Political Crossfire Forums

[LeeSotheby]

I was going to start this post and call it liberalism or rather classical liberalism but as it would've probably got confused with this post so I've used the term libertarianism which as far as I can tell means the same thing.

It is about choice and freedom of choice.

It is about choosing responsibilities which is a fast path to the traditional definition of anarchy (as opposed to the philosophy of anarchy)

Its biggest flaw is it assume one knows the consequence or likely consequence of their choice(s)

[RueTheDay]

LeeSotheby wrote: I was going to start this post and call it liberalism or rather classical liberalism but as it would've probably got confused with this post so I've used the term libertarianism which as far as I can tell means the same thing.

It is about choice and freedom of choice.

It is about choosing responsibilities which is a fast path to the traditional definition of anarchy (as opposed to the philosophy of anarchy)

There is very little in common between the classical liberalism of the Enlightenment era and modern libertarianism, just as there is very little in common between the original anarchists like Proudhon, Bakunin, and Kropotkin and the modern anarcho-capitalists. Libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism simply represent slightly varying degrees of the belief that property (not liberty) is prime. It's actually a fairly modern view, despite its adherents' insistence on creating a false lineage that ties it back to the classical liberals and others.

Quote:

Its biggest flaw is it assume one knows the consequence or likely consequence of their choice(s)

No, it's biggest flaws are in falsely assuming that:

1. Absolute property rights can be derived from some vague principle of self-ownership.

and

2. Absolute rights to contract can be derived from the principles of non-initiation of force and voluntary exchange.

The first position is false because it cannot account for property rights to land and natural resources, neither of which are part of the "self" or the products of labor, and both of which are necessary for the creation of all other property. The second position is false because it treats individuals as islands and ignores the effects that the agreements they enter into have on unwilling third parties.

[thefranzkafkafront]

LeeSotheby wrote:
Its biggest flaw is it assume one knows the consequence or likely consequence of their choice(s)

Oh really now, how is that?

[Robin Hood]

Quote: Its biggest flaw is it assume one knows the consequence or likely consequence of their choice(s)

No, libertarianism of the utilitarian variety (utilib - menaing that liberty would lead to the greatest total good as proposed by Frederic Bastiat) makes a similar claim. The crucial difference is this: it claims that the individual is most likely, overall, to best know what decisions would maximize their utility. Simply put the individual knows their own tastes and preference the best - which should be obvious to everyone really.

Quote: There is very little in common between the classical liberalism of the Enlightenment era and modern libertarianism,


Libertarianism is a form of classical liberalism - or would Von Mises, Jefferson and Locke suddenly be socialists like you?

Quote: 1. Absolute property rights can be derived from some vague principle of self-ownership.

That is some kinds of libertarianism. We've also had this discussion and you were stubbornly wrong.

Quote: 2. Absolute rights to contract can be derived from the principles of non-initiation of force and voluntary exchange.

A contract is a voluntary exchange.....so of course contracts can be derived from it....

[RueTheDay]

Reason wrote: Quote: 1. Absolute property rights can be derived from some vague principle of self-ownership.

That is some kinds of libertarianism. We've also had this discussion and you were stubbornly wrong.


No, we had the conversation and your position was utterly demolished, so much so that you abandoned the thread in shame.

Quote:
Quote: 2. Absolute rights to contract can be derived from the principles of non-initiation of force and voluntary exchange.

A contract is a voluntary exchange.....so of course contracts can be derived from it....

And of course you ignored the part about the effect of contracts on third parties. I sense that you're about to get another ass-whipping in this thread.

[Robin Hood]

Quote: No, we had the conversation and your position was utterly demolished, so much so that you abandoned the thread in shame.

actually I left the thread nafter 20 odd pages of you consitsently lying and dodging...though it wasn't because of that, it was because the internet was inaccessable to me due to the country/province I was in....

Quote: And of course you ignored the part about the effect of contracts on third parties. I sense that you're about to get another ass-whipping in this thread.

Since one can't initiate force, one can't make a contract that effects unconsenting third parties.....tell me one type of contract that libertarians generally allow that would - don't dodge this, just try to give an example.

[RueTheDay]

Reason wrote: Quote: No, we had the conversation and your position was utterly demolished, so much so that you abandoned the thread in shame.

actually I left the thread nafter 20 odd pages of you consitsently lying and dodging...though it wasn't because of that, it was because the internet was inaccessable to me due to the country/province I was in....

The only one dodging was you. I'm surprised you still post on here after you were humiliated so bad by Roy and me in that thread.

Quote:
Quote: And of course you ignored the part about the effect of contracts on third parties. I sense that you're about to get another ass-whipping in this thread.

