Solving Social Problems

[ClayBarham]

“All men’s impulses, when motivated by legitimate self-interest, fall into a harmonious social pattern,” said the 18th century French legislator, Frederick Bastiat. He gave us a way to see our social problems. Solving our social problems rests upon whether men’s interests are harmonious or antagonistic to one another. If harmonious, then liberty solves our problems. If antagonistic, coercive rule of the many by the wiser few is a necessity.

Those who believe men’s interests are harmonious will agree that solving our social problems is possible only when we do not interfere with or try to redirect those interests. Those who believe men’s interests are antagonistic to a properly functioning society, start by denying liberty. Worse yet, they cannot agree on which system, out of the many, is the right one for elimination of freedom.

Those who believe that individual self-interests, by their very nature, are in conflict with properly run communities, will design, engineer, and manage different kinds of artificial social orders. The questions we all have to ask is; if the selected plan is the best, will everyone accept it, will they accept it when it runs contrary to their self-interests, and where will we find those to run it whose self-interests are not antagonistic? Then, if it turns out bad, do we keep it anyway? Will those who came up with the winning plan maintain it by force when newer and better plans are introduced?

We have only to look at history for the answer. We divide the world into the Old and the New. The Old World, which is everywhere but North America, has run through just about every conceivable plan and method of eliminating liberty. You name it; they lived it and still do. Some have tried to force neighboring nations to accept their plan, through force and invasion. The result has been a lot of human misery and little progress. New plans are born each day, from colleges and gutters, and all promise the same thing, to deny individual liberty.

What have we learned from the New World, America? Almost 400 years ago, a small band of Christians left Europe and settled in North America. The Bible was their constitution, and their laws were the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule. These were simple, easily understood and followed behavioral boundaries. The people were free of the rule of a few, and they survived, invented, created, built and fashioned a new world of their own making, by expressing their own legitimate self-interests. As time went on, they established a habit and tradition based upon it.


Look at the result. Compare the New and the Old World, and tell me what you see. In the Old World, even today after the influence of the New World is felt, poverty and misery best describe their communities. Has the Old World progressed all that well? Some areas better than others, but most of that world is still a miserable place to live. Have they eliminated war? Do people live without fear of their neighbors? Is there plenty of food, good water and energy to run their machines? Do they simply live from hand to mouth?

What do you see in America? What do you look for there? Do you go deep into the ghetto and stare at the dark streets and the criminal behavior of a few? Do you concentrate your attention of the worst side of community, a side that will always be there? On the other hand, do you step back and look at the whole picture, of where individual freedom has taken the Nation? The upper and middle classes are wealthier than the wealthiest of the Old World. The lowest classes of people in poverty are better off than most of the middle class found in the Old World.

The caring, altruistic, bleeding-heart liberals in America see the underside of each rock and want to plan, engineer and manage a new brand of liberty-limiting programs to solve the social problems they see. It will result in bringing us closer to the failing social plans of the Old World, equalizing the misery and poverty of the many who will be ruled by the wealthy few.

Bastiat was correct in his assessment. If you accept liberty, and the promise of America, you can expect greater happiness. If you accept an Old World social plan, you can expect poverty, misery and rule of the many by the caring few. To learn more of what Bastiat has written, Google Frederick Bastiat: To the Youth of France, and read his entire essay.

[flaja]

Typical libertarian claptrap. As always, libertarians fail to understand human nature. Any man, when left totally to his own devices to act in his own self-interest, will invariably lie, steal, cheat or kill, thereby violating the rights of others. The last time humans lived in the libertarians’ preferred state of nature, Cain killed his brother. This is how any libertarian society will end.

I recently saw on another board a claim that private property is theft from society. I am not willing to go this far in regards to private property that now exists. However, libertarians are theoretically opposed to the use of unprovoked force. But, how can libertarians, living in their original state of nature, gain and maintain control over their first private property if not by using force against others who wish to claim the same property? In the absence of a controlling legal/moral authority, why is one person obligated to respect the property rights of another? In the state of nature what gives one man more right than any other to hold and possess un-owned/un-claimed property? What gives someone a right to claim and possess property that had no previous owner?

Thus libertarian society begins by the application of force whereby the strong takes advantage of the weak, meaning that libertarian society is inherently unstable and cannot survive.

[NortheastCynic]

Yes, humans, invariably will lie, cheat, steal and kill. So, naturally it is a fantastic idea to give some humans [who will magically resist the aforementioned urges, of course] power to make decisions for the rest of us...

