Ah, well, I like laws against public masturbation.
Against showing/providing porn to children.
I like laws that require people to allow emergency responders on their private property when someone is on it and in need.
I like laws against drunk driving.
Etc.
Edit: Trying to go back to bed…
[quote=“Sloth, post:181, topic:223168”]
Ah, well, I like laws[/quote]
Yes, I know.
There’s nothing incompatible with libertarianism about prohibiting such, so long as that public is funded voluntarily.
So am I. I’m not sure how we would correctly remedy this if it were the parents doing it; luckily for us, it’s almost always someone else doing it and without permission from the child’s parents.
Do you believe this would be a big problem? Most people who are on a piece of property are there because the owner cares for and about them. If a person is trespassing on property, the property owner is likely the person that called to have that person removed.
I am aware that you like laws. There is nothing inherently non-libertarian about laws prohibiting drunken driving. However, there is a problem with the safety cult forcing non-safety cult members to fund the safety cult’s desires.
[quote]against public masturbation.
There’s nothing incompatible with libertarianism about prohibiting such, so long as that public is funded voluntarily.[/quote]
Public masturbation doesn’t involve force.
[quote]
So am I. I’m not sure how we would correctly remedy this if it were the parents doing it; luckily for us, it’s almost always someone else doing it and without permission from the child’s parents.[/quote]
This again doesn’t involve force though. You’d have initiate force to prohibit it.
[quote]
Do you believe this would be a big problem? Most people who are on a piece of property are there because the owner cares for and about them. If a person is trespassing on property, the property owner is likely the person that called to have that person removed.[/quote]
I’m not interested in the quantity of instances. And, this requires the initiation of force if the property user refuses.
Drunk-driving doesn’t involve force until they’re actually in a collision. To prohibit it would require initiating force.
Oh, and the initiation of private property itself requires the initiation of force. A man comes along and claims for himself the exclusive use earth, air, and water he didn’t create. Then uses force, or at least the threat of, to keep the next passerby from also making use of that earth, air, water. One of the most attractive reasons for societies to have governments. To shutdown a multitude of violent property disputes.
I understand that you oppose the concept of private property.
Nah, NickViar. Just nah.
I’m amazed at the idea that if 51% of people agree to something we think we have the right to do it. I think that’s put government into a lot of spaces where it has no place. Just because a majority agrees with slavery, it’s still unethical. The majority can absolutely be a source of tyranny.
Right now CA has 17 propositions on the ballot. There seems to be an acceptance that government should micromanage nearly every aspect of our lives. That’s part of what drives this for me.
The intrusiveness of bureaucracy in our everyday lives is a form of tyranny. If I spend six hours writing reports and filling out forms to satisfy the requirements of some bureaucrats, that’s six hours of my life that isn’t being spent working with special needs kids and their parents. SOME of the paperwork is necessary, but we’re all now buried in it. This effects my pursuit of happiness, and my ability to do what I feel I was put on this earth to do. Everybody complains about it, but we just keep piling it on… because there are beuracrats whose livelihood is regulating me. Of course, some of this is fueled by the need for tort reform. We do a lot of things out of fear of litigation.
Issues of private property rights and protection of the environment are one of the places we’re seeing tremendous change in attitudes. Your property borders a newly designated “wildlife corridor.” This means you can no longer build a driveway on your land, put up the cottage you planned for your elderly mom, or mow the weeds. We want to reintroduce wolves on federal lands, and you have a sheep farm that borders the area. It is now a felony for you to protect your livelihood from these new predators. The small puddle on your land has come under the direction of new EPA guidelines. It’s now a federal offense for you to fill in the low spot in your pasture. Invoking “the environment” is really powerful. And much of this is not voted on at all, it’s the product of regulation.
It is, perhaps, the concept of "initiation of force that you misunderstand; as even in your example, it was not needed to create private property.
Then it wasn’t created. It would’ve just been common ‘property’ the next fella, and the next, and so on, could’ve also used.
Well, with the environment we had to face the fact pollution doesn’t magically stop at a property line. And that biodiversity is immensely important.
Why? “Common property” can’t exist once two humans(if you believe that we are different from animals) do, except by explicit agreement. If I’m standing on a piece of land, you can’t also stand there. Who has the right to be on that piece of land? Does the first person, or does the second person have the right to force the first to move on? Would you claim the first person initiated force against the second, if he refused to move? For what amount of time can one justly occupy a piece of earth before he is aggressing against others that want to occupy it?
There’s always some balance, Sloth. I work part-time for an environmental group that does education programs for urban kids. I’m not unaware or uncaring.
Does this mean that all these measures in the name of “the environment” are just and necessary? Many of our environmentalists would like to see zero cattle ranching in this country. The new morality is that eating beef is immoral. People with little to no understanding of federal lands and BLM land use are actually getting on tour buses and heading to rural areas to “educate” the local farmers and ranchers, and shout down people in local meetings. We have Native American tribes suing over making a local mountain a “scared cultural land.” In case you didn’t know, when a tribe decides to sue you, they have an unlimited legal budget because the Federal government provides them with legal services for free. My parents have had to defend themselves against these kinds of law suits. Once the mountain is designated “sacred” it severely restricts any access or development on both federal and private property there. Environmental groups love it, because if they can team up with a Native tribe and talk them into the idea, they can sue everybody without any cost to themselves.
The environment is important, Sloth, but some of this becomes a form of tyranny. That’s what I’m talking about here.
The second doesn’t want to use the land directly under first’s feet, he’s free to keep standing there. But two feet away…
Face it, there’ s nothing magical about private property. The 1st, 2nd, 3rd, person to show up to this hypothetical piece of land could simply share it. And share it with whoever the 4th person will be. Or, they could decide that the first 100 people will share the land, but the 101st will be turned away from the communal property. Or, the 1st could chase away people within a hundred (or whatever) acre radius. Any arrangement that limits the nth person does so with at least the threat of force.
Yes, but not by the INITIATION of force. Force itself is not bad. Is your problem with libertarianism that you believe libertarians must be pacifists?
Of course it involves the initiation of force (or threat of). Nth person says “wait, you what? You’re chasing me off this land because you said 'claimed?” I’m not trying to take it exclusively for myself. Why are you?"
He can argue all he wants, but he is the one aggressing against the first if he attempts to take the claimed property. Of course, I could argue with him:
“You didn’t create that body or mind, so you have no more right to them than I do. If you disagree, go find your own land and mark it, or offer me something that makes it worth my while to part with some of my land.”
I CLAIMED the land WITHOUT force, so no one else can justly take it WITH force.
I’m so pleased to see this.
Keep engaging keep moving forward. Promote local candidates and state candidates.
Yeah, Polo. Hopefully there will be more state and local people stepping up.
Time will tell as to how many of the people who voted Libertarian yesterday were sincere in voting for their ideals, and how many were avoiding the HRC or Trump vote. I’m still pretty thrilled that we did so well. 3 x the 2012 results is pretty amazing growth!
On another note, this is really concerning.
US Public Debt Total - Apr 2015
In 2004, the federal debt was $7.3 trillion. This rose to $10 trillion when the housing bubble burst four years later. Today it exceeds $18 trillion and is projected to approach $21 trillion by 2019. When you break this down to an amount per taxpayer, the numbers are substantial. The chart below contains this data which shows how it has more than doubled over the past 11 years, rising from $72,051 per taxpayer in 2004 to $154,161 today.