Since one can't initiate force, one can't make a contract that effects unconsenting third parties.....tell me one type of contract that libertarians generally allow that would - don't dodge this, just try to give an example.

I manufacture tires. You contract with me to purchase tires from me. As I make the tires for you, I pollute the air in the surrounding community, thus making hundreds and possibly thousands of people worse off.

Let's take a more subtle example. I live in a beautiful residential area. One day I decide to turn my front yard into a storage facility for junk cars. Immediately, all of the surrounding property values decrease by a significant amount. My actions have made all of my neighbors worse off.

I can come up with dozens of examples. Of course, you will keep pretending that externalities don't exist, and that nothing people do except direct acts of aggression affect anyone else, and you will continue to be wrong.

[Robin Hood]

Quote: I manufacture tires. You contract with me to purchase tires from me. As I make the tires for you, I pollute the air in the surrounding community, thus making hundreds and possibly thousands of people worse off.

If you really do pollute the air then most libertarians wuld recognise that as the initiation of force.....making your exaple irrelevant (as usual).

Quote: I live in a beautiful residential area. One day I decide to turn my front yard into a storage facility for junk cars. Immediately, all of the surrounding property values decrease by a significant amount. My actions have made all of my neighbors worse off.

You are making them worse off by taking from them what you gave to them in the first place. THis is not actually making them worse off, but simply not making them better off. Since they have no right to your land, they can expect anytign from it, and thus if you happen to use it in the way they least like it's not harming them.


This example, though seemingly grounded in te real world, is analogous to a potential buyer changing their taste (so tht it does not rate your property highly) - therebye lowering the value of your property.

You committing suicide could perhaps make somebody somewhere a little sad....but it is not an agression but a withdrawal of yourself. Since they have no rights to your property, anything but the mt value depressing use of it is a bonus. In fact since value can be decided through the relationship of differing people it is a common concept. Value is not yours....an changes to it are not an aggression on you.

[RueTheDay]

Reason wrote: Quote: I manufacture tires. You contract with me to purchase tires from me. As I make the tires for you, I pollute the air in the surrounding community, thus making hundreds and possibly thousands of people worse off.

If you really do pollute the air then most libertarians wuld recognise that as the initiation of force.....making your exaple irrelevant (as usual).

I have seen people who consider themselves Libertarians argue both sides of this. Some will say that the production that is occuring provides jobs and other benefits that make everyone better off and that this somehow offsets the harm that is done by the pollution, so we can just ignore it. Others will argue that it is an initiation of force, but only so long as there is actual harm that has been done by the pollution and that this must be proven in a court of law (including the source of the pollution) before damages can be assessed. Neither argument holds up to serious scrutiny.

So far from "making my exaple irrelevant", it makes it all the more relevant. Please explain your position in detail including how pollution would be procedurally handled under a libertarian system of law and I will address your points from there. I'm not going to let you get away with dismissing valid arguments with idiotic simplistic one-liners.

Quote:
Quote: I live in a beautiful residential area. One day I decide to turn my front yard into a storage facility for junk cars. Immediately, all of the surrounding property values decrease by a significant amount. My actions have made all of my neighbors worse off.

You are making them worse off by taking from them what you gave to them in the first place.

What would that be?

Quote: THis is not actually making them worse off, but simply not making them better off.

If I decide to dump a festering pile of garbage on my front lawn and this drives down all of my neighbors property values, that most certainly DOES make them worse off.

Quote:
Since they have no right to your land, they can expect anytign from it, and thus if you happen to use it in the way they least like it's not harming them.

It has nothing to do with them having a right to my land. It has everything to do with my actions on my land creating a nuisance and making their land worth considerably less.

Quote:
This example, though seemingly grounded in te real world, is analogous to a potential buyer changing their taste (so tht it does not rate your property highly) - therebye lowering the value of your property.

No, it's not analagous to that at all. It's a purposeful action on my part having a demonstrable negative impact on the market value of my neighbors' property.

Quote:
You committing suicide could perhaps make somebody somewhere a little sad....but it is not an agression but a withdrawal of yourself.

Making someone sad isn't the same thing as demonstrably decreasing the value of their property.

Quote: Since they have no rights to your property, anything but the mt value depressing use of it is a bonus. In fact since value can be decided through the relationship of differing people it is a common concept. Value is not yours....an changes to it are not an aggression on you.

As usual, everything you have to say is completely wrong.

[Korimyr the Rat]

RueTheDay wrote: 1. Absolute property rights can be derived from some vague principle of self-ownership.

How can a man own himself, when he is clearly the product of other peoples' labor?

