Home | Community | Message Board |
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
| |||||||
ScavengerType Registered: 01/24/08 Posts: 5,784 Loc: The North Last seen: 10 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
Quote: What is the difference if it's a resource base privately owned or corporately owned. If it's owned without mechanisms of accountability or regulation to protect the resource base and other resource bases that are attached or effected by it's maintenance or existence, there will be problems. In fact, one can argue since these resources are and may be interlinked they should be entrusted to a central beurocracy to maintain through separate devisions that operate occasionally in cooperation to maintain overall resource integrity and economic success. Short of the last eight words that describes the system at current with regard to resources. Quote:Quote: Can you explain what you mean some of this sounds like the way resources are handled now. Some clearer language would be helpful since I'm not in understanding of who owns and manages the resource base yet is it multiple parties or one central party that is responsible for maintaining the resource? Quote: Really so today corporations left to their own devices would not; over-fish, pollute an environmentally important area, desertify a rainforest, sell toxic chemicals with full knowledge of their effects, peddle addictive drugs as cure-alls, sell goods to wartime enemies, pollute natural gene-pools with GMOs or coheres employees for free labor(just to name a few and if you want examples just ask), to earn a quick buck? Many do these things already what makes you think deregulation would protect the public from these acts never mind the resource bases themselves that are harmed. Quote: What about libertarianism makes you think it will balance the poverty of the wronged individual against the immense wealth of the cooperation in a legal battle? Quote: your kidding me. Libertarians got what they wanted with media ownership deregulation and the results have been disastrous and arguably ended up causing the Iraq war since CNN (usually a relatively credible journalistic source in American media) was under the same owner as a weapons manufacturer that has profited hansomly from the war. Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote: I don't know if you realize this. but your philosophy does not exist in a vacuume all other's opinions on what constitutes a common resource are considered equally as valid as yours under such a system. Therefore you still have to consider it. Quote:Quote:Quote: I was actually comparing it to other nations, what else should I compare it to? Your fantasy nation? -------------------------------- Quote: Well, what about the fact that doing those things would yield little money but cost a lot. I can't see this being a realistic outcome of libertarianism can you? This is really the main problem that it wouldn't happen not that it couldn't. Since there's a possibility that under business as usual you will become rich and everything will work out fine and you can grow as much drugs as you want and nobody will hassle you. However the possibility of this does not leave you unconcerned about the possibility of persecution or the taxation by the government for public services. ------------------------- Quote: Quote: Quote: to repeat myself companies would; over-fish, pollute an environmentally important area, desertify a rainforest, sell toxic chemicals with full knowledge of their effects, peddle addictive drugs as cure-alls, sell goods to wartime enemies, pollute natural gene-pools with GMOs or coheres employees for free labor, to name a few. again just ask for examples I thought of at least 1 example each of companies doing this though finding example of successful government regulation may be more difficult but I'd give it a crack though, to point out, it is not necessary to defend my argument since incompetent government is something I am also against. Quote: yet we can also respect the fact that removing all of those controls over night would have some tragic results as well as make the economy scream. Quote: no argument here sometimes this is a good thing. Quote: Actually people have answered every one of those that you asked with a question mark. Though the last two uncommented on were statements. Quote: How does libertarianism suggest to restrain them from doing harm? I've asked this already with regards to the tragedy of the commons question. Quote: I never said I was against libertarian principle. I am afraid that libertarianism as presented here would result in an increase of the previously mentioned problems(not evils) to name a few. Additionally the ideology leaves no consideration for the power of wealth and it's effect on society. -------------------- "Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?" "The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything." - Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now. Conquer's Club
| |||||||
fivepointer newbie Registered: 08/03/02 Posts: 1,428 Last seen: 7 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
ScavengerType wrote:
to repeat myself companies would; over-fish, pollute an environmentally important area, desertify a rainforest, sell toxic chemicals with full knowledge of their effects, peddle addictive drugs as cure-alls, sell goods to wartime enemies, pollute natural gene-pools with GMOs or coheres employees for free labor, to name a few. again just ask for examples I thought of at least 1 example each of companies doing this though finding example of successful government regulation may be more difficult but I'd give it a crack though, to point out, it is not necessary to defend my argument since incompetent government is something I am also against. "over-fish" Who is to say what "over-fish" is? If I have a pond of fish I farm and decide to sell every one of my fish, have I "over-fished"? It is my pond and fish so it is no ones business what I do with it (as long as I don't infringe on the rights of others). "sell toxic chemicals with full knowledge of their effects" / "peddle addictive drugs as cure-alls" To intentionally misrepresent a product is fraud and is not consistent with libertarianism. "pollute natural gene-pools with GMOs" "pollute" to you might mean "improve" to someone else. If someone owns a crop or livestock and improves the genetics for better health / yield, is this "pollution" of the gene pool? To you it might be. But who cares it is not your property so it is none of your business. "coheres employees for free labor" This is breach of contract and not libertarian.