Sorry, Flaja [welcome to DF by the way], but your critique of libertarianism doesn't wash. As to your question of force in an original state of nature; in such a circumstance, if I have claimed property X as mine, it is ANOTHER's force that would take it away from me; I would not be initiating it if someone were trying to take that property from me. As to your last question, if something does not have a previous owner, then by definition it is up for grabs. Now it is extremely difficult to find property that is owned by no one; but by virtue of not having an owner, he who claims it is the owner. In addition, people lived in a 'libertarian society' in this very country in it's earlier decades, so I'm not entirely sure where Cain and Able fit into this conversation. A 'libertarian society' [as in a minarchist society with as little gov't as possible] cannot survive because it is nearly impossible for government to stay stagnant at a small size. Because humans, when given power, exploit it, government has two constant trends: 1. it grows and 2. it destroys liberty [and lives, for that matter].

-NC

[Buck Laser]

I'm still waiting for a libertarian to post an example of some place where libertarianism has been instituted and where it works. So far...ZIP.

[NortheastCynic]

Let's cut through the vaguries, Buck. What does 'worked' mean?

-NC

[flaja]

As to your question of force in an original state of nature; in such a circumstance, if I have claimed property X as mine, it is ANOTHER's force that would take it away from me; I would not be initiating it if someone were trying to take that property from me.

What right do you have to take property that is not owned by anyone just because it is not owned by anyone? How do you establish your ownership and control over that property if not by using or threatening to use force against anyone who would make a counter claim?

[Buck Laser]

Let's cut through the vaguries, Buck. What does 'worked' mean?

-NC

By "worked," I mean a society that had an absolutely minimal government, no restrictions on victimless personal behavior, private ownership of all the infrastructure, and that was able to defend its borders. Not making war on its neighbors would be nice, too. Is that an adequate definition of "worked?"

[ClayBarham]

Flaja:
All my life I have been a conservative republican, and all my life I have suffered under the idea that men and women who follow a Judeo-Christian moral limit are basically good and honorable. I must have been mistaken, because America is the only nation I have been in, in this world, where people, for the most part are honest and courteous....they even drive better on the road than elsewhere. So, where have I gone wrong? What you are saying is I should be a liberal and see everyone as a rotten, thieving threat who will take what is not his with no reservation. I am not a Libertarian Party member, though I agree with most of what they say, yet I find none of that hatred you imply as Libertarian. I didn't know Reagan was a thief, or Bill Buckley a lying sack of doo-doo, after all these years. I guess, for my beliefs in individual freedom, I should be ashamed???? Wow!

[NortheastCynic]

What right do you have to take property that is not owned by anyone just because it is not owned by anyone? How do you establish your ownership and control over that property if not by using or threatening to use force against anyone who would make a counter claim?My answer to that varies based on what that property is. Because it is ownerless, let's call it a raw material, or an animal. I kill a deer and claim it's meat as my own, why am I right in doing so? I subscribe to the Lockean view of property rights. I own myself and own my labor, the dead animal and the meat thereof is the fruit of my lable which becomes an extension of my labor [which I own] and my self [which I own].

By "worked," I mean a society that had an absolutely minimal government, no restrictions on victimless personal behavior, private ownership of all the infrastructure, and that was able to defend its borders. Not making war on its neighbors would be nice, too. Is that an adequate definition of "worked?"If you extend the definition to private ownership of all infrastructure [an anarcho-capitalist, not minarchist ideal] then no, such a society has not existed. If you do not include that caveat, then yes, Early America [sans slavary] was a libertarian country fully capable of defending it's own borders. Now, the slavary issue. Slavary is clearly unlibertarian, but ask yourself this, if black Americans were not slaves, would the society be any less libertarian. The answer to that, of course, is no. Structurally [size/scope of gov't, etc.] the society was libertarian.

-NC

[flaja]

Flaja:
All my life I have been a conservative republican, and all my life I have suffered under the idea that men and women who follow a Judeo-Christian moral limit are basically good and honorable.

My understanding is that libertarianism and any religion that can impose restraints on personal behavior are incompatible with each other. A libertarian would reject the Judeo-Christian moral code as a restriction on his rights to behave as he personally sees fit.

What you are saying is I should be a liberal and see everyone as a rotten, thieving threat who will take what is not his with no reservation.

No. This view of humanity is the classical conservative view. Libertarians and liberals hold the opposite view- that every human is all goodness and light and thereby does not need the external restraints that are provided by government/religion/societal standards.

If you want to understand conservatism, you should study Edmund Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflections_on_the_Revolution_in_France.

From Burke: “Abstractedly speaking, government, as well as liberty, is good; yet could I, in common sense, ten years ago, have felicitated France on her enjoyment of a government (for she then had a government) without inquiring what the nature of that government was? [...] Can I now congratulate the same nation upon its freedom? Is it because liberty in the abstract may be classed amongst the blessings of mankind, that I am seriously to felicitate a madman, who has escaped from the protecting restraint and wholesome darkness of his cell, on his restoration to the enjoyment of light and liberty? [...] I should, therefore, suspend my congratulations on the new liberty of France until I was informed how it had been combined with government, with public force, with the discipline and obedience of armies, with the collection of an effective and well-distributed revenue, with morality and religion, with the solidity of property, with peace and order, with civil and social manners. All these (in their way) are good things, too, and without them liberty is not a benefit whilst it lasts, and is not likely to continue long.”

