What is Libertarian?

[FA_Q2]

I am all for the power and right to use our own property as we want UNTIL it infringes on the rights of my neighbor to use HIS property as HE wants. To accomplish freedom for both parties, zoning regulations is the best way to accomplish that. The guy who wants a honky tonk buys property that is zoning reg free or zoned for that particular type business. He doesn't open a honky tonk acxross from the Church and next door to the old couple who bought into the neighborhood because it was safe, quiet, and with minimal traffic.

The difference between our views I think is that the Libertarian (capital L) doesn't want any rules or restrictions of any kind other than those that prevent us from doing violence to each other. It is just one step away from Anarchy.

But libertarianism (little L) that I embrace allows people to use whatever regulation is necessary to form the society they wish to have. I see that as being more free than being subject to near anarchy.

That is, at least, until the honky tonk hopeful give the politician a couple of thousand bucks to re-zone the area to whatever he wants. Happened to a local neighborhood where I used to live. Zoning restrictions did not allow a recycling plant until someone managed to 'convince' the powers that be to rezone them.


I have to give you some points in your argument though. I can see where zoning makes sense to a degree as long as it is kept in generalities. What I was speaking to was more specific and I was not thinking of zoning at all. A good example was in Big Bear when I used to live there. Wal-Mart wanted to move into the community but was blocked by the local government. The thing is there was already a super K-Mart up there so there was no reason that they were blocked. It was wrong. If the people wanted the business gone, they simply could have chosen not to buy products there. That is more along the lines of what I was referring to. In your examples, zoning would be used to block ALL business of a specific type. I can see the value in allowing such a thing though I am still precarious about many of the negative aspects of giving government that kind of power to use at their own discretion.

As long as the people direct the government there is no problem. The problem comes when the government presumes to decide for the people what they will and will not be allowed to do in matters that do not affect safety. Of course there will be laws and ordinances decided by the local government that the people won't like. And our Constitution gives the people full power to petititon the government to a redress of grievances when that happens.

Here in Albuquerque, for instance, a roaring controversy over red light cameras continues. Many people hate the cameras because there is no way to challenge them if you are ticketed. Others love them because they do slow down the traffic through busy intersections and they at least feel more safe. In the end, I would hope that the majority opinion would prevail there.

My whole premise is that forming a social contract with my neighbors to protect my/our property values and aesthetic enjoyment of my/our surroundings is what freedom is all about and what the Founders intended. In the rare case that somebody will already be there who doesn't conform to the conditions we want can be grandfathered in or adequately compensated/bribed to move.

I also support the right of the community to form a social contract to keep out certain types of businesses. But if one is let in, all should be let in. If any is banned, all should be banned.

I can agree for the most part aside from the bolded area. You have no right to change the contract on someone that is already there simply because the will of the majority has decided they want things different. Monetary compensation (or any other for that matter) is fine but should never be coerced.

 

[Foxfyre]

That is, at least, until the honky tonk hopeful give the politician a couple of thousand bucks to re-zone the area to whatever he wants. Happened to a local neighborhood where I used to live. Zoning restrictions did not allow a recycling plant until someone managed to 'convince' the powers that be to rezone them.


I have to give you some points in your argument though. I can see where zoning makes sense to a degree as long as it is kept in generalities. What I was speaking to was more specific and I was not thinking of zoning at all. A good example was in Big Bear when I used to live there. Wal-Mart wanted to move into the community but was blocked by the local government. The thing is there was already a super K-Mart up there so there was no reason that they were blocked. It was wrong. If the people wanted the business gone, they simply could have chosen not to buy products there. That is more along the lines of what I was referring to. In your examples, zoning would be used to block ALL business of a specific type. I can see the value in allowing such a thing though I am still precarious about many of the negative aspects of giving government that kind of power to use at their own discretion.

As long as the people direct the government there is no problem. The problem comes when the government presumes to decide for the people what they will and will not be allowed to do in matters that do not affect safety. Of course there will be laws and ordinances decided by the local government that the people won't like. And our Constitution gives the people full power to petititon the government to a redress of grievances when that happens.

Here in Albuquerque, for instance, a roaring controversy over red light cameras continues. Many people hate the cameras because there is no way to challenge them if you are ticketed. Others love them because they do slow down the traffic through busy intersections and they at least feel more safe. In the end, I would hope that the majority opinion would prevail there.

