What are you most like politically?

[gw120]

They are not enslaving anyone. You own your own body, your labour and your property. If you want to make money without being self-employed, you will have to sell your labour to someone else. The value of that labour is based upon market forces - supply and demand. If your labour is in short supply with comparatively high demand, like plumbers were in the UK a few years ago, your labour is worth a lot and you get well paid. If however your labour is readily supplied, like plumbers are now, the value of the labour is much lower. This is not slavery, this is economics.

So that makes it right? Just because there are alot of people who are more-less forced to do it, it's okay to treat them like shit and pay them just enough to survive and get by? I understand why they have the capability to treat them like glamorized shit. I just don't like the fact they have that capability. I don't think it's fair that because they have a certain amount of money they get the power to do that.

[Nono]

Quote by: bishop the old addage of "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" is the correct way to characterize them (libertarians) imo..

That puts them squarely on the right in my book. But then I'm not American and don't see left/right in terms of social issues like sexual orientation.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: gw120 So that makes it right? Just because there are alot of people who are more-less forced to do it, it's okay to treat them like shit and pay them just enough to survive and get by? I understand why they have the capability to treat them like glamorized shit. I just don't like the fact they have that capability. I don't think it's fair that because they have a certain amount of money they get the power to do that.

Do you agree that you have an right over your life, liberty and property?

[Nono]

Quote by: G.Adams Do you agree that you have an right over your life, liberty and property?

gw will answer for himself, of course, but in the meantime perhaps you could define "liberty" and the limit beyond which you think my liberty starts to encroach on yours. (You do agree there is such a limit, don't you?)

Above all, you should define "property". Perhaps that which I can keep my hands on while holding you off at gunpoint?

[brien]

I believe in socialism because I think there is no need for you to own a 1000 hp car, and have an elevator in your 10 story household, because it makes everyone around you poorer

How does this make me poorer?

I think there is no need for you to own a 1000 hp car,

You obviously aren't in NASCAR

[brien]

I was more asking what gives them the moral right, not the legal one. Like how is it morally acceptable to do what my previous example stated.

I would do it, if it could be done, just to piss you off.

[Gods_Mercenary]

And since when is government supposed to legislate morals? It's not morally acceptable, but it's with in my rights to be a bad person, so long as I'm not directly violating someone else's rights.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: Nono gw will answer for himself, of course, but in the meantime perhaps you could define "liberty" and the limit beyond which you think my liberty starts to encroach on yours. (You do agree there is such a limit, don't you?) Above all, you should define "property". Perhaps that which I can keep my hands on while holding you off at gunpoint?

I would argue that to possess freedom (in it's political sense, as we ould get into a spiritual or internal level too) means to be entirely free from authority, so you could legitimately do what you wished. This would be Hobbes idea of nature, were the life of man is nasty, brutish and short. Liberty however is the compromise, where I am free to do as I wish providing I do not employ force, fraud or theft against you. Simplified, the example of "I am free to swing my arms until I hit you". In such a situation, each individual is able to make the best of life as they are able - they can make no demands of other people and no one can make demands upon them.

I define property as your body, your abilities and that which you create with them. By trade, you can exchange with others either your labour or you creations to recieve what they voluntarily offer you, which then also becomes your property. Of course there is the difficulty of who owns what when it is unclaimed as such. So if we landed on Mars, who can claim what? This I don't know, which does lead to a conundrum, and difficulties as to ownership. Such as, which you might have been getting at, in that much property has been stolen by force then given to others, and traded over time. The property is arguably stolen goods. I havn't come to a conclusion for this, but I do not see how those who have worked, saved and purchased land could rightfully or reasonably have it taken from them on the grounds that it was stolen generations ago.

[gw120]

Do you agree that you have an right over your life, liberty and property?

Socialism doesn't take away the right to life liberty or property, it merely limits the latter two. It just means everyone has equal life liberty and property, everyone is equal. One man doesn't have the more property or more liberty than another man.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: gw120 Socialism doesn't take away the right to life liberty or property, it merely limits the latter two. It just means everyone has equal life liberty and property, everyone is equal. One man doesn't have the more property or more liberty than another man.

Then it isn't a right at all. You either possess it, the right, or you don't. When it is limited by anything other than personal volition your rights are being infringed.

If a person cannot accumulate more property than the next, he has no right to property at all. As an example, I can build bows. I take a stave of wood, worth X, combine it with my labour, Y, to produce a total value of Z. Now most other people don't have the skills or patience to build bows. So under your socialism, while everyone else might have a stave of wood for property, I would be able to build my bows, because I would then have, in terms of value, greater property than the next man. Why should I be held back from my own pursuits? Moreover, it would mean that I have no right to property or liberty at all, because I should be free to do as I wish as long as others are not harmed (liberty) and use my property as I see fit, but your socialism allows neither.

[Nono]

Quote by: G.Adams Liberty ... is the compromise, where I am free to do as I wish providing I do not employ force, fraud or theft against you.

Who obliges you, or me, to compromise in this way? In other words, who prevents us from interpreting the term much more broadly and at much greater expense to others?

I define property as ...

Problem is, it isn't up to you only. You live in a society. It's society as a whole that defines what is and what isn't whose property.
An inconvenient reality for libertarians.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: gw120 everyone is equal

If that were true, Egalitarianism would have never been a concept.


