For my Libertarian friends

Please accept my apologies for posting this while extremely pissed on red wine, but in a territory where libertarianism holds sway, how would they arrive at a legal system to adjudicate on either the enforcement of property rights or the creation of said rights applicable in all jurisdictions?

Equality 7-2521 wrote: ExittheLemming wrote: Please accept my apologies for posting this while extremely pissed on red wine, but in a territory where libertarianism holds sway, how would they arrive at a legal system to adjudicate on either the enforcement of property rights or the creation of said rights applicable in all jurisdictions? Depends. A Rothbardian Anarcho-Capitalism framework has a set of freedoms derived from the non-Aggression principle. Private courts would use this for their guideline as they interpret fault in cases essentially as a tort. A Friedman Anarcho-Capitlism has a system of private courts each offering alternative laws which would be decided upon in the free market by purchasers of the legal arbitration. A non-Anarchist, minimal state libertarian would simply have the standard political process for laws presumably via a Constitution which limits Congressional power more clearly and severely than our Constitution, and this Constitution would actually be required to be followed by elected officials.

In my inebriated state I couldn't comment on the veracity or otherwise of your response but would you agree that although laws clearly cannot be immutable, they cannot be purchased from the shelves by arbitrators who judge their value by consumer/plaintiff feedback like products in a supermarket?

ExittheLemming wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: ExittheLemming wrote: Please accept my apologies for posting this while extremely pissed on red wine, but in a territory where libertarianism holds sway, how would they arrive at a legal system to adjudicate on either the enforcement of property rights or the creation of said rights applicable in all jurisdictions? Depends. A Rothbardian Anarcho-Capitalism framework has a set of freedoms derived from the non-Aggression principle. Private courts would use this for their guideline as they interpret fault in cases essentially as a tort. A Friedman Anarcho-Capitlism has a system of private courts each offering alternative laws which would be decided upon in the free market by purchasers of the legal arbitration. A non-Anarchist, minimal state libertarian would simply have the standard political process for laws presumably via a Constitution which limits Congressional power more clearly and severely than our Constitution, and this Constitution would actually be required to be followed by elected officials. In my inebriated state I couldn't comment on the veracity or otherwise of your response but would you agree that although laws clearly cannot be immutable, they cannot be purchased from the shelves by arbitrators who judge their value by consumer/plaintiff feedback like products in a supermarket?

They can't be bought like peaches in the produce aisle, but surely they can be purchased much the same way you purchase insurance and a service is provided.

The T wrote: One question Libertarians... Rob has mentioned Hitler and how if we start allowing little rights to be taken in specific circumstances, the chances of having something like nazism are higher... So, in Libertarian Land, do people like him cease to exist? Arguably, a narcissist dangerous personality would be very likely to emerge in Libertarian Land. What would stop him? It wouldn't be the fact that we regard certain rights as inalienable, untouchable, but the fact that the structure and system of society would grant very little control to a single person. In Nazi Germany, is not like suddenly all germans decided to strip jews off their rights; a few horrible people acting selfishly elevated their ridiculous ideas to principles and even dogmas, and then they sold them to the people, also gaining total power due to the structure (or lack thereof in a way) of society... Yes, we can put all this hypothetical scenarios and make some of us look like little-Adolfs but in thr end there will always be real Adolfs who, given power, wouldn't give a damn even if everybody else holds deep principles. Libertarian Land would be less likely to yield another Third Reich mostly because it would be quite difficult to attain the necessary power...

People don't like bringing up Hitler (I don't know why...I got ridiculed for it despite it being a historic example- not analogy- of what I'm talking about, and I'm glad you recognize that).

So what I'm going to do is show that this very thing- Hitler"ism" for want of a convenient term- has happened in the USA many many times before, because people's rights were suspended due to some "noble" cause.

I'm not even going to bother with US slavery, because that would be an easy one.

Hitler is the big shot when we talk about eugenics, but that doesn't mean he was the only one- he was just one of the best and most extreme at what he did.  The eugenics movement was alive and well in the USA also. 

Theodore Roosevelt said, "Society has no business to permit degenerates to reproduce."

Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, wrote: "The undeniably feeble-minded should, indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind."

Upholding compulsory sterilization laws, Justice (I use that term loosely) Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. wrote "It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind [...]"

That's Utilitarianism at work, folks.