My whole premise is that forming a social contract with my neighbors to protect my/our property values and aesthetic enjoyment of my/our surroundings is what freedom is all about and what the Founders intended. In the rare case that somebody will already be there who doesn't conform to the conditions we want can be grandfathered in or adequately compensated/bribed to move.

I also support the right of the community to form a social contract to keep out certain types of businesses. But if one is let in, all should be let in. If any is banned, all should be banned.

I can agree for the most part aside from the bolded area. You have no right to change the contract on someone that is already there simply because the will of the majority has decided they want things different. Monetary compensation (or any other for that matter) is fine but should never be coerced.

Isn't that what I said? Grandfather them in or bribe them to move? What coercion is there in that?

 

[FA_Q2]

Not at all. You are attempting redefine what the Founders actually were and what they believed. They were not libertarians at all. The sources do not support your contention at all but refute it instead.

Nice he said she said except that Fox actually showed her definitions and beliefs. You post a nice reference but fail to cite any specific that refutes Fox's assertion. You have no argument to stand on if all you are going to do is assert your opinion as fact. Cite something in your link that refutes Fox's assertion...

 

[JakeStarkey]

False, Foxfyre, sorry about that. The founders signed an anti-libertarian document, the U.S. Constitution, that recognized slavery. None of the founders would have recognized libertarianism, for they believed that government had a role in the life of others, and would have refuted the notion of partial slavery as the result of government dictated duties to others.

You are entitled to your own opinion but not to new definitions and not to an unsupported revision of history out of step with the facts.

Have the last word, and I will let it go at that.

 

[FA_Q2]

Isn't that what I said? Grandfather them in or bribe them to move? What coercion is there in that?

Sorry, I took that as what we have today where the government will come in and give you cash for the change in zoning/imminent domain but they are not asking. They are asserting you WILL take the cash and you WILL accept the demands.


Ever seen Up? Now that's what I like to see - a house like that in the middle of a major city j/k...

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not at all. You are attempting redefine what the Founders actually were and what they believed. They were not libertarians at all. The sources do not support your contention at all but refute it instead.

Nice he said she said except that Fox actually showed her definitions and beliefs. You post a nice reference but fail to cite any specific that refutes Fox's assertion. You have no argument to stand on if all you are going to do is assert your opinion as fact. Cite something in your link that refutes Fox's assertion...

I don't have to argue with Fox when the accepted sources that I posted reject the libertarian arguments. No Founder would mistake liberty for the acceptance of the full or interpersonal argument of self-ownership. I don't need to argue here at all when I know (1) Fox is not supported by the evidence, and (2) you won't accept it even when you are proven inaccurate. My duty is merely to point out your irrationality, that's all.

 

[Foxfyre]

Isn't that what I said? Grandfather them in or bribe them to move? What coercion is there in that?

Sorry, I took that as what we have today where the government will come in and give you cash for the change in zoning/imminent domain but they are not asking. They are asserting you WILL take the cash and you WILL accept the demands.


Ever seen Up? Now that's what I like to see - a house like that in the middle of a major city j/k...

So those government entitles aren't libertarian/classical liberal or constitutionalists are they. I am arguing theory here, not case law. Though I think the most wrongheaded decision the Supreme Court has come up with in recent years was Kelo v City of New London that absolutely turned the concept of property rights on its head. The good state governments scrambled to put their own protection for property owners into place after that, but in my view, that struck to the heart of the constitutional intent for right to one's property and SCOTUS got it dead wrong.

 

[FA_Q2]

Isn't that what I said? Grandfather them in or bribe them to move? What coercion is there in that?

Sorry, I took that as what we have today where the government will come in and give you cash for the change in zoning/imminent domain but they are not asking. They are asserting you WILL take the cash and you WILL accept the demands.


Ever seen Up? Now that's what I like to see - a house like that in the middle of a major city j/k...

So those government entitles aren't libertarian/classical liberal or constitutionalists are they. I am arguing theory here, not case law. Though I think the most wrongheaded decision the Supreme Court has come up with in recent years was Kelo v City of New London that absolutely turned the concept of property rights on its head. The good state governments scrambled to put their own protection for property owners into place after that, but in my view, that struck to the heart of the constitutional intent for right to one's property and SCOTUS got it dead wrong.

