Why Libertarianism Is So Dangerous...

[Eric Cartman]

Yes, you require a ruler. You've made that clear, ding bat.

Not true but like you I was born with one. I do count myself lucky that I wasn't stuck with a worse one because, all of this philosophical BS aside, the right government makes the difference between you being able to rail all day about how our leaders suck and being drug out of bed at night and shot in the head for sedition. That's a pretty important difference to me. (initiation of force, blah, blah, statist, blah, blah, natural rights, blah, blah....)

 

[Eric Cartman]

No, it is not. Unless of course you believe that you have no sefl ownership and that only a government can grant you a right to anything. Which it is obvious that you do.

So I'll ask, someone who built a house on a vacant plot and began tilling it for agriculture, do they own the house and land of their labor? If someone shows up one day and says "hey! This is now my land!" Does the person who showed up have any moral or ethical grounds to acquire the property by force? If the second man kills the first, even without a government to come and take him in, was his murder ethical? Is it still murder even without a government to punish this person?

The answer is obvious.

This works the same way under contract. If Joe owned land and voluntarily agreed to sell it to Tom via contract, does Tim have the right to lay claim to the land? Of course not. Morals and ethics are not derived from governments, Corky. They are rules of nature and the right of man to own himself and his labor.

Now, if Tim shows up to take the land from Tom by force and began shooting at Tom, and Tom killed Tim. Was Tim's use of defense ethical and moral? Of course it is. As Tim initiated violence against Tom who already made a peacefull exchange.

Just admit you're a government loving LOLberal and lets move on. You know nothing of the ethical and moral implications of libertarians. Which is the foundation of most principles. Only a boot licker who requires a ruler would deem government the owner and arbiter of all land.

All this importance put on a man's labor sounds somewhat reminiscent of Marx.

A man has self ownership. You do not own me and can not tell me what to do ethically. Nor vice versa. Nor does any man have that ethical and moral right over another. it is the foundation of libertarian principles. if a man owns himself, which he does. Then all his effort belong to him as well unless it is under contract that he provide labor for compensation. Which is a voluntary exchange.

you know nothing of this topic and rely on semantical arguments to try and pry out a point you dont have.

If you have no property and you have one job offer then "voluntary exchange" is meaningless because you have to eat.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Yes, you require a ruler. You've made that clear, ding bat.

Not true but like you I was born with one. I do count myself lucky that I wasn't stuck with a worse one because, all of this philosophical BS aside, the right government makes the difference between you being able to rail all day about how our leaders suck and being drug out of bed at night and shot in the head for sedition. That's a pretty important difference to me. (initiation of force, blah, blah, statist, blah, blah, natural rights, blah, blah....)

Spoken like a true to form Statist. You can go ahead and accept that you're the property of a ruler. I do not accept it ethically, morally and will continue to speak out against it. You're not adding anything here. You're only making it clear that you have a hard on for statism and will gladly lick the boots of a leader because you think your master "could be worse".

Still, Statism is dying around the world and will drag everyone back to bondage before it's over.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

All this importance put on a man's labor sounds somewhat reminiscent of Marx.

A man has self ownership. You do not own me and can not tell me what to do ethically. Nor vice versa. Nor does any man have that ethical and moral right over another. it is the foundation of libertarian principles. if a man owns himself, which he does. Then all his effort belong to him as well unless it is under contract that he provide labor for compensation. Which is a voluntary exchange.

you know nothing of this topic and rely on semantical arguments to try and pry out a point you dont have.

If you have no property and you have one job offer then "voluntary exchange" is meaningless because you have to eat.

Oh, now you break out Marx exploitation theory.

You're too predictable and completely ignorant of this topic. Good day, sir.

 

[bripat9643]

This all seems kind of silly. Property rights are granted by the government. There is no natural right to property. It is completely arbitrary and decided by government, just as who the 'heir' to your property is arbitrary because you don't own anything when you are dead. So if the government 'takes' your property because you didn't follow the rules of 'ownership', how is that different then when you acquired the property through whatever arbitrary rules the government setup for acquisition?