| |||||||
johnm214 Registered: 05/31/07 Posts: 17,582 Loc: Americas |
| ||||||
Quote: What examples do you have of this occuring? HOw dows liberal regulation or the present regulation favor benificial results over libertarian regulation? Quote: Could you point out the posts? Quote: 1, as identified previously, the individual who owns property has no incentive to decimate it forever. In a libertarian scheme, the land would be owned privatly, which means the legislatures wouldn't own the land and be able to do with what they wish. They wouldn't be able to be bribed by special interests and sell off whatever amount they like to industry. The industry would compete to buy the best lands, and the varying industries would own varying amounts of the land/resource. The conservation groups could own the resources too, and do with what they wish. Only in this situation, the adjacent and affected landowners and people with sufficient interest could sue to protect their rights. The mining company wouldn't be able to rely on federal regulations that allow 2% mercury contamination or whatever in streams. They wouldn't be able to rely on federal regulations that preempt state commonlaw and statutory statutes. In short, they wouldn't be able to adversely affect their neighbor's interest in their own property. The situation now, and if the government got more control, would be return to the industrial revolution days, where the interests of buisness were elevated above the interest of others. The equitable powers of the law must be respected. We should not allow folks in washington 'own' the land and allow them to exempt my neighbor from the centuries-old commonlaw that protects my right in my property and its integrity. Allowing washington more power is just the bullshit that would allow more regulations to issue. Almost every environmental or consumer protection bill has done the opposite its title suggests, at least in part- and this is how the industry is bought off. The collection and credit reporting agencies get new legislation that threatens them, but at the same time removes people's ability to sue to protect their own interests in certain and highly threatening ways, thus the industry wins. The industry gets to pollute the watertable like hell, so long as they own enough land. Then when the neighbors start bearing kids with 5 limbs, their lawsuit gets thrown out, cuz the federal government allready decided what the "safe" level of the toxins was, and they can't prove their well is above that. Nevermind that science can show the government's version of safe isn't, the lawsuit still gets dismissed. Why? Cuz we gave the feds that ability to determine reality, and the courts must accept their determinatioons, often only in regulations and not in statutes- something a group of five people may proclaim, to the detrment of all the equitable laws we have.