The fact is, I'm better than quite a few people.

I have superior ability to them, and therefore I am able to obtain more resources than they can.

That's just life, IMO.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Nono Problem is, it isn't up to you only. You live in a society. It's society as a whole that defines what is and what isn't whose property. An inconvenient reality for libertarians.

How is this a problem for Libertarians?


It's a simple concept based on the original intent of the law ( our laws here anyway...) that the property owner has some control over what takes place on his property.


Part of this power has already been usurped through zoning laws.


So, what other part of "society" do you think has a valid claim over the rights ( under law ) of the property owner?

[tman_ndsu08]

I'm pretty sure he prefers any action that would maximize utility for all members of society.

IE, it doesn't matter if the government takes your house away from you, sells it and gives the money to society, causing your utility to plummet as long as the total utility of society increases.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 If that were true, Egalitarianism would have never been a concept. The fact is, I'm better than quite a few people. I have superior ability to them, and therefore I am able to obtain more resources than they can. That's just life, IMO.

I agree, all people should be equal before the law and the government, but our differences in abilities make sure that we are not equal in the sense of ability or tendencies. On a large scale, people's alents and abilities tend to balance each other, but one on one, there is always going to be a person who is smarter, more driven, and more talented, and who will make a greater "success" of his life.

[tman_ndsu08]

Well, success only exists in the context of scarcity.

IE, if there is only one thing to be obtained and two people attempting to obtain it, the person with superior ability will obtain it and the other person will have nothing.


Thing is, we live in scarcity. That's the reality of our condition.


I wish everyone could have an infinite supply of everything. I really do.

[fushigi]

Quote by: G. Adams I would argue that to possess freedom (in it's political sense, as we ould get into a spiritual or internal level too) means to be entirely free from authority, so you could legitimately do what you wished. This would be Hobbes idea of nature, were the life of man is nasty, brutish and short. Liberty however is the compromise, where I am free to do as I wish providing I do not employ force, fraud or theft against you. Simplified, the example of "I am free to swing my arms until I hit you". In such a situation, each individual is able to make the best of life as they are able - they can make no demands of other people and no one can make demands upon them.

That's the tricky thing about freedom, which I think few Libertarians understand. The social contract that allows the state to hold the monopoly on the legitimate use of force is necessary for a society to progress. Before a society cedes at least a majority of the right to use force to the government, there is no development at all - it's just wild west-style anarchy where very few survive, let alone prosper.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: Nono Who obliges you, or me, to compromise in this way? In other words, who prevents us from interpreting the term much more broadly and at much greater expense to others? Problem is, it isn't up to you only. You live in a society. It's society as a whole that defines what is and what isn't whose property. An inconvenient reality for libertarians.

Nobody obliges you to act in such a manner. I just described the circumstance of liberty, not the way it is achieved. It can be achieved through limited government, but the risk is that it grows beyond this purpose. If liberty is the goal, government must be kept in check by the population, through the ballot and the gun (I'd also argue that where possible no standing army should be kept).

What part of my definition of property is commonly rejected? And property is a intellectual subject anyway, most in society wouldn't understand property beyond "my tv, car and couch" at first (note most peoples total lack of understanding of liberalism), so why would we rely upon society to define it?

[G. Adams]

Quote by: fushigi That's the tricky thing about freedom, which I think few Libertarians understand. The social contract that allows the state to hold the monopoly on the legitimate use of force is necessary for a society to progress. Before a society cedes at least a majority of the right to use force to the government, there is no development at all - it's just wild west-style anarchy where very few survive, let alone prosper.

Under a libertarian system government wouldn't hold a total monopoly of force, but be the holder of the the singularly largest amount of force. What I mean is that, if force could be quantified, it would have less than 50% of total societal force, say 40%. The rest of the power, 60%, would be bound up in the population. So, as an individual, they wouldn't have an amount of power so minimal it wouldn't be worth mentioning, but if they were roused enough to act in concert, they could effectively counter government.

In this way, government can act effectively providing it respects the deeper principles of society.

Oh, and life without central government isn't some wild west anarchy. Take a look into life for Icelanders between 800 and 1000ad. Individuals were protected by chieftains, but which chieftain protected them was not geographically bound. There was effectively a free market of leaders. If your chieftain was useless, you switched alleigances. This wasn't just theoretical either, it happened all the time. The also held an Althing, where nominated members of each community would gather to settle disputes as a giant court. There was no single government however, people effectively governed themselves. This ended when the people of Iceland decided to switch alleigences to who they thought would be a good governor, Norway. They were wrong, unfortunately, and then things went downhill.

There's more to it, the Iceland thing. If your interested you can look here

[fushigi]

I definitely should have said "plurality." It just seems that whenever there's a vacuum of power, violent conflict tends to erupt - especially if there's something worth fighting for (i.e. a critical monopolizable good, such as oil/diamonds/opium). This has certainly been the case in sub-Saharan Africa, the ME, Central Asia/Afghanistan, so forth.

Even in micro political systems - i.e. the favellas of Rio - there has to be someone who possesses a plurality of power to keep other potential aspirants to power from... well, aspiring. I'll check out the Iceland thing more, though - I'm guessing the big difference is that there wasn't that critical monopolizable good.