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.
|
| |||||||
fivepointer newbie Registered: 08/03/02 Posts: 1,428 Last seen: 7 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
The corporate structure in the US allows limited liability. I do not see how this is consistent with libertarianism. If a person can not do it, then a corporation can not do it either. It is not possible for a person to give himself limited liability, therefore he can not create a legal entity to do this.
Limited partnerships seem more consistent with with libertarianism the general partners being personally responsible due to their management of the partnership, and the limited partners not being liable due to their not having any day to day management responsibilities.
| |||||||
ScavengerType Registered: 01/24/08 Posts: 5,784 Loc: The North Last seen: 10 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Aggressive marketing would be when consumers become psychologically coerced to buy your products when they have no use for them. But I love how you liberatarians make posts decrying (as violence) infringment on a company's right to saturate a drug market with propiganda and misleading messages about pharmaseudicals, but when it comes to standing up to the rights of citizens you just say "they can sue". I think this is the fundamental get off point of my sojurn of discussing libertarianism since it is not likely to help those currently aggressed aginst by corrupt government or big buisness. Quote:Quote: WTF are you arguing here? I said that polluting a natural gene-pool with GMOs is a infringement on someone's property. You' making that value judgment (not the libertarian party I assume) and your accusing me now of forcing my beliefs on others because I have a vested stake in it as a food consumer? Go ahead breed a great cube strain, I don't care. But if regulation is the use of force to achieve goals because the last enforcement after all others is violence, doesn't that prove property to be theft because the last enforcement alternative for your property is violence? Therefore all property ownership is fascist control over a natural resource by this logic. You sick violent bastard. -------------------- "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 |
| ||||||
Aggressive marketing would be when consumers become psychologically coerced to buy your products when they have no use for them. But I love how you liberatarians make posts decrying (as violence) infringment on a company's right to saturate a drug market with propiganda and misleading messages about pharmaseudicals, but when it comes to standing up to the rights of citizens you just say "they can sue". I think this is the fundamental get off point of my sojurn of discussing libertarianism since it is not likely to help those currently aggressed aginst by corrupt government or big buisness.
"Psychologically coerced" and "propaganda" (whatever that means) is not force or fraud. You speak of a company's right, yet I never speak of rights of a company, I only speak of rights of the individual. I have never stated (or anyone who is libertarian) that anyone has a right to mislead (which would be fraud) so I don't know why you would make the statement that libertarians say companies have a right to mislead. This is just a plain falsity that you have created. WTF are you arguing here? I said that polluting a natural gene-pool with GMOs is a infringement on someone's property. You' making that value judgment (not the libertarian party I assume) and your accusing me now of forcing my beliefs on others because I have a vested stake in it as a food consumer? Go ahead breed a great cube strain, I don't care. Genetically modified organisms are NOT an infringement on anyone’s property. If I modify something that I rightfully own I have not infringed on anyone else’s property. Can you explain how my private property ownership is an infringement? Warped logic. But if regulation is the use of force to achieve goals because the last enforcement after all others is violence, doesn't that prove property to be theft because the last enforcement alternative for your property is violence? Therefore all property ownership is fascist control over a natural resource by this logic. You sick violent bastard. You really lost me on this statement, could you please restate what you are trying to say here. Also I don't think calling me a sick violent bastard is constructive to conversation. Intentionally misrepresenting some else's positions and name callings are tactics used by a desperate person who has no real valid argument.
