection of rights you remove that protection altogether in my eyes. Those rights are non-negotiable and the ONE charge that government has is to protect them. If you are going to remove that duty then just remove government, it will not have a purpose after that.

 

[Bfgrn]

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

Now that we barely agree on something I'd like to disagree and expand on something you said.

Post #324 Bfgrn: This is about civics and the local and state common sense laws, regulations and rules that prevent chaos, swindling and catastrophe.

Post #326 kaz: I have yet to hear a Democrat use the phrase "common sense" followed by any sense at all. I still haven't.

People basically operate on either common sense, or ideology. Liberals operate on common sense. Liberals are the ultimate pragmatists. If the private sector is the best solution, liberals are completely on board, and if government is the best solution, liberals are again 'on board'

That is certainly not true of conservatives and libertarians. With Conservatives and libertarians ideology always trumps common sense when the government is the best solution.

Let's break down the phrase 'common sense'. Common comes from the Latin word 'communis' - "in common, public, general, shared by all or many" The same root word origin as 'community'

sense
c.1400, "faculty of perception," also "meaning or interpretation"

You said you would end Social Security and Medicare. I asked the question:

"How would ending Social Security and Medicare make the lives of senior citizens better? How would it increase THEIR liberty and freedom?"

What I got back was not an answer or anything that could be mistaken for common sense. What I got back was a litany of anarchist 'ideology'.

WHY? Because the answer is it would be a catastrophe for senior citizens.

Why was Social Security and Medicare created in the first place?

Common: Before Social Security and Medicare, it was very 'common' for the aged to be living in poverty.

Common: Before Medicare it was very 'common' for retired citizens to have no health insurance. About 50% had no health insurance and were an illness away from losing everything they worked their entire adult life for.

WHY? It is 'common' practice for private insurance to seek young and healthy customers. The elderly were too old and too likely to get sick, so the private market simply wouldn’t insure them. The elderly were the demographic group most likely to live in poverty, and about one in three older Americans were poor.

Common: it is common knowledge that private health insurance corporations are not really in the 'health' business. They are in the 'profit' business. The market forces did not include the elderly, unless they were able to pay very high premium.

Sense: It made perfect sense for the government to provide health care for citizens the private sector wanted no part of. Government could be in the health business. Profit is not a motive.

Social Security and Medicare are the most common sense and successful programs in American history.

 

[FA_Q2]

Yeah... I hear you. But I don't know that it really helps to let the nitwits push us into radical arguments we can't defend. Taking up extreme positions only alienates people who might otherwise join our cause. I've seen this pattern soooo many times in my work with the Libertarian party. We shoot ourselves in the foot by responding to the idiots, or the unscrupulous authoritarians, instead of reaching out to people who are otherwise intelligent, but are justifiably reticent to accept radical solutions at face value.

This is a good point. Changing over to a libertarian society would not be a fast transition anyway. There is no need to jump into that, just get the ball rolling in the right direction. Then real change is possible. People are not willing to buy the entire ball of wax atm anyway as our election prove. Anyone that proposes true freedom is lucky to get more than 0.1 percent of the electorate. Even with violent overthrow (something that is not going to happen anytime soon) the likely result is WORSE than what we have now. In all honesty, as the people stand today it is obvious to me that they are willing to sell any amount of freedoms for immediate perceived security or ‘righteousness.’

I personally believe that if we ever start to realize true freedom that people will take to that. It is going to be a matter of actually getting people to understand it though. Unlikely to happen but I can hope, can’t I?

 

[FA_Q2]

As both are subjective notions there's no way to even address that concern. For example, a neighbor flying a Mexican flag might lower the value of the property in some people's eyes. Should they be forced to put their flag away? Any line you draw in that regard would be completely arbitrary. Better to just protect everybody's absolute right to use their property as they see fit.

There would be nothing wrong with a voluntary contract with those that you live with on the other hand. That is essentially what a homeowners association is. If you want to protect your property value then that is what you can do – enter into a contract that enforces local rules. That contract would be attached to the sale of the property. All of that is essentially what happens today AND it is completely voluntary. There is a vehicle for this without government involvement of any kind whatsoever.

 

[FA_Q2]

But does your right to your property allow you to lower the property value and quality of life for your neighbors?

Personally, I think one house determining the value of the houses adjacent to it is a flawed real estate practice. What's wrong with the real value of the house? Your car isn't priced by the cars you drive past on the highway, is it? See what I'm getting at?

It isn't a "practice" it is a reality. Someone opens a dump in your neighborhood and it is going to bring down real estate value.

As ravi points out, this is not a ‘practice.’ It is a reality. The price of homes is set by the market, not the relators. People do not want to buy a home that is positioned in a shitty neighborhood and cars on blocks etc are indicators to buyers that is not a good neighborhood. You can mandate the realities of consumers – that is simply not a possibility in a capitalist or even remotely free society.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

But does your right to your property allow you to lower the property value and quality of life for your neighbors?

