The question libertarians just can’t answer

[TakeAStepBack]

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

Why? An explicit contract seems to be exactly what you are looking for. A homeowners association if you will.

That is exactly what I am looking at as a solution to that problem. A social contract that will protect everybody's property rights including the one trashy neighbor and will prevent any others from moving in. Kevin rejects that concept and thinks trashy neighbors have the right to destroy our property values.

No, the difference is, you're speaking on it as a universal term. Where a buyer or owner isn't free to choose these associations. You think this contract, and correct me if Im wrong, is universal and goes without say and should be enforced by law.

 

[Ravi]

Murrica....Love it or leave it!

That's always your message, Dud.

Your is:

"Lets be more like Europe!"

Link?

 

[Foxfyre]

Why? An explicit contract seems to be exactly what you are looking for. A homeowners association if you will.

That is exactly what I am looking at as a solution to that problem. A social contract that will protect everybody's property rights including the one trashy neighbor and will prevent any others from moving in. Kevin rejects that concept and thinks trashy neighbors have the right to destroy our property values.

No, the difference is, you're speaking on it as a universal term. Where a buyer or owner isn't free to choose these associations. You think this contract, and correct me if Im wrong, is universal and goes without say and should be enforced by law.

I'm speaking on it as the right of property owners to mutally organize to protect their property rights for the mutual benefit of all. The presumed rights of the one in this case are detrimental to the whole and while the court may indeed agree that he had full right to trash his property, if it is a good libertarian court, it will agree that the others have the right to protect their investments by reasonable means. \

They may have to just outlast the one trashy neighbor or hope to shame him into cleaning up his property, but they sure as hell should not have to permit further erosion of their property values by allowing others like him to move in. And yes, most if not all Home Owners Association contracts are enforceable by law; otherwise there isn't much point in having them.

 

[TemplarKormac]

That's always your message, Dud.

Yours is:

"Lets be more like Europe!"

Link?

You mean this one?

 

[Oddball]

No, you still have the option to sell and move.

Murrica....Love it or leave it!

That's always your message, Dud.

Um....That's what you basically said in the post I quoted.

But I'll cut you some slack because you've already told me that you're a little....well....shall we say....special.

 

[Ravi]

Murrica....Love it or leave it!

That's always your message, Dud.

Um....That's what you basically said in the post I quoted.

But I'll cut you some slack because you've already told me that you're a little....well....shall we say....special.

Okay, fine Dud. Avoidance is your friend.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

That is exactly what I am looking at as a solution to that problem. A social contract that will protect everybody's property rights including the one trashy neighbor and will prevent any others from moving in. Kevin rejects that concept and thinks trashy neighbors have the right to destroy our property values.

No, the difference is, you're speaking on it as a universal term. Where a buyer or owner isn't free to choose these associations. You think this contract, and correct me if Im wrong, is universal and goes without say and should be enforced by law.

I'm speaking on it as the right of property owners to mutally organize to protect their property rights for the mutual benefit of all. The presumed rights of the one in this case are detrimental to the whole and while the court may indeed agree that he had full right to trash his property, if it is a good libertarian court, it will agree that the others have the right to protect their investments by reasonable means. \

They may have to just outlast the one trashy neighbor or hope to shame him into cleaning up his property, but they sure as hell should not have to permit further erosion of their property values by allowing others like him to move in. And yes, most if not all Home Owners Association contracts are enforceable by law; otherwise there isn't much point in having them.

OK, well, putting it into a contract is an individual association. It's not a social contract in definitive terms, it's a contract. The property buyer would have to conform to the contract or face court.

Lets present another example and then we can be in agreement. If Tom inherited his farm from his dad, and worked the farm under his dad's wish, saw a development form across the street where tom didn't own the land, would this contract have to be enforced on him to keep a certain level of care to his fields, etc? Or would tom get to freely turn down the contract (forget the word social here)?

 

[Foxfyre]

No, the difference is, you're speaking on it as a universal term. Where a buyer or owner isn't free to choose these associations. You think this contract, and correct me if Im wrong, is universal and goes without say and should be enforced by law.

I'm speaking on it as the right of property owners to mutally organize to protect their property rights for the mutual benefit of all. The presumed rights of the one in this case are detrimental to the whole and while the court may indeed agree that he had full right to trash his property, if it is a good libertarian court, it will agree that the others have the right to protect their investments by reasonable means. \

They may have to just outlast the one trashy neighbor or hope to shame him into cleaning up his property, but they sure as hell should not have to permit further erosion of their property values by allowing others like him to move in. And yes, most if not all Home Owners Association contracts are enforceable by law; otherwise there isn't much point in having them.

OK, well, putting it into a contract is an individual association. It's not a social contract in definitive terms, it's a contract. The property buyer would have to conform to the contract or face court.