| |||||||
ScavengerType Registered: 01/24/08 Posts: 5,784 Loc: The North Last seen: 10 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
Quote: "If a drug company wants to advertise a highly addicting drug..." Sorry you weren't talking about what? When I brought up the argument drug companies were the topic and it is still now weather it fits your argument or not. But you've completely failed to mention who would keep drug companies accountable for what they say in this unregulated libertario-conservative paradise of yours. Quote: Are you slow? The point is that natural gene-pools get polluted. Even a liberatarian should know that a natural gene-pool is not the property of the land owner when it inevitably migrates. If you studied anything related to agricultural policy you would be hard pressed not to stumble onto this issue. Quote: O.K. let me break it down, YOU are saying that regulation is enforcement through violence and to be honest this is a stretch because violence is only used after every economic/legal defense of the regulations is rejected by the violator. YOU said this is violence. So any other instance where violence is the last measure to ensure a position (like for instance maintaining possession of property) is also violent. The logic you are using, that regulation is violent, is similar to saying ownership is also violent, because it is also enforced by violence as the last mechanism of upholding it's claim. Therefore if an object is owned with the use of or threat of violence, to those who would try to circumvent this claim, then it is theft. Thereby your logic proves property to be theft. Either your claim is erroneous or property is clearly theft. -------------------- "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
| |||||||
ScavengerType Registered: 01/24/08 Posts: 5,784 Loc: The North Last seen: 10 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Though this would prevent Enron type disasters the Lib party platform you cited does make itself clear on insider trading. I think then it means the party is clear that corporations and stocks should exist since insider trading wouldn't exist without them. I think you are at odds with your party and your idea is just plain dumb. Since the sale of stocks and the creation of "limited liability" itself is responsible for allowing the less wealthy to create many companies every year whereas your suggestion would reduce the amount of monetary resources available to start and grow a company substantially. -------------------- "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 Edited by ScavengerType (07/09/08 06:34 AM)
| |||||||
fivepointer newbie Registered: 08/03/02 Posts: 1,428 Last seen: 7 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
Quote: The Libertarian party is not "my party" I merely quoted some parts from the platform I happen to agree with. Nothing stops shares of ownership from being traded in limited partnerships or corporations. I merely am against the State privilege of limited liability which can not permitted be since it creates "special rights" above and beyond what individuals possess to fictional legal entities. Your support of limited liability is based not on the concept of rights, but upon the concept of collectivist utility. Any action is justified according to collectivism if you have a good enough reason, it is a prescription for tyranny.
| |||||||
fivepointer newbie Registered: 08/03/02 Posts: 1,428 Last seen: 7 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
Quote:Quote: The "regulation" you are speaking of goes beyond the securing of individual rights and is itself a standing threat, which is indeed the very essence of the initiation of force. Someone does not have to actually carry out a physical act, for example I threaten to "regulate" your overeating (by getting the State to pass a law) to say that for every extra pound you gain you will be fined $100. Now what happens when you refuse to comply? Most likely large men will be sent to your door, further refusal with these men will result in your liquidation. Ownership of property is not violent. Just because force can be used to rightfully restore stolen property, this is a just use of force. Libertarians are not against all force. The use of force in self-defense is completely acceptable. You are mixing two different things, one is the initiation of force to achieve a goal and the other is the use of force in self-defense.
| |||||||
ScavengerType Registered: 01/24/08 Posts: 5,784 Loc: The North Last seen: 10 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
First off the bit on Limited liability is purely economics 101 knowledge. Your method was going to decrease startup capital resources so I thought I would point out the good that limited liability does and how the lib party seemed to think it was good as well.
Enforcement of property is possibly more violent than enforcement of regulation. Nobody regulates people the way your example states, and to a person who is starving being kept from food property ownership is violent. I never asked your personal beliefs on violence I was just saying that if you were going to call regulation violent property is also violent. I might point out even the libertarian legal system is enforced through violence so it's not like those enforcers aren't already there anyway. You've yet again failed to tell me how this magical court system will actually function to bring anyone to justice or protect people aggressed against. You just say they have a "case". 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. Anyway you've made it clear that the libertarian solution to the tragedy of the commons is to eliminate all common areas as much as is possible. So you might as well just forget the issue. Ownership was more relevant in your eyes than actually being effected like for instance the lake example I used where nobody lives but many people fish. When I listed that list of problems that companies cause both legal and illegal I was asking you how libertarianism's lack of regulating was going to help the case. You have yet to answer with more than the notion that a lawsuit could result. On top of that you are placing the onus of protecting the resources on individuals who are equally if not more bribeable than government officials. And you have yet to really show that these owners have any interest in not polluting their land or that they would recognize this interest if it bit them in the ass. Actually in a world where everything is private property nothing is really free you couldn't so much as legally piss in the woods without permission of the owner. Remember I am claiming with the original poster that the economic policy of libertarians is nothing more than stepping back into an Orwellian oligarchy. You have done little to challenge this assertion as well. -------------------- "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 |
| ||||||
Actually the LP agrees with me about not granting limited liability to corporations:
LP platform 1992: We defend the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives, and other types of companies based on voluntary association. Laws of incorporation should not include grants of monopoly privilege. In particular, we oppose special limits on the liability of corporations for damages caused in noncontractual transactions. We also oppose state or federal limits on the size of private companies and on the right of companies to merge. We further oppose efforts, in the name of social responsibility, or any other reason, to expand federal chartering of corporations into a pretext for government control of business. You infer that starving people have a "right" to other people's property. Wny stop there? How about health care, food, shelter, ect.. The people with property have no obligation to involuntarily transfer their property for any reason. Involuntary transfer is theft. You need to create a philosophy to justify theft, good luck on forming that philosophy. The short name for that is collectivism which is slavery. You state the libertarian legal system relies on violence. I already explained the difference between justified force in self-defense and initiated force but you can't see the difference. As you would say to me, are you slow? As far as pissing in the woods would you go into someone's house and piss on the floor? I'm sure some owner will let you piss in the woods. You could always buy a small plot and put a port-a-potty on it if so desired. Could the motivation for collectivist theory be the ability to get something for nothing? It would seem that way. It is about getting over by using the State. It is a sophisticated scheme of extortion justified by high sounding words.