As both are subjective notions there's no way to even address that concern. For example, a neighbor flying a Mexican flag might lower the value of the property in some people's eyes. Should they be forced to put their flag away? Any line you draw in that regard would be completely arbitrary. Better to just protect everybody's absolute right to use their property as they see fit.

But you see--and I am drawing subjective and personal assumptions here so please forgive me for that--I hear you say that and it says to me that you are refusing the see the larger picture or any concept other than your absolute position on this.

That Mexican flag might cause some potential buyers to look elsewhere but that would be due to individual prejudice and could jut as easily attract other buyers. But if all your neighbors keep up their property and maintain the aesthetic beauty of the area, and your property, in plain sight of everybody else has the junked cars on blocks in the front yard, is in disrepair, weeds growing up everywhere, and is an enormous eyesore, that can affect everybody's property values. But you would not agree to a social contract that would set some standards that would protect everybody's property values, including yours?

I would not agree to a "social contract" per se that implicitly forces people to conform their property to a certain degree whether they agree to it or not, but I would certainly agree to an explicit contract, such as exist in gated communities, that forces people to maintain a certain standard and enforces certain explicitly agreed upon rules. Absent such an explicit, voluntary contract that is signed before a person takes possession of their property then no. If no such actual physical contract exists then I see no basis for anybody to complain about anybody else's property on the basis of subjective values.

 

[Bfgrn]

If your neighbor dumped his trash on your lawn would you say, "Well, nobody forced me to live here"? Of course not. The fact that it's my property means that I shouldn't be forced to vacate just because a group of my neighbors want to force me to pay for stuff that they want.

But does your right to your property allow you to lower the property value and quality of life for your neighbors?

Personally, I think one house determining the value of the houses adjacent to it is a flawed real estate practice. What's wrong with the real value of the house? Your car isn't priced by the cars you drive past on the highway, is it? See what I'm getting at?

NO. it is an idiotic argument.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Did someone force you to buy the property in that particular community?

If your neighbor dumped his trash on your lawn would you say, "Well, nobody forced me to live here"? Of course not. The fact that it's my property means that I shouldn't be forced to vacate just because a group of my neighbors want to force me to pay for stuff that they want.

I didn't say you should be forced to vacate. You choose to live in a community therefore you can't pretend the community has no influence on the community as a whole.

I chose to buy my property, and the community may or may not have had some influence on that decision, but it doesn't then follow that simply because I bought property in a given location that my neighbors have the right to force me to pay for stuff that they want.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

A private police force would be better because it would have the profit motive to incentivize it to do a good job. Public police forces have no such incentive, and thus can essentially get away with doing whatever they want. That's why there is so much police abuse.

I'm not referring to volunteer fire departments, I'm referring to actual private for profit fire departments.

Rural/Metro Fire Department is a private company providing high-quality, cost-effective fire service. Rural/Metro Fire Department is not funded by tax dollars. We are a subscription based fire department supported through annual fees by a yearly membership.

https://www.ruralmetrofire.com/

Thank you for the link to the fire department. I can see that as working somewhat though there might still need to be a communal funding element in order for that business to fight a fire on land that is not owned. Essentially, what is the motive for them to put out a fire that is raging across a forest that no one owns/upkeeps or cares about? Eventually it could threaten a thousand homes but once it does, then it is too late. Even in the link, that company is paid by the government for those cases. I will have to think on that further. Thank you for giving me something to chew on.

As for the police, profit motive is not the best way of going about this though. I agree that in any voluntary exchange of goods, profit motive is not only strong but the best way of offering a variety of service with the best efficiency. We are not talking about a good here though. Instead we are talking about your freedom and rights. That is what the police do; they enforce those rights through law. When the police (and all this is equally applicable to courts) are for sale than your rights are also for sale. What makes you think that the police will not simply look away when their best customer decides to take a few slaves or murder an enemy? Sure, you can buy off the cops now as well but that is not easy or reasonable on a mass scale. When you privatize the protection of rights you remove that protection altogether in my eyes. Those rights are non-negotiable and the ONE charge that government has is to protect them. If you are going to remove that duty then just remove government, it will not have a purpose after that.

There would be competing security agencies, however. If one won't do their job, or is corrupt or what have you, then another will come along and put the first out of business.

 

[Bfgrn]

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.

I don’t see where a private police force would be any better than the existing one. That type of service, the enforcement of the law, is right up the governments ally. It is exactly why the government exists. Same goes with private courts. That is a terrible example by the way as arbitration is corrupt as hell. Many companies require arbitration in their contracts because they KNOW that arbitration will go their way. That is not because they are in the right but because they have bought that service. A private police and court system would be no different than that with the biggest payer calling the shots. When it comes to the law, we must try as hard as possible to make it as blind as we can. That essentially requires a public system. One that is ran at the local lever preferably. I also do not see how they would perform any better. I don’t find that communal things like police are any violation of libertarian principals anyway. There is no reason that they are not run by the local governments as well.