Thank you for that primer in Soviet communism, Uncle Joe.

Yeah cause the rule of law is the same as soviet communism.

You believe the "rule of law" is whatever laws the government wants to impose on you. In that case, it is indistinguishable from Soviet Communism.

 

[bripat9643]

Lets face it, we all do what the Gang tells us to. It is rule by way of fear & intimidation. Like i said before, our Gang probably isn't the worst Gang, but it is a Gang.

The point of having the rule of law is to replace fear and intimidation with civility. If the rule of law operates as a gang and is not civil then that goes out the pooch. However, replacing the rule of law with anarchy is no answer either.

You're terminally naive if you think you can dispose of the gang so easily. what we have isn't the rule of law. It's rule of a gang.

 

[bripat9643]

Lets face it, we all do what the Gang tells us to. It is rule by way of fear & intimidation. Like i said before, our Gang probably isn't the worst Gang, but it is a Gang.

The point of having the rule of law is to replace fear and intimidation with civility. If the rule of law operates as a gang and is not civil then that goes out the pooch. However, replacing the rule of law with anarchy is no answer either.

Your definition of "civility" is where they keep the guns hidden and only get them out when someone stubbornly insists on his rights to the bitter end.

Property rights are not just a "good idea." If you exchanged something of value for a piece of land, then you have a natural right to that land. It's a matter of ethics and morals, not just bureaucratic convenience because it makes mulcting the suckers easier.

 

[RKMBrown]

Thank you for that primer in Soviet communism, Uncle Joe.

Yeah cause the rule of law is the same as soviet communism.

You believe the "rule of law" is whatever laws the government wants to impose on you. In that case, it is indistinguishable from Soviet Communism.

No that's not true. I believe the rule of law should be bound to the Constitution, and the Constitutions of the individual states, etc.

I agree with your point that if our rule of law is not bound to our federal and State Constitutions that we subsequently degrade to something that is not unlike one of those european isms. I would also agree that is exactly where we currently are. The pooch has been screwed we are living under a soft tyranny.

 

[RKMBrown]

Lets face it, we all do what the Gang tells us to. It is rule by way of fear & intimidation. Like i said before, our Gang probably isn't the worst Gang, but it is a Gang.

The point of having the rule of law is to replace fear and intimidation with civility. If the rule of law operates as a gang and is not civil then that goes out the pooch. However, replacing the rule of law with anarchy is no answer either.

You're terminally naive if you think you can dispose of the gang so easily. what we have isn't the rule of law. It's rule of a gang.

I didn't say it would be easy to dispose this gang. The party of two evils is a two headed snake that has us flailing about like impotent sheep.

 

[RKMBrown]

Lets face it, we all do what the Gang tells us to. It is rule by way of fear & intimidation. Like i said before, our Gang probably isn't the worst Gang, but it is a Gang.

The point of having the rule of law is to replace fear and intimidation with civility. If the rule of law operates as a gang and is not civil then that goes out the pooch. However, replacing the rule of law with anarchy is no answer either.

Your definition of "civility" is where they keep the guns hidden and only get them out when someone stubbornly insists on his rights to the bitter end.

Property rights are not just a "good idea." If you exchanged something of value for a piece of land, then you have a natural right to that land. It's a matter of ethics and morals, not just bureaucratic convenience because it makes mulcting the suckers easier.

>>> Your definition of "civility" is where they keep the guns hidden and only get them out when someone stubbornly insists on his rights to the bitter end.

Agreed.

>>> Property rights are not just a "good idea."

Agreed.

>>> If you exchanged something of value for a piece of land, then you have a natural right to that land.

Agreed.

>>> It's a matter of ethics and morals, not just bureaucratic convenience because it makes mulcting the suckers easier.

Agreed.

Damn it.

 

[Eric Cartman]

A man has self ownership. You do not own me and can not tell me what to do ethically. Nor vice versa. Nor does any man have that ethical and moral right over another. it is the foundation of libertarian principles. if a man owns himself, which he does. Then all his effort belong to him as well unless it is under contract that he provide labor for compensation. Which is a voluntary exchange.

you know nothing of this topic and rely on semantical arguments to try and pry out a point you dont have.