Lets present another example and then we can be in agreement. If Tom inherited his farm from his dad, and worked the farm under his dad's wish, saw a development form across the street where tom didn't own the land, would this contract have to be enforced on him to keep a certain level of care to his fields, etc? Or would tom get to freely turn down the contract (forget the word social here)?

Again, the definition of social contract is people organizing for mutual benefit whether that be a Homeowners Association or Country Club or incorporation of a Village or putting together a volunteer Fire Department or putting together a government for a nation. The cirtical component is that the contract--and it IS a legal contract--is to mutually benefit all and not one person or entity or demographic. The welfare state is not social contract.

Tom should have the right to do anythng that he can legally and ethically do EXCEPT that which infringes on the right of others. That in a nutshell is the guiding principle of Libertarianism. What Tom and his Dad work out between them is their business. And if either is in breach of a legal agreement, one can take the other to court for remedy.

All I am saying is liberty is as much ability to mutually cooperate with others as it is to make our own choices and decisions.

 

[Oddball]

I'm speaking on it as the right of property owners to mutally organize to protect their property rights for the mutual benefit of all. The presumed rights of the one in this case are detrimental to the whole and while the court may indeed agree that he had full right to trash his property, if it is a good libertarian court, it will agree that the others have the right to protect their investments by reasonable means. \

They may have to just outlast the one trashy neighbor or hope to shame him into cleaning up his property, but they sure as hell should not have to permit further erosion of their property values by allowing others like him to move in. And yes, most if not all Home Owners Association contracts are enforceable by law; otherwise there isn't much point in having them.

OK, well, putting it into a contract is an individual association. It's not a social contract in definitive terms, it's a contract. The property buyer would have to conform to the contract or face court.

Lets present another example and then we can be in agreement. If Tom inherited his farm from his dad, and worked the farm under his dad's wish, saw a development form across the street where tom didn't own the land, would this contract have to be enforced on him to keep a certain level of care to his fields, etc? Or would tom get to freely turn down the contract (forget the word social here)?

Again, the definition of social contract is people organizing for mutual benefit whether that be a Homeowners Association or Country Club or incorporation of a Village or putting together a volunteer Fire Department or putting together a government for a nation. The cirtical component is that the contract--and it IS a legal contract--is to mutually benefit all and not one person or entity or demographic. The welfare state is not social contract.

Well, according to the welfare statists, their welfare state is rationalized by what they believe to be the "social contract".....They don't give a shit about how you define it.

That's the point.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I can't rep you, but ok. Then we're basically saying the same thing. As long as it is voluntary. What about Tom though?

 

[Foxfyre]

OK, well, putting it into a contract is an individual association. It's not a social contract in definitive terms, it's a contract. The property buyer would have to conform to the contract or face court.

Lets present another example and then we can be in agreement. If Tom inherited his farm from his dad, and worked the farm under his dad's wish, saw a development form across the street where tom didn't own the land, would this contract have to be enforced on him to keep a certain level of care to his fields, etc? Or would tom get to freely turn down the contract (forget the word social here)?

Again, the definition of social contract is people organizing for mutual benefit whether that be a Homeowners Association or Country Club or incorporation of a Village or putting together a volunteer Fire Department or putting together a government for a nation. The cirtical component is that the contract--and it IS a legal contract--is to mutually benefit all and not one person or entity or demographic. The welfare state is not social contract.

Well, according to the welfare statists, their welfare state is rationalized by what they believe to be the "social contract".....They don't give a shit about how you define it.

That's the point.

I don't know what you mean by definitive terms. A group of people use social contract to organize and incorporate a village. A group of property owners use it to form a Homeowners or Neighborhood Association. The Founders used it to form a nation. It has a specific definition and purpose, and the term has been used at least since the mid 19th century. We find the concept in the writings of Locke, Hobbes, and Rousseau, and it is taught in beginning Economics and/or PoliSci in every university. Or at least it used to be.

And I don't care what the Statists call it. I will stick with the classical definition which is the libertarian definition. I can describe a Leopard as a horselike creature with stripes or a Zebra as a catlike creature with spots, but I would be wrong on both counts, yes?

 

[Foxfyre]

I can't rep you, but ok. Then we're basically saying the same thing. As long as it is voluntary. What about Tom though?

I thought I took care of Tom. What did I miss?

 

[Godboy]

.

I'm very glad they're around, and I absolutely love it when they piss off both "major" parties at the same time.

We'll never have a Libertarian system, because we're far too dependent on government now. But I want them around to remind us of the Constitution and to challenge us to not turn to the government for every goddamn problem.

.

Yup.

I think most libertarians are a variant of the people calling themselves anarchists.

Have you also noticed that literally every conspiracy theorist is a Ron Paul supporter? Libertarians are simply a collection of weirdos and fools.

 

[dblack]

.

I'm very glad they're around, and I absolutely love it when they piss off both "major" parties at the same time.

