Thanks Facist Pigs!

HeavyAaron said:
Are you kidding?!? They fit into two of them VERY STRONGLY.

Your body is your property. Another person exersizing control over it via rape or murder is a serious property crime.

Rape and murder have INCREDIABLY LARGE negative externalities!

Aaron
Click to expand...

I don't think the body as property holds water, it would lead to some pretty nasty consequences. can't pay your debts? Fine I get to confiscate property in lieu of payment...
You also run into some pretty difficult situations regarding parental rights on this one.
And as for "negative externalities", well, if a corporation can show that it's economic benefit vastly outweighs their use of rape and murder then by your standards you have no moral principle based on those which you have outlined to permit government interference.
 
brodski said:
I don't think the body as property holds water, it would lead to some pretty nasty consequences. can't pay your debts? Fine I get to confiscate property in lieu of payment...
Click to expand...

If you were dumb enough to use your body as collateral on a debt I suppose.

You also run into some pretty difficult situations regarding parental rights on this one.
Click to expand...

I don't see it. Please explain.

And as for "negative externalities", well, if a corporation can show that it's economic benefit vastly outweighs their use of rape and murder then by your standards you have no moral principle based on those which you have outlined to permit government interference.
Click to expand...

Wrong. That's a serious misunderstanding of property rights and externalities. Neither have anything to do with net good and bad. Property rights mean that my property is protected REGARDLESS of the degree of benifit it's employing. If I had, say, a magic box that could feed the world, and I was just letting it collect dust in my garage, this would be a shame, but no one could legitimately take it from me or force me to use it despite the fact that the world would be better of if the device were employed.

Externalities are consequences faced by people that were not part of the decision making process for the cause. In this case, that would be rape or murder victims (and their families). The government has a duty to limit that where economically feasable and an even stronger duty to prevent that in order to protect the property rights.

Aaron
 
Last edited:
CFLarsen said:
Billy and Joe live on the same hill. They own properties next to each other. Billy lives on the top of the hill, Joe lives at the foot.

Now, Joe has no access to water on his property. He depends entirely on the water that flows from Billy's property. Heck, it doesn't even rain, so he can't gather water that way.
Click to expand...

If it never rains, then where is Billy's water coming from, and how is it flowing down the hill?

This example is silly.

And it's not Billy's fault that Joe bought land with no water source, in a place where it never rains. Joe's a moron. A thirsty, thirsty moron.
 
b33fj3rky said:
If it never rains, then where is Billy's water coming from, and how is it flowing down the hill?

This example is silly.

And it's not Billy's fault that Joe bought land with no water source, in a place where it never rains. Joe's a moron. A thirsty, thirsty moron.
Click to expand...

Just change the hypothetical until it satisfies your requirements however the logic and reasoning it is showing is that for someone proposing this type of ideology the "right to own" is more important then the "right to life".
 
b33fj3rky said:
If it never rains, then where is Billy's water coming from, and how is it flowing down the hill?
Click to expand...

A natural spring.

b33fj3rky said:
And it's not Billy's fault that Joe bought land with no water source, in a place where it never rains. Joe's a moron. A thirsty, thirsty moron.
Click to expand...

That may be so. Morons don't have a right to live?

How is Billy not infringing on Joe's right to life?

Does Billy's right to his own water supersede Joe's right to his own life?
 
b33fj3rky said:
Sure they do. They just have no right to force anybody to subsidize their existences.

Billy is not murdering Joe. Joe is dying of his own poorly-made life choices.

Yes.
Click to expand...

You can't be serious.

This means that, if a Libertarian came across somebody who had just cut his wrists (own choice), the Libertarian would not be obliged to help?
 
b33fj3rky said:
...snip...

Billy is not murdering Joe. Joe is dying of his own poorly-made life choices.
Click to expand...

Change the scenario.

They were both ship wrecked on an island, there were two places to live, they tossed a pebble to decide who got which place. Everything is fair and equitable, oh but the only source of fresh water on the island happens to be a small stream, that flows through both pieces of land (the source of which is on Billy's land).

20 years roll-by, Billy wakes up one morning and damns the stream and diverts it all back onto his land. 4 days later Joe dies.

What "poorly-made life choices" did Joe make?

Again the ideology you are supporting puts the "right to own" as being more important then the "right to live".
 
CFLarsen said:
You can't be serious.

This means that, if a Libertarian came across somebody who had just cut his wrists (own choice), the Libertarian would not be obliged to help?
Click to expand...

Legally obliged? Of course not.
Morally obliged? Of course.

Aaron
 
Darat said:
Change the scenario.