I am confused by the view of all things public as an aberration. That is wrong in of itself. There are services that the government can and should provide. IF we set up a government that sticks with that principal and leave out the vague ‘general welfare’ crap then we can have a successful government.

As a side note: volunteer fire departments are a misnomer AFAIK. They are STILL publically funded. The fireman might not be paid but they still need to okay for the building, the trucks, maintenance and a host of equipment. There is no example of an actual fire department that is not currently dependent on government funds. If that is not the case, please link to one that has all volunteer force AND all donated equipment. The pay after model is also untenable. It is one of the problems that is faced in the medical world. If you do not turn people away, they are going to use the service and not pay for it. What do you do then? Go out of business.

Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it.
Edmund Burke

It is amazing how much these libertarians sound like conservatives. They are NOT classical liberals. And conservatism is all about creating an aristocracy. A hierarchy of some form. Today it would be a plutocracy. A return to the Gilded Age, the Robber Barons and the Pinkertons, the hired thugs.

1892: The Homestead strike

An account of a militant strike of steel workers of the Carnegie company
in the US defending their organisation and conditions against the bosses,
the police and hired armed mercenaries.

The Robber Baron Andrew Carnegie precipitated the Homestead Strike of 1892 with his attack against the standard of living of the workers and his bid to break the union representing the highest skilled workers. Carnegie announced his intention to impose an 18 percent pay cut and issued a statement saying that the real issue was whether the Homestead steel workers would be union or non-union. He ordered a 12 foot high fence to be built around the plant – 3 miles in length – with 3 inch holes at shoulder height every 25 feet, signalling preparation for an armed fight with the workers. At the same time Carnegie hired the notorious Pinkerton company to provide armed thugs for the upcoming struggle. An ultimatum was issued for workers to accept the wage cut by June 24th or face mass layoffs.

The workers did not take these provocations lightly. They were not about to abandon the union and submit to Carnegie’s dictates without a fight. The Amalgamated Union, which represented the skilled workers, about 750 of the plant’s 3,800 employees, established an Advisory Committee, comprised of five delegates from each lodge, to coordinate the struggle against Carnegie’s attacks. A mass meeting of 3,000 workers from all categories, union and non-union voted overwhelmingly to strike.

The Advisory Committee took responsibility for organising an elaborate network to track the company’s manoeuvres, to monitor the possibility of an anticipated transport of Pinkerton goons by river boat from Pittsburgh. Workers rented their own vessel to patrol the river. Every road within a five mile radius of Homestead was blockaded, and a thousand strikers patrolled the river banks for ten miles. The Committee assumed virtual control of the town, assuming authority over the water, gas, and electricity facilities, shutting down the saloons, maintaining order and proclaiming ad hoc laws. An attempt by the county sheriff to move against the strikers fell flat on its face when he proved unable to raise a posse. The workers offered the sheriff a tour of the plant and promised to guarantee the security of the facility from any trespassers. Sympathy for the strikers was high.

On July 5th a steam whistle sounded the alarm at 4am. Two barges transporting more than 300 Pinkertons left Pittsburgh. By the time the thugs arrived at Homestead, 10,000 armed strikers and their supporters were gathered to "greet" them. An armed confrontation erupted. Thirty workers were wounded, and three killed in the early fighting. Armed proletarians from nearby towns rushed to the scene to reinforce their class brothers. The shoot-out continued throughout the day. Finally the demoralised Pinkertons, trapped in debilitating heat on the barges, outnumbered and outgunned, mutinied against their superiors.

more

Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

I don’t see where a private police force would be any better than the existing one. That type of service, the enforcement of the law, is right up the governments ally. It is exactly why the government exists. Same goes with private courts. That is a terrible example by the way as arbitration is corrupt as hell. Many companies require arbitration in their contracts because they KNOW that arbitration will go their way. That is not because they are in the right but because they have bought that service. A private police and court system would be no different than that with the biggest payer calling the shots. When it comes to the law, we must try as hard as possible to make it as blind as we can. That essentially requires a public system. One that is ran at the local lever preferably. I also do not see how they would perform any better. I don’t find that communal things like police are any violation of libertarian principals anyway. There is no reason that they are not run by the local governments as well.

I am confused by the view of all things public as an aberration. That is wrong in of itself. There are services that the government can and should provide. IF we set up a government that sticks with that principal and leave out the vague ‘general welfare’ crap then we can have a successful government.