| |||||||
fivepointer newbie Registered: 08/03/02 Posts: 1,428 Last seen: 7 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
Back in the day when the LP still had an unapologetic platform:
1992 Libertarian Party Platform 3. VICTIMLESS CRIMES Because only actions that infringe on the rights of others can properly be termed crimes, we favor the repeal of all federal, state, and local laws creating "crimes" without victims. In particular, we advocate: a. the repeal of all laws prohibiting the production, sale, possession, or use of drugs, and of all medicinal prescription requirements for the purchase of vitamins, drugs, and similar substances; b. the repeal of all laws restricting or prohibiting the use or sale of alcohol, including the imposition of a minimum drinking age, and making bartenders or hosts responsible for the behavior of customers and guests; c. the repeal of all laws or policies authorizing stopping drivers without probable cause to test for alcohol or drug use; d. the repeal of all laws regarding consensual sexual relations, including prostitution and solicitation, and the cessation of state oppression and harassment of homosexual men and women, that they, at last, be accorded their full rights as individuals; e. the repeal of all laws regulating or prohibiting the possession, use, sale, production, or distribution of sexually explicit material, independent of "socially redeeming value" or compliance with "community standards"; f. the repeal of all laws regulating or prohibiting gambling; g. the repeal of anti-racketeering statutes such as the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), which punish peaceful behavior -- including insider trading in securities, sale of sexually explicit material, and nonviolent anti-abortion protests -- by freezing assets of the accused and seizing assets of the accused or convicted; and h. the repeal of all laws interfering with the right to commit suicide as infringements of the ultimate right of an individual to his or her own life. We demand the use of executive pardon to free and exonerate all those presently incarcerated or ever convicted solely for the commission of these "crimes." We condemn the wholesale confiscation of property prior to conviction by the state that all too often accompanies police raids, searches, and prosecutions for victimless crimes. Further, we recognize that, often, the Federal Government blackmails states which refuse to comply with these laws by withholding funds and we applaud those states which refuse to be so coerced.
| |||||||
Albino_Jesus Clearly Retarded Registered: 09/14/02 Posts: 1,698 Loc: Construction ahe Last seen: 14 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
Ownership is theft from the commons.
-------------------- The only difference between the Republican and Democratic parties is the velocities with which their knees hit the floor when corporations knock on their door. -Ralph Nader
| |||||||
Redstorm Prince of Bugs Registered: 10/08/02 Posts: 44,175 Last seen: 4 months, 29 days |
| ||||||
Quote: For that to be true, the commons would have to have a claim to others' property, which is hardly the case.
| |||||||
Albino_Jesus Clearly Retarded Registered: 09/14/02 Posts: 1,698 Loc: Construction ahe Last seen: 14 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
No. That's completely circular. My view is that ownership, property in itself, is theft from the commons.
-------------------- The only difference between the Republican and Democratic parties is the velocities with which their knees hit the floor when corporations knock on their door. -Ralph Nader
| |||||||
Redstorm Prince of Bugs Registered: 10/08/02 Posts: 44,175 Last seen: 4 months, 29 days |
| ||||||
That's a pretty deluded view.
Care to provide any evidence that this is true?
| |||||||
Albino_Jesus Clearly Retarded Registered: 09/14/02 Posts: 1,698 Loc: Construction ahe Last seen: 14 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
Can you first define property? let's make sure we're on the same page here.
-------------------- The only difference between the Republican and Democratic parties is the velocities with which their knees hit the floor when corporations knock on their door. -Ralph Nader
| |||||||
Redstorm Prince of Bugs Registered: 10/08/02 Posts: 44,175 Last seen: 4 months, 29 days |
| ||||||
Material goods and, in some cases, intangibles which are in one's possession.
That's not a dictionary definition of anything; just something off the top of my head.
| |||||||
Albino_Jesus Clearly Retarded Registered: 09/14/02 Posts: 1,698 Loc: Construction ahe Last seen: 14 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
So anything in one's possession is property? What if that item was taken from someone else's possession against their will? Is that still their property?
-------------------- The only difference between the Republican and Democratic parties is the velocities with which their knees hit the floor when corporations knock on their door. -Ralph Nader
| |||||||
fivepointer newbie Registered: 08/03/02 Posts: 1,428 Last seen: 7 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
Quote: I am really puzzled by this thinking. Property is controlled by someone like it or not. So either it is controlled by those who have rightly acquired it without force or fraud, or by someone else, which usually ends up being a group that forcefully takes possession of it (the State or common criminals).
| |||||||
Albino_Jesus Clearly Retarded Registered: 09/14/02 Posts: 1,698 Loc: Construction ahe Last seen: 14 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
"Property is controlled by someone like it or not. So either it is controlled by those who have rightly acquired it without force or fraud..."