| |||||||
ScavengerType Registered: 01/24/08 Posts: 5,784 Loc: The North Last seen: 10 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
Quote: OK. Well that's just easy then the Lib party doesn't have a clue how economics works. This isn't just oligarchy it's plain stupid, even as far back as Adam Smith economists were concerned about the effects of monopoly on the economy. Additionally limited liability protects shareholders from the bankruptcy debt among other things. Limited liability does not erase the company's responsibility for it's actions. Quote: Saying property ownership is violent is no more inflammatory than saying regulation is violent or that collectivism is slavery. But, yes forgive me for saying society should have to feed the starving. How cold hearted of me to impose this restriction on the obscenely wealthy. Quote: But somehow protecting common property through regulation is a evil type of violence to you. Why? You may have forgot, but I am not standing up for theft man I'm standing up for regulation. Quote: That's not the point my point is that the freedom in your society is an illusion because you would be constantly having to pay for the use of millions of things you pay for currently through taxes and perhaps many other things you never had to pay for before. Quote: Common areas have existed since the beginning of time as with public welfare since even pack animals will help each other even if they don't deserve it. We are not arguing about Stalinist markets in any way here buddy just plain old fashion market regulation. You still have dodged the questions about how a libertarian legal system will balance the power of the wealthy against the poor who they wrong. Since it is clear under this plan it would be the majority of all legal cases that would occur. -------------------- "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
| |||||||
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
ScavengerType writes:
Quote: Coercive monopolies cannot exist (more accurately, cannot exist longer than the life of a patent) without government intervention in the economy. The myth of monopolies is the most persistent misunderstanding of opponents of Laissez-faire Capitalism/Minarchism/Libertaria Quote: If there were such a being as "society", your assertion might have some weight. There are, however, just individuals. So when I say "society has to feed the starving" I am saying you - ScavengerType - have to feed the starving. Why must you feed the starving? Quote: Because your regulation doesn't protect common property. Quote: This is just incoherent - at least if you are using the word "freedom" in the same way as the rest of the world. Can you restate this in an understandable fashion? Let's have some specifics to illustrate your point. Quote: Do you believe humans will not help each other unless forced to at gunpoint? If so, this explains a lot of your attitude. Quote: Libertarianism is not Anarchism. Libertarians/Minarchists/Laissez Phred
| |||||||
ScavengerType Registered: 01/24/08 Posts: 5,784 Loc: The North Last seen: 10 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Well what's stopping you debunk it then. Clearly you do not understand the dynamics of economies of scale on market entrance and competition. This is the foundation of modern anti-trust and competition legislation. As I said it's fundamental since Smith "People of the same trade seldom meet except for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public or in some coalition to raise prices." Quote:Quote: Isn't society's money collected from taxes? What makes it difficult to understand here. And anyway the point is that property is as much theft as regulation is violence. Because the argument that regulation is violence is so lame that by the same logic used to prove it to be true property is also theft. This is because property is property not theft as regulation is simple guidance and instruction for how the private sector is to conduct business. Quote:Quote: Got anything to back that up? I'm not defending lousy regulation particularly of the US government who regularly favors business. I am however defending the social need for regulation to achieve proper competition, environmental protection and price controls. Quote:Quote: OK if road use was based on tolls because they were privately owned you would have to be paying every time you traveled anywhere. This would be a pain in the ass and I cannot understand how this would work at all in cities since the land the transit systems are on. in large metropolitan places like New York, is so valuable that this company would have to charge insane amounts to people using it's roads because even insignificantly sized plots of road hold a relatively high value while not used as a road. But if this happened then residents would have to pay everywhere they went for transit and the system that they are using (roads/rails/walking/cycling paths) but eventually the transit system would be minimized (in order to develop real-estate). This would squeeze the residents in price and increase the difficulty of movement around their city and they have no way of making their greavences heard. Quote:Quote: It's many people would not. At least regulation prepares for the inevitability that people will not always act ethically while libertarianism arguably makes the opposite prediction that people are perfect. Quote:Quote: But totally fail to explain it every time. WTF? -------------------- "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 |
| ||||||
This whole property is theft concept is absurd. Since most property is voluntarily exchanged (excepting criminal activity) no "violence" is involved in obtaining it. The rightful use of force to protect property that was rightfully obtained is justified and proper.
