Libertarianism is insane

[UnrepentantSinner]

I suspect Robert Nozick isn't taken seriously by the loonies in the Libertarian Party. But that's ok - the loonies in the Libertarian Party aren't taken seriously by the rest of us.

{bites tongue to suppress urge to twist your words}

Wait. So you're saying Badinarick's nomination was a fluke and all the Paul supporters flooding C-SPAN because he appeared on Alex Jones' show shouldn't be taken seriously?

What about Shane...?

 

[firecoins]

libertarians are not anarchists.

 

[Beerina]

3. Contracts to sell one's self into slavery are valid.
-Walter Block's Towards a Libertarian Theory of Inalienability

This doesn't grasp the "inalienable" part of "inalienable rights". While one could agree to a slavery-like contract, if you left, all you'd be liable for would be the financial losses. The government would have no business re-enslaving you on the basis of the contract. (Yes, there may be criminal penalties, too, but that's not what's at issue here.)

 

[Beerina]

A libertarian's right to swing their fist ends at my nose, but what's so special about by nose? Why couldn't a libertarian's right to swing their fist end as soon as I can see it, or when the swing injures my nose?

One might suggest one of the proper roles for elected officials in a democracy is determining how much risk you can take with (your own) things vis-a-vis other peoples' things. It might be OK to outlaw shooting guns in the air to celebrate New Years because there's a small but non-zero chance of hitting someone when it comes back down. It might be OK to outlaw rusty giant gas or oil tanks, since they might leak or burst, leading to contamination of land that's not yours, or underground pools of water that are not (completely) yours.

One might suggest the threat of financial liability will keep them in line, but this is not always the case, given people can and do make a business model such that if disaster occurs, just abandon and let the enterprise go bankrupt. They make a calculated risk for profit, which can be the problem here -- they are putting other people's things at risk, a risk the other person did not take (or would not, if they knew about it.)

 

[Beerina]

8. There is nothing unethical about bribery.
-Murray Rothbard's The Ethics of Liberty

I don't think he refers to government officials (though, ironically, I don't think it's unethical to bribe officials when they are engaged in activities they shouldn't rightly have power over, but that's more Ayn Randian) but rather secretly paying person X, who is legitimately in charge of property or enterprise Y, to do something in their favor.

I do have a problem with it if this is hidden from the shareholders. I also have a problem with it if it is hidden from the public who buys from that corporation, if the corporation is keeping a facade of fairness. And all that is 90+% of "the bad stuff" anyway.

 

[Nathyn]

The Tom Regan quote seems awkward

I fixed that.

I was looking for mostly unique references (didn't just want to quote nothing Ethics of Liberty) and wasn't actually aware of who Tom Regan was.

I saw a paper on Mises.org with "Tom Regan" at the top, arguing against animal rights. No other name was given. I falsely assumed it was a regular paper rather than a peer-review of Tom Regan. I posted this list elsewhere and somebody pointed out that that part was false.

 

[Suddenly]

This doesn't grasp the "inalienable" part of "inalienable rights". While one could agree to a slavery-like contract, if you left, all you'd be liable for would be the financial losses. The government would have no business re-enslaving you on the basis of the contract. (Yes, there may be criminal penalties, too, but that's not what's at issue here.)

What would the restitution be for breaching a contract for a lifetime of labor?

It would have to be the estimated lifetime value of that person's labor minus estimated food/shelter/clothing costs.

Really only changes the details. You still wind up owing the person the value of your labor less upkeep. Doesn't change much except you are "free," and that person no longer is obliged to supply labor opportunities, food or shelter.

Whoopie.

 

[Mister Agenda]

To address only one of your points, why shouldn't slave contracts be valid? If one's body is his own, that entails having the right do as he pleases with it, be it helpful things like a healthy diet and regular exercise, or harmful things like drug ingestion. If my body and my life are my own, why don't I have the right to sell them to someone else?

The only alternative I see is the belief that our bodies and lives are the property of the state, at least partially. I feel that's a very dangerous line of thinking.

Another alternative would be that your right to not be a slave is inalienable, therefore a contract that enslaves you is invalid.

 

[Suddenly]

Another alternative would be that your right to not be a slave is inalienable, therefore a contract that enslaves you is invalid.

But what if your right to contract is absolute?

All work contracts enslave to some degree as they create a master/servant relationship, albeit often a limited one. Government regulates these types of contracts, so even if the market doesn't demand it the agreed relationship cannot exceed beyond certain parameters.

 

[Mister Agenda]

Since you can't have it both ways, I'll go with the right to contract not being absolute. There are issues with contracting with minors or contracting for illegal activities, too. The freedom to contract should be broad, but not absolute. IMO.

 

[luchog]

A large part of the problem with the OP is the erroneous conflation of libertarianism, anarchism, and anarcho-capitalism; it also doesn't differentiate between the often utopian theoretical philosophy and the practical application of the principles involved. I'm also assuming that the quotes in the OP say what the poster intended them to appear to say, and are not being misleadingly taken out of context.

Some of the associations are a bit disingenuous as well.

Stirner isn't a lib, he's a philosopher, and a fairly radical one, who is considered the father of nihilist anarchism.

Hans Hermann Hoppe is also not a lib, he's an anarcho-capitalist.

H.C. Engelbrecht I'm not as familiar with; but the book quoted isn't a "libertartian" book per se, but a critique of pacifist anti-war propaganda; and the statement quoted is, if controversial, not necessarily invalid.

It is an unfortuate fact that the LP has been co-opted by utopian anarcho-capitalists; which is why it's lost a lot of support from self-described libertarians.

 

[luchog]

Since you can't have it both ways, I'll go with the right to contract not being absolute. There are issues with contracting with minors or contracting for illegal activities, too. The freedom to contract should be broad, but not absolute. IMO.

Absolute only insofar as it involves reasonable people capable of fully informed consent voluntarily entering into a contract which does not violate inalienable human rights of the participants, or applicable laws.

A contract for illegal purposes is inherently invalid. A contract with a minor, mentally disabled, other other person who is not capable of fully informed consent is invalid. And so on.

It's interesting that others, particularly on the Left, resort to contract references as well when pushing principles which override individual rights and liberties. Almsot invariably a type of absolute involuntary contract typically referred to as the "social contract".

 

[Father Dagon]

I'm a liberatarian/liberal and agree only with #6.

And regarding Rothbards clevery-clever about bait-and-switch: Let him run a hot dog stand for a week. If I was a CT:er, I would accuse them for being moles, hell-bent on destroying libertarianism.