Libertarianism-The Unwitting Ally of Tyranny

Quote by: Osborn F Enready This whole thread is "speculative", "hypothetical" nonsense, which is the main reason I have avoided it.

Clearly, you haven't avoided "it." Also Libertarianism, because it has never been implemented anywhere (to the best of my knowledge) is itself speculative and hypothetical. I will offer you the courtesy of not calling it "nonsense" a courtesy you have not extended to those who are asking legitimate questions and raising legitimate concerns about Libertarianism.

Regards
S.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: 5010 Let's compare: miles of fences along roads to keep other's dumb kids from getting run over, or a small fence around your swing set to protect your kids from wandering off and hurting themselves not only at roads but also swimming pools, trees, rivers, cliffs, and wandering pedofiles.

No one says you can't build that fence, but what about when they have to leave the yard? What about the very case I presented. You live in NYC, and PC 101 is right next to the community pool? Why shouldn't it be covered in zoning laws that if you want the pool, you gotta build the fence? The "right" to the pool does not mean that you are free to avoid the responsibility of the pool. And why shouldn't a community share the burden of protecting children from the dangers of the road? This is not an either/or proposition. Parents should take more care and responsibility with their own children, to be sure. But, that does not mean that the community has no burden. Argue for better ballance, I'm with you. But when you pretend that individuals can and should only be responsible for themselves, you lose me.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: lsbskins1 It would only divert because it is a logical inconsistency. Explain to me how, a human walking across an imaginary line harms you. If you say it harms your economic interests, that is the area the government is, according to every posting I have read by the libertarians on the board, most certainly banned from touching. The"market" will take care of that. In the end, it comes down to the cold hard fact that, you at least, seem to have no problem with the government enforcing, as long as it is enforcing what YOU want it to enforce. But you do not get to make the rules. We live in a democracy. Is it perfect? No. Would I change lots of particulars? Yes. Do I believe that the government is evil because it does not do things only in line with my ideological bent? No. Neither should you.

People with no respect for the laws of my country deserve no respect from me.


How am I to know their motivation for crossing that imaginary line?


My fear of the unknown stems from simply not knowing what these people are up to, and why they can't pursue their goals in their own country.


P.S. I'm not the typical brain eaten Republican trying to divert this discussion to be about the market, I want my government to live up one of it's few legitimately granted powers, and protect me from foreign adversarries. Be they economic, or physical threats.


Why don't you?

[5010]

Name a situation where a kid too young to know better than to wander into a pool needs to wander around unsupervised by their parent or someone their parent entrusts to watch over them?

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Oh, I almost missed saying this: Where is the violent oppression when known criminals (tax evaders) are arrested and put in jail for breaking law that is just as established and binding as immigration law? You do not have to agree with the law. You can work to change the law. Those are your rights as a citizen. It is not my, your or any one else's right to ignore the law because we do not like it. That is not your right as a citizen. Vote, petition, organize - all those are protected rights. And historically speaking, if you think your only option is rebellion, you better win.

Do I avoid paying my taxes?


Championing the side you think is right is far different than breaking the law.


With tax law, I just happen to think the underdogs have the facts correct, and the government is misleading it's constituents.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Do I avoid paying my taxes? Championing the side you think is right is far different than breaking the law. With tax law, I just happen to think the underdogs have the facts correct, and the government is misleading it's constituents.

Champion away! But the tax evaders are no less guilty of a crime. That is my point. They "deserve" to be in jail just the same as someone who jumps the fence. I would change drug laws and make it legal to buy and sell Pot. If I was to be pulled over with Pot in my possession, I would be guilty of a crime. No if's, And's or But's about it (in my home town). And I would not claim that the courts had no right to hold me to the law.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Champion away! But the tax evaders are no less guilty of a crime. That is my point. They "deserve" to be in jail just the same as someone who jumps the fence. I would change drug laws and make it legal to buy and sell Pot. If I was to be pulled over with Pot in my possession, I would be guilty of a crime. No if's, And's or But's about it (in my home town). And I would not claim that the courts had no right to hold me to the law.

So why is it wrong for the government to attempt to hold illegal aliens accountable to the law in your opinion?


And for the record, the constitutionality of the tax laws are still debatable, the illegal aliens are clearly in violation of many laws.