[RueTheDay]

Korimyr the Rat wrote: RueTheDay wrote: 1. Absolute property rights can be derived from some vague principle of self-ownership.

How can a man own himself, when he is clearly the product of other peoples' labor?

I don't know that I would go so far as to say that man is the product of other peoples' labor, but there are clearly problems with the idea of "self-ownership". I think a far better term would be "self-determination". The problem is that libertarians seem to want to frame everything in terms of property, and to talk of human beings in terms of property just doesn't make a lot of sense.

[Robin Hood]

Quote: Making someone sad isn't the same thing as demonstrably decreasing the value of their property.


If I make someone sad then they mgiht be less inclined to put in a high offer for a property and thus the value is reduced. It's just that lowering the value of the property and someone's spirit can be done in two ways. Taking back what value you give (your example), and taking value (theft). The value you give is yours to take back (unless contractually given) and the latter is unjustifiable.

Quote: No, it's not analagous to that at all. It's a purposeful action on my part having a demonstrable negative impact on the market value of my neighbors' property.

Yte since they have no claim to your property, they can only expect the worst use...anything else is a bonus. Still since value is somehwat subjective, in our heads, you can't own it. Thus if someone does something to change the value (as long as they don't take away something that is in physical reality) then they've done nothing wrong.

Quote: So far from "making my exaple irrelevant", it makes it all the more relevant. Please explain your position in detail including how pollution would be procedurally handled under a libertarian system of law and I will address your points from there. I'm not going to let you get away with dismissing valid arguments with idiotic simplistic one-liners.

Pollution would be prosecuted on the basis of innocent until proven guilty. The action would be regarded as harmless until shown otherwise, and the same for the polluter. If foudn guilty on both counts then they'd be fined. In other words pollution would be treated like any other aggression.

[The Grandmaster]

Korimyr the Rat wrote: RueTheDay wrote: 1. Absolute property rights can be derived from some vague principle of self-ownership.

How can a man own himself, when he is clearly the product of other peoples' labor?

Are you saying we are nothing more than slaves to another? We can't even have control over our own selves? Who own's us then?

[Robin Hood]

Quote: Are you saying we are nothing more than slaves to another? We can't even have control over our own selves? Who own's us then?

[RueTheDay]

Reason wrote: Quote: Making someone sad isn't the same thing as demonstrably decreasing the value of their property.


If I make someone sad then they mgiht be less inclined to put in a high offer for a property and thus the value is reduced. It's just that lowering the value of the property and someone's spirit can be done in two ways. Taking back what value you give (your example), and taking value (theft). The value you give is yours to take back (unless contractually given) and the latter is unjustifiable.

You can evade and dodge and pretend that externalities don't exist all you want, but that doesn't make it so.

If a factory belches sulfides into the air which then form acid rain which then destroys the paint on your car, is that acceptable? After all, according to your (il)logic, some people might prefer cars with the paint eaten off them so there's no way to quantify that the value of the car has decreased.

Quote:
Quote: No, it's not analagous to that at all. It's a purposeful action on my part having a demonstrable negative impact on the market value of my neighbors' property.

Yte since they have no claim to your property, they can only expect the worst use...anything else is a bonus. Still since value is somehwat subjective, in our heads, you can't own it. Thus if someone does something to change the value (as long as they don't take away something that is in physical reality) then they've done nothing wrong.

If I build an incinerator in my front yard that belches out disgusting acrid smoke all day long, I have taken an action that decreases the value of your property just as surely as if I took a BB gun and shot out all of your windows.

Quote:
Quote: So far from "making my exaple irrelevant", it makes it all the more relevant. Please explain your position in detail including how pollution would be procedurally handled under a libertarian system of law and I will address your points from there. I'm not going to let you get away with dismissing valid arguments with idiotic simplistic one-liners.

Pollution would be prosecuted on the basis of innocent until proven guilty. The action would be regarded as harmless until shown otherwise, and the same for the polluter. If foudn guilty on both counts then they'd be fined. In other words pollution would be treated like any other aggression.

So if there are a hundred factories in the area, the person who comes down with cancer from the pollution would have to not only prove that the cancer was caused by the pollution but would have to *somehow* trace back the exact molecules that he inhaled to the exact factory that produced them? And this is somehow preferable to simply passing a law that says it's illegal to dump chemicals known to cause cancer and death into the environment? Is your intent on posting in here for people to NOT take you seriously?

[Robin Hood]

Quote:
If a factory belches sulfides into the air which then form acid rain which then destroys the paint on your car, is that acceptable? After all, according to your (il)logic, some people might prefer cars with the paint eaten off them so there's no way to quantify that the value of the car has decreased.