We'll never have a Libertarian system, because we're far too dependent on government now. But I want them around to remind us of the Constitution and to challenge us to not turn to the government for every goddamn problem.

.

Yup.

I think most libertarians are a variant of the people calling themselves anarchists.

Have you also noticed that literally every conspiracy theorist is a Ron Paul supporter? Libertarians are simply a collection of weirdos and fools.

They dress funny too. Most of them have thick glasses and their pants are too short.

 

[Oddball]

.

I'm very glad they're around, and I absolutely love it when they piss off both "major" parties at the same time.

We'll never have a Libertarian system, because we're far too dependent on government now. But I want them around to remind us of the Constitution and to challenge us to not turn to the government for every goddamn problem.

.

Yup.

I think most libertarians are a variant of the people calling themselves anarchists.

Have you also noticed that literally every conspiracy theorist is a Ron Paul supporter? Libertarians are simply a collection of weirdos and fools.

Have you ever noticed that literally every bass fisherman is a deep south Confederate redneck? Californians are simply a collection of surfers and dope smokers...

 

[dblack]

Yup.

I think most libertarians are a variant of the people calling themselves anarchists.

Have you also noticed that literally every conspiracy theorist is a Ron Paul supporter? Libertarians are simply a collection of weirdos and fools.

Have you ever noticed that literally every bass fisherman is a deep south Confederate redneck? Californians are simply a collection of surfers and dope smokers...

Too true.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You say I'm ducking your question, but since I asked mine first why don't you answer that first? Why do you call yourself a "libertarian," which most people in this country today thinks means you want little government, not no government, when if you just said "anarchist" or "anarchno-capitalist" people would know what you meant?

All three people you mentioned may have used the word libertarian, but all of them if you read anything about them start with "anarchno-capitalist," not libertarian.

Well since you asked your question in response to my question, I'm not sure how you figure that you asked your question first.

The reason I rarely refer to myself as an anarcho-capitalist is because it's never been relevant. Libertarian perfectly describes my political beliefs, and so that's what I go with. Though in my signature it does say "Voluntaryist," so it's not like I was hiding this fact.

Now, are you really trying to excommunicate three of the most important libertarian thinkers in the history of the movement?

If you disagree with what I said, address it and say what your follow on from what I said would be. Don't ignore it and ask the question again.

Well as you haven't addressed the question at all, it's hard to respond to your answer. You said that I cannot be both a libertarian and an anarchist, so that would imply that Rothbard, Block, and Hoppe also cannot be both libertarians and anarchists. That you would seemingly excommunicate these three tells us that we should not take your opinion on libertarianism very seriously.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yup. LIbertarians accept government only big enough to secure our unalienable rights and function effectively and mutually beneficially as one government, one people.

But among Kevin's stated heroes:

Or, libertarians think that all government is immoral and reject it completely.

I'm a Libertarian, but I am no anarchist. There must be government of some sort, because nature abhors a vacuum.

I'm not saying that one cannot be a minarchist libertarian.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yup. LIbertarians accept government only big enough to secure our unalienable rights and function effectively and mutually beneficially as one government, one people.

But among Kevin's stated heroes:

Or, libertarians think that all government is immoral and reject it completely.

If you can find a credible authority who will define libertarianism that way, go for it.

From the same site where I got the definition for anarcho-captalism:

Definition: Libertarian

One who believes that the only legitimate purpose of a government is to protect the rights of its citizens.

Anyone who supports civil liberties to a greater-than-average degree.

Anyone who believes in minimal, decentralized government.

When the word "Libertarian" is capitalized, it generally refers to a member of the Libertarian Party.

For purposes of our discussion, we'll focus on the first definition.

Etymology:
The word comes from the French libertaire, meaning "anarchist." (But it is not itself anarchy)

History:

Libertarian philosophy as we know it today has its roots in the classical liberalism of European political philosophers whose writings inspired the post-revolutionary governments of the United States and France during the latter years of the 18th century. The basic tenets of this classical liberalism are very simple:

The legitimate purpose of government is to protect the rights of its citizens.

People have a right to be left alone and live their own lives as long as they do not do so in a way that infringes on others' right to do the same.

Political Orientation:

Because libertarians tend to favor privatization and small government, libertarianism is often thought of as a right-wing movement more in keeping with the Republican Party than the Democratic Party. But changes in the Republican Party over the past 40 years, most notably with respect to social issues such as abortion and gay rights, have essentially marginalized the libertarian movement from both parties. Today it is arguably represented by the Libertarian Party, though the Libertarian Party's own record on civil liberties issues is far from perfect.

Also Known As: classical liberalism, laissez-faire government
Libertarian Definition - What is a Libertarian

Murray N. Rothbard :: Anatomy of the State

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

No, you still have the option to sell and move.

So you're saying that my property isn't really my property.