[Osborn F Enready]

Isbskins said: You have made no case for your position.

Now you see why I haven't entered the thread with serious debate, because NONE of the anti-libs have made a case for THIER position.

Isbskins said: It is not enough to say "This is not logical."

You're right, which is why I asked if there were any legitimate questions that I could answer as opposed to arguing hypothetical, emotional, contrived nonsense which has been put forth thus far.

Isbskins said: Your pronouncement does not make it fact. If the rule of law is so important to the libertarian, why is he so afraid to allow the law to have teeth?

Give me a VALID EXISTING example of that please?

Isbskins said: If everyone is bound by the market to behave responsibly, why should the market fear law?

Everyone is bound by the law to behave responsibly, and held accountable by the law if they violate the rights of another. The market is an equal opprotunity market which allows all people to interact with it under equal individual rights. (as designed, NOT as it is today)

Isbskins said: Zoning (how high the railing should be) exists to stop those who would not be responsible.

Thats nonsense. Zoning is one form of regulation, and there are federal and state and local levels of zoning, and they all infringe to a different degree on the liberty of the individual. I am not saying ALL forms of zoning are wrong, just the majority, and the railing height method is one of many forms that exemplify wrongness.

Zoning lays down MORE law to hold people who don't obey the law accountable. There is no need for more law other than rights protection, and anything further than that is nanny-statism.

Isbskins said: If you build a pool in a neighborhood, and that pool is on the route to the local middle school, and you are a responsible actor, why should you care if local zoning requires you to build a fence around the pool that will keep the kids from wandering onto the property and falling in the pool?

Its the parents responsibility to raise responsible kids, and to ensure their kids stay safe on the way to and from school, not pool owners.

Isbskins said: You would do that anyway, right?

Not all people have the means, and not all people are as concerned with protecting OTHERS as their OWN cost.

It is the PARENTS responsibility to ensure the safety of their child, NOT EVERY SINGLE PROPERTY OWNERS.

Isbskins said: It is those who not only are NOT responsible, but wish to avoid any legal repercusions for that lack that fear zoning. That is a resonable question for you to answer.

A property owner has every right to develop their land as they see fit if it does not infringe the rights of others.

Isbskins said: Why do you fear the law having enforcement capability?

I don't. I fear the zoning laws overstepping the role of government, which is what you like to push for.

[Osborn F Enready]

SDBest said: Clearly, you haven't avoided "it." Also Libertarianism, because it has never been implemented anywhere (to the best of my knowledge) is itself speculative and hypothetical. I will offer you the courtesy of not calling it "nonsense" a courtesy you have not extended to those who are asking legitimate questions and raising legitimate concerns about Libertarianism.

Can you show me a legitimate question, I haven't seen one yet?

[lsbskins1]

Osborn -

So, when you say that if you own the land and want to build a pool on it, you bear no responsibility for how it may effect others, how is that not a perfect case for why you NEED the nanny state to stop you from harming others. You are the poster child for why the state has to enforce. It's not that far was saying " If those people are stupid enough to buy my cornmeal that is infested with germs, they deserve to die of a bacterial infection!"

[Osborn F Enready]

Isbskins said: So, when you say that if you own the land and want to build a pool on it, you bear no responsibility for how it may effect others, how is that not a perfect case for why you NEED the nanny state to stop you from harming others.

People who come on MY land, don't have blanket use of my land without my permission expressly. People who don't have my permission, have no right being on my land, whether they are harmed on that land or not.

You are attempting to protect those who have no right to be on my land, and that is not the jurisdiction of the government.

Isbskins said: You are the poster child for why the state has to enforce.

You are the poster child for what is wrong with this country, but, that is another topic is it not?

Isbskins said: It's not that far was saying " If those people are stupid enough to buy my cornmeal that is infested with germs, they deserve to die of a bacterial infection!"

More illogical analogies?

Pools and property lines are plainly evident, whereas germs and bacteria are not without special equipment.

Try again?