Objective and physaical damage. It's not bad because the value decreases but because the paint is eaten, isn't that obvious?

Quote: If I build an incinerator in my front yard that belches out disgusting acrid smoke all day long, I have taken an action that decreases the value of your property just as surely as if I took a BB gun and shot out all of your windows .

Well the smoke is a pollutant, and an actual physical trespass...it'd be criminal.
Quote:
So if there are a hundred factories in the area, the person who comes down with cancer from the pollution would have to not only prove that the cancer was caused by the pollution but would have to *somehow* trace back the exact molecules that he inhaled to the exact factory that produced them? And this is somehow preferable to simply passing a law that says it's illegal to dump chemicals known to cause cancer and death into the environment?

For a law to be passed the thing it prohibits should be proven harmful - of course - and if someone is suspected of releasing it then then must be proven guilty - obviously - in practice differing not at all from what I stated earlier.

[RueTheDay]

Reason wrote: Quote:
If a factory belches sulfides into the air which then form acid rain which then destroys the paint on your car, is that acceptable? After all, according to your (il)logic, some people might prefer cars with the paint eaten off them so there's no way to quantify that the value of the car has decreased.

Objective and physaical damage. It's not bad because the value decreases but because the paint is eaten, isn't that obvious?

Putting a huge stinking pile of manure on your front lawn is not objective and physical?

Quote:
Quote: If I build an incinerator in my front yard that belches out disgusting acrid smoke all day long, I have taken an action that decreases the value of your property just as surely as if I took a BB gun and shot out all of your windows .

Well the smoke is a pollutant, and an actual physical trespass...it'd be criminal.

We've had this discussion before. If you intend to treat air pollution as a physical trespass, then any light or sound that emanates from my property onto yours is also a trespass. Where you draw the line is essentially arbitrary. As I recall, you abandoned that debate in shameful defeat as well.

Quote:
Quote:
So if there are a hundred factories in the area, the person who comes down with cancer from the pollution would have to not only prove that the cancer was caused by the pollution but would have to *somehow* trace back the exact molecules that he inhaled to the exact factory that produced them? And this is somehow preferable to simply passing a law that says it's illegal to dump chemicals known to cause cancer and death into the environment?

For a law to be passed the thing it prohibits should be proven harmful - of course - and if someone is suspected of releasing it then then must be proven guilty - obviously - in practice differing not at all from what I stated earlier.

For a law to be passed, it has to be proven harmful ONCE and then companies are legally prohibited from releasing it ever again.

In your approach, it would have to be proven harmful each and every time, and more importantly, the victim would have to prove which of the many factories actually released the molecules that caused him harm, which would almost always be impossible.

So the two solutions are not in any way similar.

[Robin Hood]

Quote: Putting a huge stinking pile of manure on your front lawn is not objective and physical?

It's both, but it's also your lawn..

Quote: We've had this discussion before. If you intend to treat air pollution as a physical trespass, then any light or sound that emanates from my property onto yours is also a trespass. Where you draw the line is essentially arbitrary. As I recall, you abandoned that debate in shameful defeat as well.

There is a line to be drawn but it's not abitrary....is the difference between a live rock concert and some headphones abitrary?
Quote:
For a law to be passed, it has to be proven harmful ONCE and then companies are legally prohibited from releasing it ever again.

If the pollutant is proven to harmful once then it need not be proved again unless challenged (of course - the same with the law) which in the case of most pollutants would merely be a formality. The practicalities of my method are the same as yours, because they are same except yours emphasises the role of the state and mine: the individual.

Quote: the victim would have to prove which of the many factories actually released the molecules that caused him harm, which would almost always be impossible.

They could just sue any factory that was releasing into an area that would affect them....

[Roy L]

Reason wrote: Quote: Are you saying we are nothing more than slaves to another? We can't even have control over our own selves? Who own's us then?



GOOD ONE! :rofl:

[Cato]

Reason,

You live by a highway, and the carbon monoxide from the passing cars causes your health to deteriorate and decreases the value of your property. You couldn't possibly hunt down every motorist to ever pass your house. How is this carbon monoxide not an externality?

You own a fishery. A factory belches heavy metal into the body of water you fish, and all the fish die. You don't own the lake or the fish in it, and yet this factory has put you out of business all the same. Also, this lake had been a prime spot for water activities, and now it is a deadly sesspool of toxic elements. How is this pollution not an externality?

There's a bird indigenous to a forested region. It brings the locals a great deal of pleasure, and a popular folk-legend has grown surrounding it. A logging company buys the forest, and destroys the bird's natural nesting ground, causing it to go extinct. How is the destruction of this bird not an externality?