I know, I slipped for a minute into thinking that you supported such asinine concepts as I have seen many here do. Can you forgive me

Though, I had to do a little refreshing to remember the case you were referring to and I found this:

The redeveloper was unable to obtain financing and abandoned the redevelopment project, leaving the land as an empty lot, which was eventually turned into a dump by the City.

Kelo v. City of New London - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


If you ever need an example of why the government has no business doing such things then here it is. An excellent example of how pathetic Uncle Sam is when he tries the dictatorial stick instead of the freedom carrot.

 

[Foxfyre]

Sorry, I took that as what we have today where the government will come in and give you cash for the change in zoning/imminent domain but they are not asking. They are asserting you WILL take the cash and you WILL accept the demands.


Ever seen Up? Now that's what I like to see - a house like that in the middle of a major city j/k...

So those government entitles aren't libertarian/classical liberal or constitutionalists are they. I am arguing theory here, not case law. Though I think the most wrongheaded decision the Supreme Court has come up with in recent years was Kelo v City of New London that absolutely turned the concept of property rights on its head. The good state governments scrambled to put their own protection for property owners into place after that, but in my view, that struck to the heart of the constitutional intent for right to one's property and SCOTUS got it dead wrong.

I know, I slipped for a minute into thinking that you supported such asinine concepts as I have seen many here do. Can you forgive me

Though, I had to do a little refreshing to remember the case you were referring to and I found this:

The redeveloper was unable to obtain financing and abandoned the redevelopment project, leaving the land as an empty lot, which was eventually turned into a dump by the City.

Kelo v. City of New London - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


If you ever need an example of why the government has no business doing such things then here it is. An excellent example of how pathetic Uncle Sam is when he tries the dictatorial stick instead of the freedom carrot.

LOL, you're forgiven. Rabbi and I are usually pretty much on the same page in this stuff, but he and I, so far, don't agree on the concept of social contract. I see his view as the larger threat to property rights and he sees my view as the threat to property rights, but it has made for a good debate.

I think you and I are probably philosophically closer in this regard. In my view, unless the people can form social contract that allows them to use their property in the way the promotes their pursuit of happiness, they are deprived of some of their property rights. Anybody who has ever bought a nice place with beautiful aesthetics, congenial neighbors who kept up their yards--their own little piece of paradise--

--and then had that spoiled by rowdies moving in next door who let the yard go to weeds, an old car up on blocks, their hound dogs run loose, and trash piled everywhere--

If you've ever had that happen to you, you know of what I speak. Zoning laws often do not restrict our rights but protect them.

 

[Bern80]

False, Foxfyre, sorry about that. The founders signed an anti-libertarian document, the U.S. Constitution, that recognized slavery. None of the founders would have recognized libertarianism, for they believed that government had a role in the life of others, and would have refuted the notion of partial slavery as the result of government dictated duties to others.

You are entitled to your own opinion but not to new definitions and not to an unsupported revision of history out of step with the facts.

Have the last word, and I will let it go at that.

Oh, I see where the issue is now. You think libertarianism = anarchy. That explains a lot.

 

[Contumacious]

Not at all. You are attempting redefine what the Founders actually were and what they believed. They were not libertarians at all. The sources do not support your contention at all but refute it instead.

Nice he said she said except that Fox actually showed her definitions and beliefs. You post a nice reference but fail to cite any specific that refutes Fox's assertion. You have no argument to stand on if all you are going to do is assert your opinion as fact. Cite something in your link that refutes Fox's assertion...

I don't have to argue with Fox when the accepted sources that I posted reject the libertarian arguments. No Founder would mistake liberty for the acceptance of the full or interpersonal argument of self-ownership. I don't need to argue here at all when I know (1) Fox is not supported by the evidence, and (2) you won't accept it even when you are proven inaccurate. My duty is merely to point out your irrationality, that's all.

That is correct.

Founding Father Karl Marx made it abundantly clear that we are property of the "Vaterland".


As always, Heil Hitler.

