Of course the government should take care of everyone. We are all our brother’s keeper and we hired government to enact that morality.
Its what was taught for centuries and centuries. Its right isn’t it? Isn’t it?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Of course the government should take care of everyone. We are all our brother’s keeper and we hired government to enact that morality.
Its what was taught for centuries and centuries. Its right isn’t it? Isn’t it?[/quote]
At some point, my right to life and your right to liberty conflict. In those cases, who wins? What if my life is only marginally threatened by one of your liberties, then what?
Stop fucking over-simplifying everything
[quote]shookers wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Of course the government should take care of everyone. We are all our brother’s keeper and we hired government to enact that morality.
Its what was taught for centuries and centuries. Its right isn’t it? Isn’t it?
At some point, my right to life and your right to liberty conflict. In those cases, who wins? What if my life is only marginally threatened by one of your liberties, then what?
Stop fucking over-simplifying everything[/quote]
See, that is one of the big problems of anarcho capitalism.
It can occur in two ways, either pollution or simply risky behavior and some agency must decide what is still acceptable or not, for we cannot make it entirely illegal without destroying civilization.
That is still very far away from being forced to be your brothers keeper though.
[quote]orion wrote:
It can occur in two ways, either pollution or simply risky behavior and some agency must decide what is still acceptable or not, for we cannot make it entirely illegal without destroying civilization.
[/quote]
Would the notion of property rights not be enough to handle pollution? No one has the right to pollute the air I breathe. Why can we not just make the adjacent property owners of the polluters responsible for their own air.
As far as risky behavior that’s a tough call. I take the risk every time I get into a car.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
orion wrote:
It can occur in two ways, either pollution or simply risky behavior and some agency must decide what is still acceptable or not, for we cannot make it entirely illegal without destroying civilization.
Would the notion of property rights not be enough to handle pollution? No one has the right to pollute the air I breathe. Why can we not just make the adjacent property owners of the polluters responsible for their own air.
As far as risky behavior that’s a tough call. I take the risk every time I get into a car.[/quote]
I think we agree that an industrialized society needs some amount of pollution. If we waited for everyone to agree to every bit of pollution, nothing would ever be built.
Now where do we draw the line? Every bit of pollution harms you, however you will never be truly able to prove that that specific pollution caused any harm to you. What if the cancer rate near a factory goes up from 2 in 100000 to 5 in 100000? How do you prove that the factory caused your cancer and that the factory caused any increase in cancer rates at all?
Unless you want to be able to sue anyone who increases you risk, which basically means that anyone could sue anybody, there must be some generally accepted threshold, defended through force if need be.
The same is true for issues like drunk driving, they are really the same issue.
How much risk can someone accept for himself? I´d say there are no limits.
How much risk can someone accept for me? I´d say not very much.
[quote]shookers wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Of course the government should take care of everyone. We are all our brother’s keeper and we hired government to enact that morality.
Its what was taught for centuries and centuries. Its right isn’t it? Isn’t it?
At some point, my right to life and your right to liberty conflict. In those cases, who wins? What if my life is only marginally threatened by one of your liberties, then what?
Stop fucking over-simplifying everything[/quote]
But they ARE simple, aren’t they? You do not exist except as the member of the community. Your happiness means nothing except that you should find happiness in service to others. Unselfishness is the creed of the civilised.
To work only for your own benefit, or even working for your own minimal benefit, taints the morality of your actions. Only when you act for your own unhappiness and the happiness of others can you be truly moral. Haven’t you ever read Kant, or the Bible?
[quote]orion wrote:
Unless you want to be able to sue anyone who increases you risk, which basically means that anyone could sue anybody, there must be some generally accepted threshold, defended through force if need be.
[/quote]
For me it is much simpler than this. Property rights are not concerned with risk.
For example, if my neighbor’s tree drops leaves in my yard, regardless of the fact that I will not be harmed by them, it is her responsibility to clean those leaves up and not mine. If I have to expend labor to clean up her mess she owes me.
As far as the risky behavior centered around drunk driving that could be handled by the privatization of road ways much more effectively than drunk driving laws.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
shookers wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Of course the government should take care of everyone. We are all our brother’s keeper and we hired government to enact that morality.
Its what was taught for centuries and centuries. Its right isn’t it? Isn’t it?
At some point, my right to life and your right to liberty conflict. In those cases, who wins? What if my life is only marginally threatened by one of your liberties, then what?
Stop fucking over-simplifying everything
But they ARE simple, aren’t they? You do not exist except as the member of the community. Your happiness means nothing except that you should find happiness in service to others. Unselfishness is the creed of the civilised.
To work only for your own benefit, or even working for your own minimal benefit, taints the morality of your actions. Only when you act for your own unhappiness and the happiness of others can you be truly moral. Haven’t you ever read Kant, or the Bible?
[/quote]
Today’s society is not Ayn Rand’s New York. While certainly their is a paternalistic element to the government’s laws, the safety and security of the population is generally paramount (IE the right to life).
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
orion wrote:
Unless you want to be able to sue anyone who increases you risk, which basically means that anyone could sue anybody, there must be some generally accepted threshold, defended through force if need be.
For me it is much simpler than this. Property rights are not concerned with risk.
For example, if my neighbor’s tree drops leaves in my yard, regardless of the fact that I will not be harmed by them, it is her responsibility to clean those leaves up and not mine. If I have to expend labor to clean up her mess she owes me.