[lsbskins1]

Ok, how about this...it would seem to me that you would care that sometimes kids don't know or respect property lines. Do they deserve to die because you do not want to go to the extra expense of putting up a fence? This is not about you being actually harmed, it is about you being cheap. If you can't afford the fence, you can't afford the pool. It is a foreseeable danger. And it is not that different from leaving a loaded gun sitting on your front porch where the same child might walk up and discharge it and shoot themselves or someone else. It does not matter that it is "on your property", it is fundementally an unsafe thing to do and a reasonable person can see and would take measures to prevent that danger. Again, you are why it is necessary to put laws on the books that require the fence, and mandate how high it needs to be, and mandate that the gate must latch.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Now you see why I haven't entered the thread with serious debate, because NONE of the anti-libs have made a case for THIER position.

I started this thread, and in the original post I quoted a short segment from an essay about the problem of Libertarianism leading to tyranny, and I provided the source. The case for the premise that Libertarianism, in its more extreme forms (which I believe you advocate) would lead to tyranny was made very strongly. Perhaps you should read the source which I quoted from before accusing "anti-libs" of not making their case.

Regards
S.

[5010]

Lsb, how about this. It would seem to me that you would care that sometimes kids are allowed to wander across property lines out of supervision. Do they deserve to die because their parents do not want to go to the extra expense of putting up a fence? This is not about anyone other than their parents being cheap and neglecting their own kids. If they can't afford the fence, they should watch over their kids. It protects those kids from every foreseeable and non-forseeable danger in the world outside their fence. So it would also protect them from a loaded gun sitting on any front porch where the same child might walk up and discharge it and shoot themselves or someone else. It does not matter that it is "on any property", it is fundementally an unsafe thing to do to let little kids wander about unsupervised and a reasonable parent can see and would take measures to prevent that danger. You are why it is necessary to put laws on the books that require everyone but the parents make the world baby-safe, and mandate how high fences need to be, and mandate that the gate must latch in places where no children reside.

It would seem to me that you would care that sometimes child predators don't know or respect others. Do kids deserve to be kidnapped, raped, and killed because you support a society that allows parents to let their children run wild?

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: 5010 Lsb, how about this. It would seem to me that you would care that sometimes kids are allowed to wander across property lines out of supervision. Do they deserve to die because their parents do not want to go to the extra expense of putting up a fence? This is not about anyone other than their parents being cheap and neglecting their own kids. If they can't afford the fence, they should watch over their kids. It protects those kids from every foreseeable and non-forseeable danger in the world outside their fence. So it would also protect them from a loaded gun sitting on any front porch where the same child might walk up and discharge it and shoot themselves or someone else. It does not matter that it is "on any property", it is fundementally an unsafe thing to do to let little kids wander about unsupervised and a reasonable parent can see and would take measures to prevent that danger. You are why it is necessary to put laws on the books that require everyone but the parents make the world baby-safe, and mandate how high fences need to be, and mandate that the gate must latch in places where no children reside. It would seem to me that you would care that sometimes child predators don't know or respect others. Do kids deserve to be kidnapped, raped, and killed because you support a society that allows parents to let their children run wild?

Kids can not be locked away in your back yard. They leave their own yards, they go places. It is unreasonable to expect and demand that the only individual responsible for an individual child's safety is that child's parents. We all have to do our part. That is true indivudual responsibility. What you are hawking is the right to be irresponsible yourself and foist it all onto others.

[Osborn F Enready]

Isbskins said: Ok, how about this...it would seem to me that you would care that sometimes kids don't know or respect property lines.

That would be correct.

Isbskins said: Do they deserve to die because you do not want to go to the extra expense of putting up a fence?

False question.

I don't want any children to die, but at the same time, their well-being is not my responsibility, nor my expense.

The childs well-being is the responsibility of the parents, and you obviously think parents should be held accountable for the actions of their children, and teaching of their children. Well so do I, which is why I am anti-public school and anti-nanny statism.

Isbskins said: This is not about you being actually harmed, it is about you being cheap.

Excuse me? Who is to judge cheap or extravagant? Who is to judge means and ability?

Its about individual responsibility, which you are asking the state or fed to use force to usurp via laws that violate the rights of property owners and cause undue expense.

It is about YOU and people like you asking government to "overstep" its Constitutional boundaries based on irrational fears, and illogical arguments that deny the "area of responsibility" held by the parents.

It is about the illogical attempt to child-proof and idiot-proof society.