In 1942, the American Journal of Psychiatry published a "debate" on the ethics of killing children with severe disabilities. The following was written by Foster Kennedy:

I believe when the defective child shall have reached the age of five years - and on the application of his guardians - that the case should be considered under law by a competent medical board; then it should be reviewed twice more at four-month intervals; then, if the board, acting, I repeat, on the applications of the guardians of the child, and after three examinations of a defective who has reached the age of five or more, should decide that that defective has no future or hope of one; then I believe it is a merciful and kindly thing to relieve that defective - often tortured and convulsed, grotesque and absurd, useless and foolish, and entirely undesirable - of the agony of living.

This isn't even abortion- this is seriously advocating the idea that very disabled children over the age of five should be killed.  In other words, "defective" (what an ugly word) children do not have the right to life.

"In 1974, Federal District Court Judge Gerhard Gesell estimated that "over the last few years" between 100,000 and 150,000 low-income persons were sterilized under federally funded programs."

The US government oversaw and endorsed sterilizing people who were "unfit" for society.  Why?  Because people did not believe that everyone has the right to life, liberty, and property and thus allowed the government to enact legislation that deprived people of that (but it was for the greater good, you see, so it's OK).

In 1934- the year after Hitler was elected Chancellor- The [New England Journal's] editor, Morris Fishbein, wrote that "Germany is perhaps the most progressive nation in restricting fecundity among the unfit", and argued that the "individual must give way to the greater good".

That's what I'm hearing in this thread: "The individual must give way to the greater good."  This utilitarianism is innately evil because "greater good" is a blank slate, and society has and will continue to use "the greater good" to appalling ends.  I find it ironic that many here who would espouse this "noble" utilitarianism are opposed to the war in the Middle East. 

Now has eugenics gone away in the US?  No.  In the 1990s, the government provided an incentive to low-income women on welfare to have Norplant (5-year birth control) inserted in their arms.  When these women complained of side-effects they were not informed of and wanted the device removed, Medicaid would not cover it.  In Oklahoma, South Carolina and South Dakota, Medicaid policies support Norplant insertion but restrict removal.  Hmm.

In summary: No, people like Hitler would not cease to exist, but he and other utilitarians who would trample us and our rights for some "greater good" would be without a platform to act on their beliefs- these people would be regarded as the criminals they are. 

"It wouldn't be the fact that we regard certain rights as inalienable, untouchable, but the fact that the structure and system of society would grant very little control to a single person."

These two are one and the same.  If a nation unequivocally recognizes that all innocent citizens have the right to life, liberty, and property, then the structure and system of society maintains its integrity.  Take away the former, and the system becomes a breeding ground (no pun intended) for those who would kill, maim, and steal in order to promote some "greater good."

ExittheLemming wrote: These people that have been described by others in your post as defective, degenerates, unfit for society, feeble minded, diasabled etc, in a free market as envisaged by libertarians 'charity' is the only means by which they would be afforded survival. I'm not confusing you Robert as an avowed libertarian, but without the use of state 'force' how else can we ensure said individuals who cannot prosper by their abilities and cognition alone, are not discarded entirely?

If you were disabled and unable to work, and I, wanting to help you, robbed a bank or store or private residence each month and brought you some of the money, would be you be grateful to me for my benevolence?  No?  That's effectively what this state force is- taking money from those who earned it to support those who didn't.  It isn't charity.  There's another word for this sort of thing.

Now what of the disabled people?

I say Government does more harm than good here.  With all these programs funded by taxes, individuals often adopt a mindset that they don't need to bother helping anyone because there will always be the state to help out and will do less to help others.  On the other hand, people receiving government benefits often adopt an attitude of entitlement and will do less to help themselves.

When people accept government benefits, they are not just getting someone else's money.  They are actually forfeiting some of their own liberties.  They give the government the right to tell them how they can and cannot live their lives, and they forfeit their privacy as well.  They also effectively become slaves as voters (if they vote at all)- for politicians, welfare isn't goodwill, it's a massive source of political power.  The welfare state is built on vote-buying patronage.

Here's the thing- and I don't know why so many liberals don't get this- we've had welfare programs in this country for damn near a century.  We've had government intervention at every level.  We've had minimum wage increases, we've had various Acts, we've had regulations on businesses, we've had regulations on employers, we've had regulations on banks, we've had social security, we've had Medicaid and Medicare, we've had public education, we've had FEMA, we've had the FDA, we've had child tax credits- we've had all this more, and yet people are still poor and getting poorer.

I recommend people read this essay.