They were both ship wrecked on an island, there were two places to live, they tossed a pebble to decide who got which place. Everything is fair and equitable, oh but the only source of fresh water on the island happens to be a small stream, that flows through both pieces of land (the source of which is on Billy's land).

20 years roll-by, Billy wakes up one morning and damns the stream and diverts it all back onto his land. 4 days later Joe dies.

What "poorly-made life choices" did Joe make?
Click to expand...

Failing to properly negotiate property rights for the stream.

Aaron
 
CFLarsen said:
And politically?
Click to expand...

I don't understand the question.

But both agreed at start that this was a proper negotiation.

If Billy can outsmart Joe during negotiations, and Joe later dies as a result, is that also OK, according to Libertarianism?
Click to expand...

Can you negotiate a person into death? Sure, I suppose. It's it a morally good idea? No, of course not.

Aaron
 
I think, CFL, that you think libertarianism (small l) is a system of morals. It's not. It's a ideology for governance. It's a suggestion for how a structure of laws should work, not a value/moral system for individual behavior.

Aaron
 
HeavyAaron said:
Legally obliged? Of course not.
Click to expand...
Really? Recall that the US signed the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. American exceptionalism has not quite got that far yet . . .

I think, CFL, that you think libertarianism (small l) is a system of morals. It's not. It's a ideology for governance. It's a suggestion for how a structure of laws should work, not a value/moral system for individual behavior.
Click to expand...
Disagreed. It includes communitarian ideas. It includes obligations to society. You are not espousing libertarianism. You are misrepresenting it.
 
pipelineaudio said:
One of governments ONLY rightful jobs is to secure our borders against invaders who wish to do us harm
Click to expand...
In your posts you are linking the act of migrating illegally to the desire to do some sort of damage to the host nation. You are therefore falsely presuming guilt on the basis of a near-totally unrelated crime and tossing out the liberty of others willy-nilly in the process.

IMO this is close to the model of ideology that seeds fascism.
 
acuity said:
Really? Recall that the US signed the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. American exceptionalism has not quite got that far yet . . .
Click to expand...

How did the US get in here? The US isn't a libertarian state. This was theoretical.

Disagreed. It includes communitarian ideas. It includes obligations to society. You are not espousing libertarianism. You are misrepresenting it.
Click to expand...

Nice assertion. Would you like to back that up?

Aaron
 
b33fj3rky said:
Both those statements are so jaw-droppingly asinine, and so out of touch with the political realities of modern, civilized, free nations, that I can conclude only that you must be trolling. From now on, I'll ignore you.
Click to expand...

Erm yes, I think you might have misunderstood me because I suck at writing. I'm going to reply to you in the hopes that you meant ignore in a metaphorical sense.

1) Of course rights exist, but rights don't. That is, natural rights don't exist, but rather rights exist merely as (very good) social constructs so as to serve some sort of higher purpose. To put the word right in bold seems to imply that they are something sacred which goes beyond absolutely every other moral standard, and I don't think that's right. I don't think it's all that controversial to deny the existance of natural rights. Of course, maybe I misintrepreted the bold text, and therefore confused things.

2) How can you force a person to do something? Consider the following thought experiment where you have a person sit in a chair and ask them to push a button. You could threaten to kill them, but that's not really forcing, because they could just let you kill them. You could grab their arm and push it onto the button, but that's not really forcing, because they could just try really really hard to resist. Any action can in theory be resisted, unless you go into their brains and take away their ability to resist.

3) I don't see what political realities have to do with anything. Is does not imply ought. I am trying to construct a logical system by which I can determine what is good and what is bad. Allowing myself to be biased by what already exists would be irrational of me. In order to be unbiased, I need to isolate myself from reality as much as possible at look at everything in as hypothetical terms as possible, using reality merely as a case study into how things work.

4) I have not once in this thread made any endorsement one way or another of any actual political action. That would be jumping to conclusions before enough data is in, and would therefore be profoundly unskeptical. Maybe you're right. I just think that the particular arguments that are being used are flawed.
 
Last edited:
HeavyAaron said:
I don't understand the question.
Click to expand...

Are you politically obliged as a Libertarian to let him die?

HeavyAaron said:
Can you negotiate a person into death? Sure, I suppose. It's it a morally good idea? No, of course not.

Aaron
Click to expand...

HeavyAaron said:
I think, CFL, that you think libertarianism (small l) is a system of morals. It's not. It's a ideology for governance. It's a suggestion for how a structure of laws should work, not a value/moral system for individual behavior.

Aaron
Click to expand...

Oh, no, no, no, no.

We can't ignore the moral implications of the politics we promote. If the system or ideology has some morally corrupt consequences, then we can't just say "Oh, well. Too bad."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom