libertarian paradise

Post Reply New Topic

The government is meant to preserve rights, not take them away.

"Classical liberalism" (or mild libertarianism) probably suits you as an ideology then.

I'm against a sin tax, as that is one way of regulating what people should and shouldn't be doing. Prisons are there to house those that infringe on another's rights, and since the government is supposed to preserve these prisons are a necessity.

Too bad they are abused.

Of course it does. (sorry, wasn't really aware of what Classical Liberalism was) I've been a Libertarian for years now, and did lots of research before concluding it was the best option for me.

Classical liberalism basically refers to mild libertarianism, a sort of way for some mild libertarians to distance themselves from the more dogmatic kind in that they see a need for a welfare state but only where the private sector cannot do things better and with more efficiency. Classical liberalism isn't really represented in any one party in the UK though - there are factions in most of the main parties and a large one in UKIP.

The thing is, by establishing rights you are taking away rights and vice versa. If you establish property rights for instance, you are taking away other people's right to use that land, however if you get rid of property rights, you are taking away peoples right to own land. Your statement is somewhat of a platitude, since the various liberal isms isn't so much about getting more freedom but more about getting freedom in the ways that are meaningful for you.

Other people still have the right to land, just not that designated piece of it. No rights have been taken.

The quandary with abolishing social safety nets is that you're essentially disenfranchising people who have made compulsory contributions to "the system," or abandoning those who've placed all of their eggs in the welfare state basket, so to speak.

I personally have no issue with social safety nets provided that participation in them is voluntary. If someone wants to be a selfish jerk, let them, because they're going to get a wake up call in the form of increased liability for the consequences of irresponsible decisions.

And what if there is no undesignated land left to live on? During the Irish potato famine English landlords forced millions of people off the potato plots they lived off because converting them to larger animal grazing plots was more profitable. Over a million people ended up starving to death because there was no affordable land left to live off of. When people organized to defy the landlords it turned into a campaign of violence (assassinations and acts of terrorism). You can argue that the English landlords were illegitimate owners because the state of England subjugated the land in the first place. The problem with that is almost all property can be taken as illegitimate because if you go back far enough an original owner would have obtained it through force or fraud.

Also, most slums consist of squatters. The people neither own the land they live on nor pay rent to the official owner. But since they have nowhere else to go they are tolerated. The only way for the owner of the land to assert his/her property rights would be to request the state to physically force the squatters off the land. Either the state agrees to house them or jail them (either mode would be at taxpayer expense) or they exterminate them.

The real world is too brutish and cruel for an anarcho-capitalist or minarchist paradise. It fails for the same reason anarcho-communism fails. People are just too selfish to peacefully coexist without a government to enforce some rules and a degree of justice/fairness. I don't think there can be any peace if social inequality becomes too extreme. Eventually you will have people at each others throat, especially if there is a whole class of people with no land to live on.

Since most of us in the developed countries don't have to rely on land in order to feed ourselves, I do not see how your example is remotely relevant.

just because the land isnt directly under your feet doesnt mean there isnt land somewhere with your food consumption written on it.
it goes beyond that even, you need a place to physically be and you need it in a place where you have economic access to not only work but all the amenities you use in your daily life.
those ameneties in turn require even more people and that requires more land.

there is a critical mass of available resources vs. demand in the context of resource distribution this means that at one point you will be unable to maintain your current standard of living or see other places in the world enjoy a much higher relative growth.

I understand this, but given the amount of food that's grown far outweighs the food that's consumed I don't see how that's relevant.

Please explain further.

there are routine government inspections of many facilities to ensure that basic standards are followed. Hospitals are inspected for cleanliness and to make sure processes are followed and documented; meat is inspected for overt contamination. Etc. It's true that you can't legislate morality or prosociality, but you can put processes in place that limit the damages before they occur or before they spread as far as they otherwise might.

?

re. the different branches of libertarianism, I'm basing my veiw on the rhetoric of the Paulites, who would (among other things) do away with the Civil Rights Act.

proudhon explained why owning property is illogical and, as he put it, impossible in "what is property?". i posted a link to it in another thread, you'll find it easily on google.