As far as the risky behavior centered around drunk driving that could be handled by the privatization of road ways much more effectively than drunk driving laws.[/quote]
What if your neighbor built a nuclear plant right next to you.
Maybe it goes Chernobyl, maybe it does not.
This reactor type might fail once in a million years, once in 100000, 10000, 1000, 100, 10 years.
If your answer changes, depending on your chances, there is a risk you are not willing to bear, because any loss you had would be irreplaceable.
So, either you find a way to make the concept of irreplaceable loss compatible with property rights, or you accept that not every ethical problem concerning the cooperation with other people can be described and solved using property rights.
[quote]shookers wrote:
Today’s society is not Ayn Rand’s New York. While certainly their is a paternalistic element to the government’s laws, the safety and security of the population is generally paramount (IE the right to life).
[/quote]
Why then, does the government allow that right to be denied to unborn people? Yet, punch a pregnant woman in the gut and kill her child, you go to jail for murder, weird.
[quote]orion wrote:
What if your neighbor built a nuclear plant right next to you.
[/quote]
Why would I allow my neighbor to do this?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
orion wrote:
What if your neighbor built a nuclear plant right next to you.
Why would I allow my neighbor to do this?[/quote]
It is his property, therefore he can build whatever the fuck he likes on it…RIGHT?
[quote]shookers wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
orion wrote:
What if your neighbor built a nuclear plant right next to you.
Why would I allow my neighbor to do this?
It is his property, therefore he can build whatever the fuck he likes on it…RIGHT?
[/quote]
unless it fucks up your property.
you cannot throw your garbage into my lawn.
[quote]zephead4747 wrote:
shookers wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
orion wrote:
What if your neighbor built a nuclear plant right next to you.
Why would I allow my neighbor to do this?
It is his property, therefore he can build whatever the fuck he likes on it…RIGHT?
unless it fucks up your property.
you cannot throw your garbage into my lawn.[/quote]
We need more people interacting as individuals and fewer hiding behind prescriptions aimed at groups. We should have to deal with our neighbor as men and not sue, lobby and connive.
whoops I forgot the /sarcasm after my post :<.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
orion wrote:
What if your neighbor built a nuclear plant right next to you.
Why would I allow my neighbor to do this?[/quote]
Because it is his property.
He does not have to build it right next to you though, he can build it ten miles away and in case of an accident you are still fucked.
[quote]shookers wrote:
It is his property, therefore he can build whatever the fuck he likes on it…RIGHT?
[/quote]
No.
[quote]orion wrote:
He does not have to build it right next to you though, he can build it ten miles away and in case of an accident you are still fucked.
[/quote]
If I happened to be in such a lucky circumstance I would seek to contract with this person because he most likely would need my property as an easement…
But this doesn’t happen in reality. In this day and age we have certain information about the possibility of such an accident and no responsible person would seek to build a nuclear plant in someone’s backyard.
I could just as easily argue the case of someone who wants to build a damn to generate energy on a river that flows into my property. He has to affect my property in order to do this. He would most likely consult his neighbors first.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
orion wrote:
He does not have to build it right next to you though, he can build it ten miles away and in case of an accident you are still fucked.
If I happened to be in such a lucky circumstance I would seek to contract with this person because he most likely would need my property as an easement…
But this doesn’t happen in reality. In this day and age we have certain information about the possibility of such an accident and no responsible person would seek to build a nuclear plant in someone’s backyard.
I could just as easily argue the case of someone who wants to build a damn to generate energy on a river that flows into my property. He has to affect my property in order to do this. He would most likely consult his neighbors first.
[/quote]
Chemical plant right next to you, drunk driving, hoarding explosives in his garage, operating a plane above a crowded city, transporting highly toxic waste and so on…
Nothing affects your property for a long time and when it finally does it is too late. Noone can be compensated because you and all your heirs are dead.
How do we deal with the fact that other people risk your life every day and that that is an absolute necessity for civilization to function.
Interestingly enough, they would also be dead and in extreme cases so would be your judge of choice, his judge of choice, indeed the whole city would be kind of gone.
[quote]orion wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
orion wrote:
He does not have to build it right next to you though, he can build it ten miles away and in case of an accident you are still fucked.
If I happened to be in such a lucky circumstance I would seek to contract with this person because he most likely would need my property as an easement…
But this doesn’t happen in reality. In this day and age we have certain information about the possibility of such an accident and no responsible person would seek to build a nuclear plant in someone’s backyard.
I could just as easily argue the case of someone who wants to build a damn to generate energy on a river that flows into my property. He has to affect my property in order to do this. He would most likely consult his neighbors first.
Chemical plant right next to you, drunk driving, hoarding explosives in his garage, operating a plane above a crowded city, transporting highly toxic waste and so on…
Nothing affects your property for a long time and when it finally does it is too late. Noone can be compensated because you and all your heirs are dead.
How do we deal with the fact that other people risk your life every day and that that is an absolute necessity for civilization to function.
Interestingly enough, they would also be dead and in extreme cases so would be your judge of choice, his judge of choice, indeed the whole city would be kind of gone.
[/quote]
Life doesn’t always go as planned…?
When I get on a plane how do I know the pilot isn’t going to fly it into a flock of geese and ruin my day? I don’t. But that is what makes life exciting.
After the fact there is sometimes nothing we can do to repair the damage. But I am willing to live with the chances because not to means not having a quality of life.
Risk cannot be reconciled with property rights at all but we still need to use property rights as a guide, for consistency’s sake.