As a side note: volunteer fire departments are a misnomer AFAIK. They are STILL publically funded. The fireman might not be paid but they still need to okay for the building, the trucks, maintenance and a host of equipment. There is no example of an actual fire department that is not currently dependent on government funds. If that is not the case, please link to one that has all volunteer force AND all donated equipment. The pay after model is also untenable. It is one of the problems that is faced in the medical world. If you do not turn people away, they are going to use the service and not pay for it. What do you do then? Go out of business.

Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it.
Edmund Burke

It is amazing how much these libertarians sound like conservatives. They are NOT classical liberals. And conservatism is all about creating an aristocracy. A hierarchy of some form. Today it would be a plutocracy. A return to the Gilded Age, the Robber Barons and the Pinkertons, the hired thugs.

1892: The Homestead strike

An account of a militant strike of steel workers of the Carnegie company
in the US defending their organisation and conditions against the bosses,
the police and hired armed mercenaries.

The Robber Baron Andrew Carnegie precipitated the Homestead Strike of 1892 with his attack against the standard of living of the workers and his bid to break the union representing the highest skilled workers. Carnegie announced his intention to impose an 18 percent pay cut and issued a statement saying that the real issue was whether the Homestead steel workers would be union or non-union. He ordered a 12 foot high fence to be built around the plant – 3 miles in length – with 3 inch holes at shoulder height every 25 feet, signalling preparation for an armed fight with the workers. At the same time Carnegie hired the notorious Pinkerton company to provide armed thugs for the upcoming struggle. An ultimatum was issued for workers to accept the wage cut by June 24th or face mass layoffs.

The workers did not take these provocations lightly. They were not about to abandon the union and submit to Carnegie’s dictates without a fight. The Amalgamated Union, which represented the skilled workers, about 750 of the plant’s 3,800 employees, established an Advisory Committee, comprised of five delegates from each lodge, to coordinate the struggle against Carnegie’s attacks. A mass meeting of 3,000 workers from all categories, union and non-union voted overwhelmingly to strike.

The Advisory Committee took responsibility for organising an elaborate network to track the company’s manoeuvres, to monitor the possibility of an anticipated transport of Pinkerton goons by river boat from Pittsburgh. Workers rented their own vessel to patrol the river. Every road within a five mile radius of Homestead was blockaded, and a thousand strikers patrolled the river banks for ten miles. The Committee assumed virtual control of the town, assuming authority over the water, gas, and electricity facilities, shutting down the saloons, maintaining order and proclaiming ad hoc laws. An attempt by the county sheriff to move against the strikers fell flat on its face when he proved unable to raise a posse. The workers offered the sheriff a tour of the plant and promised to guarantee the security of the facility from any trespassers. Sympathy for the strikers was high.

On July 5th a steam whistle sounded the alarm at 4am. Two barges transporting more than 300 Pinkertons left Pittsburgh. By the time the thugs arrived at Homestead, 10,000 armed strikers and their supporters were gathered to "greet" them. An armed confrontation erupted. Thirty workers were wounded, and three killed in the early fighting. Armed proletarians from nearby towns rushed to the scene to reinforce their class brothers. The shoot-out continued throughout the day. Finally the demoralised Pinkertons, trapped in debilitating heat on the barges, outnumbered and outgunned, mutinied against their superiors.

more

Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan

"Civilization, in fact, grows more and more maudlin and hysterical; especially under democracy it tends to degenerate into a mere combat of crazes; the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary." - H. L. Mencken

 

[Foxfyre]

As both are subjective notions there's no way to even address that concern. For example, a neighbor flying a Mexican flag might lower the value of the property in some people's eyes. Should they be forced to put their flag away? Any line you draw in that regard would be completely arbitrary. Better to just protect everybody's absolute right to use their property as they see fit.

But you see--and I am drawing subjective and personal assumptions here so please forgive me for that--I hear you say that and it says to me that you are refusing the see the larger picture or any concept other than your absolute position on this.

That Mexican flag might cause some potential buyers to look elsewhere but that would be due to individual prejudice and could jut as easily attract other buyers. But if all your neighbors keep up their property and maintain the aesthetic beauty of the area, and your property, in plain sight of everybody else has the junked cars on blocks in the front yard, is in disrepair, weeds growing up everywhere, and is an enormous eyesore, that can affect everybody's property values. But you would not agree to a social contract that would set some standards that would protect everybody's property values, including yours?

I would not agree to a "social contract" per se that implicitly forces people to conform their property to a certain degree whether they agree to it or not, but I would certainly agree to an explicit contract, such as exist in gated communities, that forces people to maintain a certain standard and enforces certain explicitly agreed upon rules. Absent such an explicit, voluntary contract that is signed before a person takes possession of their property then no. If no such actual physical contract exists then I see no basis for anybody to complain about anybody else's property on the basis of subjective values.

Well each to their own. But I sure hope I never buy into a neighborhood with people who think like you do.