"Violence" in self-defense is just. For example someone seeks to steal what took me a year to obtain. I have every right to use whatever force is required to prevent this from taking place, and if it does take place use whatever force is required to make me whole, including the inconvenience the thief has put me through. To allow this to happen is equivalent to letting this thief make me his slave for a year, is is really theft of my labor and is slavery. What you must be arguing for you is for a prohibition on the use of force for defense of property. So I can come over to your house and take what I want, if you resist me and use force against me then I can cry you are "violently" oppressing me, and show this "violence" proof of a "corrupt system". What a load of BS. Are you 15 years old or something? How can you seriously support such non-sense?
| |||||||
ScavengerType Registered: 01/24/08 Posts: 5,784 Loc: The North Last seen: 10 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
To be fair it's less absurd than the idea that companies should be able to dump unlimited amounts of mercury into that like where nobody lives but many people fish but no private property owners exist to sue. In fact without regulation in that example who really knows about it untill the lake is examined, is the company supposed to tell them? Or are they supposed to just find out on their own? And it's less absurd than the assertion that regulation to protect common property is violent. I never said that it was true that property is theft I said if property is upheld by violence in a last measure to prevent others from wrongfully partaking in it, then it's equally as violent as regulation for using violence as a last measure to prevent the private sector from misusing common property.
So get bent man with your "oh what are you 15" nonsense I've already quoted Adam Smith cited things that are learned in college level economics courses. I think it's pretty obvious that I am at least a decade older than that. -------------------- "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 Edited by ScavengerType (07/11/08 01:11 PM)
| |||||||
Libertine Tarzan...King of Registered: 07/14/07 Posts: 161 Loc: New England Last seen: 11 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
I totally disagree with the idea of laissez faire capitalism enhancing freedom on a broad level. I tend to agree with this sentiment found on Wikipedia;
Quote: Laissez faire capitalism has led to corporatism which is anti-democratic/quasi-fascist and does not enhance all individual's liberties. The "common good" should/needs to be protected by government. When the Supreme Court ruled in Buckley v. Valeo in 1976 that money=speech it gave a higher level of rights to those who had more money. And anybody that says that capitalism enhances all of our freedoms is living in a intellectual never-never land. -------------------- A mind is a terrible thing to taste...hehehe. Edited by Libertine (07/19/08 12:02 AM)
| |||||||
cake is a lie pwner with a bwner Registered: 03/25/08 Posts: 108 Loc: Mn Last seen: 13 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
libertarian society does have things that look good but all in all its a horrible way of government. pure capitalism is what we employed when we first started this country and it was highly corrupt because there was no intervention by the gov in businesses ie.. people working 18 hours a day 7 days a week no holidays in very very dangerous environments in factories. government intervention in itself is corrupt but people who vote for politicians can and has corrected many social problems this is of course assuming that the politician does keep to there promise which if it was one of the things that defined their campainge they will unless they want to comit political suicide. pure capitalism doesnt work because it is corrupt and unstable. the great depression would not have been nearly as bad if our gov wasnt pure capital.