Isbskins said: If you can't afford the fence, you can't afford the pool.

Based on?

Isbskins said: It is a foreseeable danger.

So are car accidents, bad parenting and eventual death as a living being. Point?

Isbskins said: And it is not that different from leaving a loaded gun sitting on your front porch where the same child might walk up and discharge it and shoot themselves or someone else.

Appeal to emotion in an attempt to misconstrue the "guilt" in violation of property rights.

Isbskins said: It does not matter that it is "on your property", it is fundementally an unsafe thing to do and a reasonable person can see and would take measures to prevent that danger.

A reasonable person would teach their children to respect property rights, and not let them roam until they understand that points values and dangers.

I disagree. Reasonable people would not agree with that point you made.

Isbskins said: Again, you are why it is necessary to put laws on the books that require the fence, and mandate how high it needs to be, and mandate that the gate must latch.

And people like you, who attempt to use illogical arguments, appeal to emotion, and fear mongering to influence law, government and the rights of individuals is why reasonable people retain the right to bear arms...... to protect the rights we value as self-evident, to "reasonable" people.

SDBest said: I started this thread, and in the original post I quoted a short segment from an essay about the problem of Libertarianism leading to tyranny, and I provided the source.

Yes, and your source was an "opinion". I didn't see any valid questions or arguments in the "opinion" editorial that would validate the debate.

SDBest said: The case for the premise that Libertarianism, in its more extreme forms (which I believe you advocate) would lead to tyranny was made very strongly.

Strongly, if you give credence to illogical arguments and appeal to emotion. I don't.

SDBest said: Perhaps you should read the source which I quoted from before accusing "anti-libs" of not making their case.

I had trouble reading it the first time, and didn't finish, but I will re-read it in its entirety just so I can appease you, due to my gracious generosity and goodwill.

[lsbskins1]

Osborn-

I will allow the fact that most of the courts in the US have held along the same lines I am arguing to speak for what most people in this society consider to be the reasonable position.

In the end, we have strayed from the topic on these issues. I would be more than willing to continue elsewhere, but fence building and parental responsibility have little to do with tyranny.

[Osborn F Enready]

Isbskins said: I will allow the fact that most of the courts in the US have held along the same lines I am arguing to speak for what most people in this society consider to be the reasonable position.

Those people you consider reasonable, aren't reasonable, in my opinion, which is why I don't give much credence to your argument, or their position.

Isbskins said: In the end, we have strayed from the topic on these issues. I would be more than willing to continue elsewhere, but fence building and parental responsibility have little to do with tyranny.

In your opinion......

Yes, we can continue this if you wish to start a thread, I will participate.

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: Milton Bradley It's the same stumbling block your side trips over every single time, the law. It's the damn law! Imagine, a person of libertarian persuasion actually desiring an environment of law, and order, or a government holding up it;s end of the agreement. You people are priceless.

What a terrible retort; not only was it totally irrelevent and rude, but more importantly it ignores the question.

It's the same stumbling block your side trips over every single time, the law. It's the damn law!

Irrelevent. Just because something is against the law doesn't mean you have to agree with it or work to have the law changed. So I ask again, how can a libertarian, a supposed supporter of individual rights, support governments dening the basic right of movement?

Also Libertarianism, because it has never been implemented anywhere (to the best of my knowledge) is itself speculative and hypothetical.

Of course it hasn't been implimented, because it can't be implimented; pluralist society is a tried and tested winner. I can think of two occassions where it has come at least relatively close to a free-market though; 1920's USA (we all know how that ended) and Pinochet's chile and after; which has seen a crippling depression of its own and a general trend of poverty in the case of those who were not already well off.

Of course, especially in the case of the latter, libertarians bleat on about how its wasn't really libertarian because Pinochet restricted some civil liberties, even if he did employ the Chicago boys (former pupils of Milton Friedman) who were all staunch libertarians and based Chilies economy on free-market principals. The result of free market policies in Chilie are exactly what can be expected any where else they are tried. And that, other than the occassional economic disaster, is that the middle class and the well off become rich and the poor grow massively in number and become much poorer. In other words the already rich get richer and every one else becomes very poor.

[Osborn F Enready]

Once again, free people are by no means equal, except in the eyes of the law.