So in what scenario do you believe that property is acquired "rightly"? Any time someone claims an item or land for their own they are preventing others from utilizing it. Whereas before they made this claim, it was available for others to utilize. -------------------- The only difference between the Republican and Democratic parties is the velocities with which their knees hit the floor when corporations knock on their door. -Ralph Nader
| |||||||
johnm214 Registered: 05/31/07 Posts: 17,582 Loc: Americas |
| ||||||
Quote: Not unless they had the right to take that property as repayment of debts or in fulfillment of contract. You're property is what you have a right to posses. What you have a right to posses is that which you own through either making it yourself from your own goods or recieving it from someone else through contract. Now get on with your deduction here.... I think we get it You own what you have a right to. You have a right to what you've made or aquired from others who owned via their agreement. Lets get to the robing hood part.
| |||||||
fivepointer newbie Registered: 08/03/02 Posts: 1,428 Last seen: 7 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Unowned land in the wild west was homesteaded. This then became property which can be bought and sold. Just acquisition is by either homestead or trade (without force or fraud). Your example doesn't solve the problem. Someone is controlling it and preventing another person from utilizing it. But this is unavoidable in any system, at any given time someone is controlling it and preventing others from controlling it at the same time.
| |||||||
Albino_Jesus Clearly Retarded Registered: 09/14/02 Posts: 1,698 Loc: Construction ahe Last seen: 14 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
Quote: The land that was "homesteaded" was effectively stolen from nomadic people who relied on that land... oh until we killed them with smallpox. Oops! I have no problem with possession, I have a problem with property. Property can't be utilized by others unless you give them permission. If something is simply in your "possession", then when you are done with the item, then it is free for someone else who needs it. -------------------- The only difference between the Republican and Democratic parties is the velocities with which their knees hit the floor when corporations knock on their door. -Ralph Nader Edited by Albino_Jesus (07/07/08 08:52 PM)
| |||||||
fivepointer newbie Registered: 08/03/02 Posts: 1,428 Last seen: 7 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Interesting property theory. So when you leave your house I can occupy it and when you try to get back in I'll just say I'm using it, sorry find somewhere else. Also those fine and rare paintings you left on the wall, since you abandoned them, they are now mine, and I decided to sell them for a new car. Thanks. Sounds pretty cool, maybe not a bad theory after all.
| |||||||
ScavengerType Registered: 01/24/08 Posts: 5,784 Loc: The North Last seen: 10 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
Quote: the government does not currently harass fish farmers. What are you getting at? Fish stocks are a common resource and you are abusing them if you take more than can be sustainably caught. Overfishing is occurring when it causes dramatic depressions in the population of said fish that eventually results in it's extinction. Quote: Well not regulating the chemical and drug industries is creating these problems, so am I to believe there would be some sort of magical change in a world where people had to lobby themselves to strike back at agressive drug marketing or chemical use? Many properly regulated drug induustries and chemical industries do prevent overprescription of unnecicary drugs/ chemical contaminations before they happen. Quote: But I have to eat it so it is my buisness in the literal sense. Besides from what I'm starting to see far from free me libertarianism seeks to put me in a fascist corperatocracy where I will have no say in any of the issues that directly effect me. All I have to worry about now is that the cops will find my drugs, your world looks much more painful for me. Quote: Well then would you care to explain how libertarian court systems will empower the underprivileged against their oppressors in this situation? Will the government help them with their legal fees? will they receive competent council? will the companies legal expenses be restricted in order to keep a fair trial? Somehow I doubt it. RE: your, 1992 Libertarian Party Platform. Point 3 "Victimless Crimes": This is the part of the libertarian platform that we all can agree on and it was why libertine made this post. However if your privy to such a document why don't you post the mechanics of their economic policies that are the mater of debate (and incidentally the original poster's criticism) here? --------------------------- Quote: over-fish: really I shouldn't have to explain this but how about cod fisheries on the east coast and salmon on the west. Then there's also the huge exploitation of Anchovies on the west coast of the horn of Africa the species has never rebounded and it has seriously effected the ecosystem to the point that low pressure systems now cause methane gasses to rise from the ocean floor and kill nearby fish.