.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not at all. I fully understand left-libertarian, right-libertarian, the moral purpose and self justification arguments, and so forth. Libertarianism is not, ipso facto, anarchy. But when Rabbi argues that slavery is only an economic but not a moral issue, he and those who agree with him are wrong.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nice he said she said except that Fox actually showed her definitions and beliefs. You post a nice reference but fail to cite any specific that refutes Fox's assertion. You have no argument to stand on if all you are going to do is assert your opinion as fact. Cite something in your link that refutes Fox's assertion...

I don't have to argue with Fox when the accepted sources that I posted reject the libertarian arguments. No Founder would mistake liberty for the acceptance of the full or interpersonal argument of self-ownership. I don't need to argue here at all when I know (1) Fox is not supported by the evidence, and (2) you won't accept it even when you are proven inaccurate. My duty is merely to point out your irrationality, that's all.

That is correct. Founding Father Karl Marx made it abundantly clear that we are property of the "Vaterland". As always, Heil Hitler. .

No where did I make such a statment or infer it, and always remember, Contumacious, I know why you so desparately want a moral-free libertarian criminal code.

 

[Contumacious]

I don't have to argue with Fox when the accepted sources that I posted reject the libertarian arguments. No Founder would mistake liberty for the acceptance of the full or interpersonal argument of self-ownership. I don't need to argue here at all when I know (1) Fox is not supported by the evidence, and (2) you won't accept it even when you are proven inaccurate. My duty is merely to point out your irrationality, that's all.

That is correct. Founding Father Karl Marx made it abundantly clear that we are property of the "Vaterland". As always, Heil Hitler. .

No where did I make such a statment or infer it, and always remember, Contumacious, I know why you so desparately want a moral-free libertarian criminal code.

And always remember, bruh, I know why you so desparately want yet another moral-free fascist/socialist banana republic.

.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Founders were not libertarian, and they would not have tolerated you, as you well know.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Conty, is it true you have a picture of Baby Boy Burke on your wall at home?

 

[kaz]

The Founders were not libertarian, and they would not have tolerated you, as you well know.

Name one thing the founders did that wasn't libertarian. They clearly were, they just didn't use that term.

 

[Bfgrn]

Why You Wouldn’t Find Any Libertarians in 1776

Libertarian psychology would have been even more indigestible to the 18th century mind than libertarian politics. Libertarianism argues that each individual should enjoy the widest possible scope to live as he or she thinks best. It’s an attractive ideal, one widely shared by 21st century people. Modern liberals share the libertarian commitment to “autonomy,” as this ideal is generally called – they just disagree about the institutions needed to support autonomy.

But to an American of the Founding generation, the ideal of autonomy would have contradicted four of the most fundamental physical and psychic facts of life:

Latinity
Calvinism
material scarcity and
slaveholding

Let’s take them in turn…

Elite Americans of the Founding generation were deeply shaped – not literally by Roman ideas, but by the 18th century understanding of Roman ideas. Here’s a perfect example: George Washington’s favorite play was Joseph Addison’s Cato, published in 1713. Washington adapted words from that play in his famous speech quelling the Newburgh mutiny in 1783. Patrick Henry’s “give me liberty or give me death” was likewise a paraphrase of a speech from Addison’s play. Ditto Nathan Hale’s “I only regret I have but one life to give for my country.” So – influential, right?

And what was the message of that play? That the most precious thing in life is honor. And what is honor? It is the esteem of the wise and the good. Better to die in a way that earns the admiration of others than to live without that admiration. It is hard to imagine a more radical antipode to Ayn Rand’s formula, “I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”

More at Frum Forum

 

[FA_Q2]

The Founders were not libertarian, and they would not have tolerated you, as you well know.

And yet again you assert your opinion without one single point to back it up. Something you are always crying about on other threads. Try again and actually have a point rather than droning on about how you are right and they are wrong because you said so and pasted a link.

 

[Foxfyre]

The Founders were not libertarian, and they would not have tolerated you, as you well know.

Name one thing the founders did that wasn't libertarian. They clearly were, they just didn't use that term.

They actually may have though I don't recall seeing the word in any of the Founding documents. Merriam-Webster defines libertarian (little 'L") as:

Definition of LIBERTARIAN
1: an advocate of the doctrine of free will
2a : a person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action

And there is a notation that it first started appearing in American vernacular in 1789. As the Constitution was ratified in 1788, its a toss up whether any of the Founders were familiar with the term.

They absolutely were familiar with the concept, however.