If you have no property and you have one job offer then "voluntary exchange" is meaningless because you have to eat.

Oh, now you break out Marx exploitation theory.

You're too predictable and completely ignorant of this topic. Good day, sir.

I had to look up Marx's exploitation theory because I am not the expert on him like you but I have no problem with a capitalist making a profit from someone else's labor in a competitive labor market but in some cases it isn't exactly a voluntary exchange.

 

[Eric Cartman]

Yes, you require a ruler. You've made that clear, ding bat.

Not true but like you I was born with one. I do count myself lucky that I wasn't stuck with a worse one because, all of this philosophical BS aside, the right government makes the difference between you being able to rail all day about how our leaders suck and being drug out of bed at night and shot in the head for sedition. That's a pretty important difference to me. (initiation of force, blah, blah, statist, blah, blah, natural rights, blah, blah....)

Spoken like a true to form Statist. You can go ahead and accept that you're the property of a ruler. I do not accept it ethically, morally and will continue to speak out against it. You're not adding anything here. You're only making it clear that you have a hard on for statism and will gladly lick the boots of a leader because you think your master "could be worse".

Still, Statism is dying around the world and will drag everyone back to bondage before it's over.

I stated the obvious, that governments regulates and/or taxes property (land) and you somehow extrapolate that into me being the property of a ruler. You should sick with the ad hominem attacks because you logic is seriously flawed.

 

[bripat9643]

Not true but like you I was born with one. I do count myself lucky that I wasn't stuck with a worse one because, all of this philosophical BS aside, the right government makes the difference between you being able to rail all day about how our leaders suck and being drug out of bed at night and shot in the head for sedition. That's a pretty important difference to me. (initiation of force, blah, blah, statist, blah, blah, natural rights, blah, blah....)

Spoken like a true to form Statist. You can go ahead and accept that you're the property of a ruler. I do not accept it ethically, morally and will continue to speak out against it. You're not adding anything here. You're only making it clear that you have a hard on for statism and will gladly lick the boots of a leader because you think your master "could be worse".

Still, Statism is dying around the world and will drag everyone back to bondage before it's over.

I stated the obvious, that governments regulates and/or taxes property (land) and you somehow extrapolate that into me being the property of a ruler. You should sick with the ad hominem attacks because you logic is seriously flawed.

You might as well have state the sun rises in the East. It's a claim with nothing of interest.

 

[Eric Cartman]

This property rights is a natural right seems to be the big gaping hole in the foundation of the libertarian philosophy. In nature (the animal kingdom) property rights are purely about the threat of force but you guys state the opposite is true.

Maybe you could make it clear to me by explaining the natural order of property rights in the following scenario.

A ship full of people crashes on a small deserted island with limited resources and no means of escape. They are forced to live there for the rest of their lives but there are only enough resources to maintain them all if they are spread thin. How should they ethically proceed? How should property rights be handled?

 

[Contumacious]

This property rights is a natural right seems to be the big gaping hole in the foundation of the libertarian philosophy. In nature (the animal kingdom) property rights are purely about the threat of force but you guys state the opposite is true.

Maybe you could make it clear to me by explaining the natural order of property rights in the following scenario.

A ship full of people crashes on a small deserted island with limited resources and no means of escape. They are forced to live there for the rest of their lives but there are only enough resources to maintain them all if they are spread thin. How should they ethically proceed? How should property rights be handled?

So long as they don't elect a government which adopts a gazillion rules "protecting" the environment then the resources will not be limited.

.

 

[Eric Cartman]

This property rights is a natural right seems to be the big gaping hole in the foundation of the libertarian philosophy. In nature (the animal kingdom) property rights are purely about the threat of force but you guys state the opposite is true.

Maybe you could make it clear to me by explaining the natural order of property rights in the following scenario.

A ship full of people crashes on a small deserted island with limited resources and no means of escape. They are forced to live there for the rest of their lives but there are only enough resources to maintain them all if they are spread thin. How should they ethically proceed? How should property rights be handled?