||| Examples of government regulation saving these species include bass fish of the states and many river recovery projects that restore previous river habitats usually these are undertaken by native bands but the odd community takes on the challenge if it effects the economic bottom line of the town enough. pollute an environmentally important area: Exxon Valdez is one famous of many oil spills in the world and in many places oil companies can spill with impunity. A recent spill around Indonesia has yielded $0 for the victims and cleanup. Additionally the Rhine river is one great example of many of a river that was destroyed by unrestricted pollution now it is my example of regulation turning such a situation on it's head. desertify a rainforest: In Brazil companies buy rainforest land slash and burn the forest and then grow crops until the soil is quickly rendered void of nutrients within a year or two and all that remains is desert. This is because of bad land resource management instead of fields that can dry and erode equatorial countries should grow via plantation where permanent coverage protects soil integrity. Bolivia is making reforms toward this respect but it is mostly a problem of corporate desire clashing with reality. Sell toxic chemicals with full knowledge of their effects: Remember Agent orange? Well the company knew about it's effects and sold it to the US military anyway. It took soldiers until a few years ago to receive compensation. 30 fucking years man. Today proper regulation keeps many dangerous chemicals away from consumers. Peddle addictive drugs as cure-alls: Currently the best example of this is the concept of "Social Anxiety Disorder" that was cooked up by a PR firm for a major drug company to expand it's consumer base. But in an unregulated market People marketed products like morphine and cocaine as medicines that would cure anything. Many countries that properly regulate their pharmaceutical markets do not have these extreme problems. sell goods to wartime enemies: Call me lazy but my example is going to be the bush family during WW2. However looking at the current political events and climates regarding warfare there will likely be many more documented in the future with regards to current endeavors. pollute natural gene-pools with GMOs: just 5 years into application of the NAFTA treaty GMOs were found in a basin of corn previously thought to be an undiluted gene pool around Oaxaca. This is the area at the northern most tip of the more tropical regions of Mexico. The forested south of Mexico is a bason for the most genetically diverse and natural types of corn growing on the face of the planet. Currently public eradication efforts are underway but after a decade the gene pool is still polluted and will never be fully clean. Coheres employees for free labor: Case and point Walmart, in countries like the US where labor regulation enforcement is lax many workers may be forced to work unpaid hours. This is less common in countries like Canada and Germany where labor protection regulation is not just good but properly enforced as well. Sweatshops have little regulation in countries and it is not uncommon at all for some of them to work an entire unpaid day. Satisfied? Have any questions? Quote: Aside from the above mentioned examples I am quite unfamiliar with this "libertarian regulation" according to you this should be an oxymoron since there is no regulatory bodies thus it is self regulation? Still it's too vague a question to answer and it is also kinda confusing since I'm not quite sure what you mean by "liberal regulation". Perhaps you should explain your yank terms to me. Quote:Quote: the one I quoted in response to your asinine assertion that your either a blue blooded libertarian capitalist or some wicked commie pinko. I may be paraphrasing here but the other question was responded with the questions about the tragedy of the commons under Libertarianism. Nobody has satisfied me that it would not create major ecological / resource management / economic problems so I'm considdering it a valid point. Quote:Quote: Perhaps they do? What vested share does this company have in staying in it's location indefinitely. Some times it is in the private person's best interest to rape the land liquidate or move production lines and move on. Quote: How do the conservation groups get the lands? What prevents these Legislatures