The T wrote: Posting in the marijuana thread, I noticed how libertarian I sound. Actually, in those irrelevant "tests" I always end up on the libertarian side socially, on the socialist side economically... I was wondering why I said in the weed thread that people, given the freedom to smoke what they wanted, wouldn't all rush to smoke while in their jobs (as Textbook said with a ridiculous example of a stoned truck driver who killed somebody). I said that idiots will always exist, but that most people will still want to keep their jobs and most people don't actually want to cause death to other people. He seems to believe human beings are horrible. I think that freedom would actually show the people who are really worthless stoners who put their own selfish needs above the rights of others... So why don't I think the same of people being given economic freedom? Why do I think that people, without a regulating body, would exploit and deceive in the for-profit free-market world? i guess it's because I see greed as something that society encourages. Society rewards the rich, rewards the ostentatious; society doesn't reward people who kill other people or lose their jobs stupidly... Because greed is seen as good and encouraged by the mainstream media, I see some people given full economic freedom  trying to squeeze the last dollar out of their workers, their consumers, etc... I realized that yesterday.

The T wrote: So why don't I think the same of people being given economic freedom? Why do I think that people, without a regulating body, would exploit and deceive in the for-profit free-market world? i guess it's because I see greed as something that society encourages. Society rewards the rich, rewards the ostentatious; society doesn't reward people who kill other people or lose their jobs stupidly... Because greed is seen as good and encouraged by the mainstream media, I see some people given full economic freedom  trying to squeeze the last dollar out of their workers, their consumers, etc... I realized that yesterday.

That's fine, but you assume that people gain money by exploiting others. With that Marxian assumption, your conclusions are understandable, but it's not rooted in anything.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: JJLehto wrote: I would HOPE the Libertarians would say the consumers right to class action suits can not be inhibited. After all, its all about rights...and not business right? Though in real life land libertarianism does not seem so ideal but just another platform to be outright pro-business, and not about rights. IMHO *emphasis on opinion* It's a bad opinion. Go thread through a libertarian site and look at how they blast big business, banks, and the super rich. Libertarianism is essentially populist in nature.

You've said this before.
But for the nth time, you guys here (and probably on a lot of sites) actually know and care what you're talking about.
I still don't believe a lot of the people that are coming into this burgeoning wave of libertarianism even know anything outside the 30 second sound bites and certainly outside the Pauls and a few others, no politicians are really subscribing to it.
 
But yes, libertarianism is a pretty intense form of populism. I've never disagreed about that

JJLehto wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: JJLehto wrote: I would HOPE the Libertarians would say the consumers right to class action suits can not be inhibited. After all, its all about rights...and not business right? Though in real life land libertarianism does not seem so ideal but just another platform to be outright pro-business, and not about rights. IMHO *emphasis on opinion* It's a bad opinion. Go thread through a libertarian site and look at how they blast big business, banks, and the super rich. Libertarianism is essentially populist in nature. You've said this before. But for the nth time, you guys here (and probably on a lot of sites) actually know and care what you're talking about. I still don't believe a lot of the people that are coming into this burgeoning wave of libertarianism even know anything outside the 30 second sound bites and certainly outside the Pauls and a few others, no politicians are really subscribing to it.   But yes, libertarianism is a pretty intense form of populism. I've never disagreed about that

I can agree with that, but don't hate on the movement because of the posers.

I'll also say again though that if you're a Ron Paul fan you're probably pretty genuine. If you're a Glenn Beck "libertarian" you're probably not.

Had a great conversation with a student today I thought I'd share with people. The student got a 34 on the first test of the class. Then she stopped showing up for 2 months, missing two tests in the process. She walks into my office today:

Student: "Hey, I know I haven't been to class for awhile, but I was having some stuff going on. But yeah that's all done so I'm gonna start coming again. I was gonna drop, but I gotta pay for it anyway so I may as well start coming and get something."

Me: "That's a wise decision. Glad to hear it."

Student: "So I know I missed a test. I was thinking I could make that up in a few weeks after I have a chance to study."

Me: "You missed two tests."

Student: "Oh really? Oh I thought it was only one. So I have to make them both up I guess?"

Me: "Did you read the syllabus on the first day of class?"

Student: "What? Yeah, yeah I did."

Me: "Then you know no test make-ups will be given without notifying me on an official letterhead before the test."

Student: "But I wasn't in class, that's not fair."

Me: "Well yes, if you were in class the test make-up procedure wouldn't exactly be necessary."

Student: "But if I can't make-up the tests what happens? Do you just like drop those grades?"

Me: "No you fail the class."

Student: "What do you mean I fail? I'm coming to class now."

Me: "You mathematically cannot pass the class. I recommend you keep coming though as it well help you when you retake it next semester."

Student: Various curses, screaming, and storming out of my office.


Apparently I just sell grades. You pay for the class, and I write an A down on your transcript in the student's mind.