socialism on paper looks very good but when implemented is also very unstable and can not be sustained. cab drivers make the same amount as ER doctors and engineers and people are not rewarded for hard work thus no drive and economy fails big time. it is also even more corrupt than pure capitalism (look at soviet russia and china). A pure libertarian society however makes the other two look like vary good alternatives however. a pure libartarian society believes that everyone should take care of themselves and that there should be no intervention from the government at all. for instance you would not have to pay taxes. but that also means that the road infront of your house is 100% your responsibliy for up keep. it also means that all the roads that you use you should pay for a road that you dont use. in an absolute libertarian society that also means since you keep up the road that you should also be able to collect a toll for your 15 foot stretch of road infront of your house and your neighbor 15 feet down the road should be able to collect a toll from you for using the 15 foot stretch of road infront of there house. this is however repeated for everything. there would be no fire fighters or police. you would have to hire people to put out your house if it catches on fire or hire someone to guard your house round the clock if you wanted any security from theift. this makes doing anything extreamly time consuming and expensive and is so completly ineffeciant that everything at every single lvl will fail utterly. its basicaly the same system that we used when we first became a speacies and only lived in family groups. humans need other humans to survive and get our needs and our luxuries. the ideal gov imo is a socialist/capitalist hybrid. it allows people to succede in life and pays off hard work stimulating economy. it also has gov intervention keeping dangerous crap off the market like toys with led based paint and requires companies to display what is actually in what you use and eat. it also has a safty net so that you dont go hungery or freeze to death on the streets if you life goes south. yes libertarianism allows you to put anything in your body that you want. but so does our constitution which in the past 50 years people have been pissing on none stop. -------------------- The Voice: It is the Broodwich, forged in darkness from wheat harvested in Hell's half-acre, baked by Beelzebub, slathered with mayonnaise beaten from the evil eggs of dark chicken forced into sauce by the hands of a one-eyed madman, cheese boiled from the rancid teat of a fanged cow, layered with six-hundred and sixty-six separate meats from an animal which has maggots for blood! Frylock: [long pause] See... told ya. Master Shake: I tasted mustard. The Voice: Yeah... DIJON mustard!
| |||||||
ScavengerType Registered: 01/24/08 Posts: 5,784 Loc: The North Last seen: 10 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
Yea Firefighting that was what I forgot. Public services like Ambulance Fire and National Defense are common services just the same as those I've mentioned like environmental/anti-trust protection. When libertarians differentiate one from the other they are forcing their values on the rest of society as much as they claim the government or people who advocate for regulation are forcing those values on them. This is why I pointed out that the argument of property being theft was equivalent to the argument that regulation is violent. Because the only thing that differentiates the two according to the libertarian viewpoints advocated here is the value judgment of what justification for violence is in the right.
-------------------- "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: If someone wants to work 18 hours 7 days a week why do you feel you have a right to destroy their right to free contract? Reduced weekly work hours are a result of competition for labor, not government regulation. State capitalism is what we have today. Business interests use the State to gain monopoly, prevent competition, ect.. I don't know where you get the idea that road ownership in libertarian society is in front of your house. As communities are built roads would probably be owned cooperatively by those in the area. The problem is the State now owns the roads. These could be privatized by creating a corporation and give away shares to those in the area. Fire protection and security are services like any other services. Just as some pay for a home security system and others do not, it is up to the individual to decide how much security is right for them. As for people freezing to death and starving no one has a right to another person's property / labor, no matter what the justification. You have to entirely abolish the concept of individual rights to justify that one individual has a "right" to forcefully steal another person's property for a good enough reason.
| |||||||
fivepointer newbie Registered: 08/03/02 Posts: 1,428 Last seen: 7 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
Quote: It is not consistent with the philosophy of liberty to make exceptions for some services and not for others. Fire, police, defense, are services like any other service. No one has a right to force someone to pay for the services of another, no exceptions. In an pure libertarian world no "States" would exist so you wouldn't have a need for a National defense, just security from ordinary criminals.
| |||||||
johnm214 Registered: 05/31/07 Posts: 17,582 Loc: Americas |
| ||||||
My responses in bold:
Quote: I think we agree on the wrongs in many cases. I don't agree that libertarianism is stopping rectification of these wrongs. I don't think the feds own our bodies, our lifes, and therefore don't own our damages. People should be able to sue to enforce their own contracts and recover their own damages when they are harmed. Many federal regulations take these rights from people and give them to some agency. This is wrong. I should have the right to enforce my own rights- when the government takes that right from me it is wrong- and encourages coruption and improper aligning of corprate and governmental institutions, which is at the core of the problem with liberal regulation.
| |||||||
|
|
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, 5 guests and 2 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||