from being corrupt (considdering today regulation hardly works)? Is there a secret police that keeps tabs on these legislatures or a large beaurocracy that is in charge of oversight for all of these legislatures? Quote: This makes the asinine assertion that I have to live near an effected piece of land to have a vested interest in it's wellbeing. But either way it's a moot point since I am not defending the weak environmental regulation of the USA. Quote: However they could destroy common areas that nobody has ownership over with total impunity. Like a lake that many fish from but nobody owns even a small cabin on. This is the problem with this logic. Quote: I think you lack the fundamental understanding of what is being argued here. I never said anything that endorses such an outcome. Quote: I think you are drawing on the US government's failures to regulate properly and it is quite a disgrace really. However, it is not the concept of regulation, or giving government "more power" whatever the fuck that means, that is the problem but rather how it is improperly applied and fails to protect it's citizens. -------------------- "Have you ever seen what happens when a grenade goes off in a school? Do you really know what you’re doing when you order shock and awe? Are you prepared to kneel beside a dying soldier and tell him why he went to Iraq, or why he went to any war?" "The things that are done in the name of the shareholder are, to me, as terrifying as the things that are done—dare I say it—in the name of God. Montesquieu said, "There have never been so many civil wars as in the Kingdom of God." And I begin to feel that’s true. The shareholder is the excuse for everything." - Author and former M6/M5 agent John le Carré on Democracy Now. Conquer's Club
| |||||||
fivepointer newbie Registered: 08/03/02 Posts: 1,428 Last seen: 7 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Who is to say what advertising is "too aggressive"? If a drug company wants to advertise a highly addicting drug, as long as no misrepresentation of fact is involved, then what is the big deal? People should be free to advertise in any manner they wish. No one is making anyone buy what is being advertised. Your "regulation" is all about control of people by the threat of physical violence. How do you acquire a right to prevent me from doing something that has not infringed on your rights? How does one person acquire the right to control others? How can you delegate this "right" to a government, since you yourself don't have this right as a person you can't delegate it to anyone else. Quote: You have a say, simply do not buy what you do not want. When you say you need a say in the matters that directly effect you you are really saying that you have a right to impose your value system on others by force. Why do you feel that you have a right to prevent me from engineering the next great cubensis strain? You feel that you can send your thug squad to my door to regulate my behavior when your rights have not been violated. Your "regulation" is an infringement of my rights since it is the use of force to achieve your goals. Who is the fascist?
| |||||||
FunkBuddha Stranger Registered: 09/29/06 Posts: 60 Last seen: 5 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
I would just like to throw this out there as well. Corporations wouldn't exist in a Libertarian society.
A corporation is "...only a juristic figment of the imagination, lacking both a body to be kicked and a soul to be damned." Corporation Statists like to preach about the evil corporations and non-statists bitch about the evil government. The real problem exists when business and government collude which is inevitable due to the corruptable nature of politicians.
| |||||||
|
|
Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
34 Libertarian arguments debunked | silversoul7 | 2,603 | 7 | 05/09/03 05:06 AM by Phred | ||
A Libertarian's Message | Phred | 1,249 | 12 | 11/03/08 12:50 PM by buckwheat | ||
Libertarians & War ( 1 2 all ) |
silversoul7 | 3,539 | 25 | 10/13/04 01:21 AM by hound | ||
Badnarik and Libertarians "Sickos"? | JesusChrist | 2,412 | 14 | 09/10/04 01:20 PM by Ancalagon | ||
I cant stand Libertarians.... ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 all ) |
vader34 | 8,901 | 160 | 12/27/12 11:49 AM by Gilgamesh18 | ||
Obama backs away from McCain's debate challenge ( 1 2 3 4 all ) |
lonestar2004 | 6,184 | 68 | 08/12/08 10:48 PM by MrSinister | ||
Libertarian Factor to Romney's defeat... ( 1 2 3 4 5 all ) |
46 and 2 | 5,783 | 96 | 11/19/12 07:48 PM by 46 and 2 | ||
Libertarian: Ron Paul ( 1 2 all ) |
Bridgeburner | 3,905 | 32 | 11/29/07 12:37 AM by pooppoop |
Extra information | ||
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa 14,597 topic views. 0 members, 6 guests and 3 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||