So long as they don't elect a government which adopts a gazillion rules "protecting" the environment then the resources will not be limited.

.

Nobody is going to be worried about the environment if finding your next meal is a concern.

I didn't really expect anyone to give it a serious attempt. Libertarians often blame the tyrannical established government for keeping them down so I intentionally made it easy for them... no government, vacant land, no enemies, resources, a population that was willing to travel together and probably share language, customs and beliefs. Shouldn't it be easy to find a libertarian solution?

 

[bripat9643]

This property rights is a natural right seems to be the big gaping hole in the foundation of the libertarian philosophy. In nature (the animal kingdom) property rights are purely about the threat of force but you guys state the opposite is true.

Maybe you could make it clear to me by explaining the natural order of property rights in the following scenario.

A ship full of people crashes on a small deserted island with limited resources and no means of escape. They are forced to live there for the rest of their lives but there are only enough resources to maintain them all if they are spread thin. How should they ethically proceed? How should property rights be handled?

So long as they don't elect a government which adopts a gazillion rules "protecting" the environment then the resources will not be limited.

.

Nobody is going to be worried about the environment if finding your next meal is a concern.

I didn't really expect anyone to give it a serious attempt. Libertarians often blame the tyrannical established government for keeping them down so I intentionally made it easy for them... no government, vacant land, no enemies, resources, a population that was willing to travel together and probably share language, customs and beliefs. Shouldn't it be easy to find a libertarian solution?

The best way to handle that situation would be to divide up the land and then divvy up the parcels by some impartial method, say by lottery. The collectivist method was tried at Plymouth and Jamestown and it led to immediate starvation.

 

[Pete7469]

Voting for a liberal is like giving an escaped convict the keys to your house, a gun and asking them to babysit your kids while you go on vacation for 2 weeks.

Only the moonbats are taken by surprise when something goes wrong, but they'll still blame it on Bush for locking the sociopath up in the first place.

 

[Eric Cartman]

So long as they don't elect a government which adopts a gazillion rules "protecting" the environment then the resources will not be limited.

.

Nobody is going to be worried about the environment if finding your next meal is a concern.

I didn't really expect anyone to give it a serious attempt. Libertarians often blame the tyrannical established government for keeping them down so I intentionally made it easy for them... no government, vacant land, no enemies, resources, a population that was willing to travel together and probably share language, customs and beliefs. Shouldn't it be easy to find a libertarian solution?

The best way to handle that situation would be to divide up the land and then divvy up the parcels by some impartial method, say by lottery. The collectivist method was tried at Plymouth and Jamestown and it led to immediate starvation.

I am not sure that the folks in Jamestown eating each other quantifies as collectivism. The trouble seemed to stem from lack of shelter, supplies, trouble with natives, living in a swamp and most of all a lack of the proper survival skills for living in a untamed place.

Back to the island. I do appreciate your solution and the fact that it seems to satisfy the libertarian's moral code. I suppose a voluntary trade would solve the most obvious issue of people not getting plots that match their skill set. (e.g. fisherman gets the jungle, the hunter gets the beach) The people who received plots with no resources could either die off, making more available to the rest or could sell their labor.

My next question is who or how would they arrive at your solution? Would it be a vote or would a natural leader emerge (perhaps the captain) and make the decision for a lottery? Also who would decide the punishment for the inevitable trespassing and theft that would occur from the people with no resources? Would there be public pathways or would everyone be landlocked?

More than likely what would actually happen would be that a leader or leaders would emerge from the 80/20 rule (followers/leaders). They would most likely try and maximize the harvest of resources based on skill sets and try and spread the knowledge and skills based on need. Only after the most basic needs seemed secure ( hierarchy of needs ) would anyone probably worry about 'property rights'.

 

[Contumacious]

I didn't really expect anyone to give it a serious attempt. ?

I see. And from your standpoint a "serous attempt" means suggesting that the people elect a supreme leader and letting him dictate what is best for them.

.