[NortheastCynic]

My understanding is that libertarianism and any religion that can impose restraints on personal behavior are incompatible with each other. A libertarian would reject the Judeo-Christian moral code as a restriction on his rights to behave as he personally sees fit.
Then you misunderstand libertarianism. Libertarians do not reject the Judeo-Christian code. They reject a moral code being COERCIVELY enforced by law. I, for example, am a Catholic, I believe that drug use and prostitution are immoral, yet I think both should be legal...I simply would not take part in either.

There is a difference between rejecting a moral code and not wanting it enforced by law. Libertarianism isn't a social philosophy, it only prescribes what the role of gov't should be. We are not hedonists, we only believe that people have the right to be hedonists.

-NC

[flaja]

My answer to that varies based on what that property is.

What difference does the type of property involved have to do with my question? If property of any type has no owner, then it is effectively owned by everyone. So what gives one man greater right than another has to claim it?

Because it is ownerless, let's call it a raw material, or an animal. I kill a deer and claim it's meat as my own, why am I right in doing so? I subscribe to the Lockean view of property rights. I own myself and own my labor, the dead animal and the meat thereof is the fruit of my lable which becomes an extension of my labor [which I own] and my self [which I own].

What happens when another hunter sees the same deer at the same time that you do? What gives you more right to it than this other hunter has?

Furthermore, if that deer is running wild it likely has acquired nourishment and water from property that someone other than you have claimed as their own. So what gives you a right to the resources of this land-owner?

Early America [sans slavary] was a libertarian country fully capable of defending it's own borders.

Except when the French and Indians attacked. Furthermore, common property was present in America since Jamestown. Such property was especially a prominent feature of New England (the meeting house and the village green which was common grazing land for privately owned livestock). Also consider that the American Colonies were founded in the presence of established (British) laws and legal customs. America was never a libertarian society. It is particularly telling that eventhough the Pilgrims had no legal right under British law to settle in New England (they were supposed to settle on land that had been granted to the Virginia Company around present-day New York) they established a legal basis for their society in New England (The Mayflower Compact). When they had a legal opportunity to go ashore without any law following them and claim property that no one else claimed, the Pilgrims chose to establish a legal framework that could establish the laws that they knew they would need.[hr]
Then you misunderstand libertarianism. Libertarians do not reject the Judeo-Christian code.

So their adherence to the Judeo-Christian moral code is what makes libertarians (note I use the small l, not the big L of the Libertarian Party, which most self-confessed libertarians do not belong to) don’t see anything wrong with smoking pot, whoredom, adultery et cetera?

[NortheastCynic]

What difference does the type of property involved have to do with my question? If property of any type has no owner, then it is effectively owned by everyone. So what gives one man greater right than another has to claim it?
Because if a watch is on the ground, it has an owner, meaning you do not have the right [legally/ethically] to claim it as your own. I used a raw material because anything that has been created [i.e. not a natural material] has an owner.

What happens when another hunter sees the same deer at the same time that you do? What gives you more right to it than this other hunter has?

Seeing the deer is irrelevant. Comitting the act that turns the deer into property [killing it], is key. If you shoot and kill the deer, it's all yours, if hunter B does; better luck next time.

Furthermore, if that deer is running wild it likely has acquired nourishment and water from property that someone other than you have claimed as their own. So what gives you a right to the resources of this land-owner?So if the deer drinks from a person's pond and I kill it and eat it, have I stolen property. No. The deer, a nonhuman entity, drank the water [which cannot be a crime, as only humans can commit crimes], I did not take it, I killed the deer, which was owned by no one prior to my labor [shooting it] which made the fruits of that labor [the deer meat] my own.

Except when the French and Indians attacked. Furthermore, common property was present in America since Jamestown. Such property was especially a prominent feature of New England (the meeting house and the village green which was common grazing land for privately owned livestock). Also consider that the American Colonies were founded in the presence of established (British) laws and legal customs. America was never a libertarian society. It is particularly telling that eventhough the Pilgrims had no legal right under British law to settle in New England (they were supposed to settle on land that had been granted to the Virginia Company around present-day New York) they established a legal basis for their society in New England (The Mayflower Compact). When they had a legal opportunity to go ashore without any law following them and claim property that no one else claimed, the Pilgrims chose to establish a legal framework that could establish the laws that they knew they would need.
All of your example refer to the 13 colonies, not America. The original American republic, circa 1784 was libertarian by Buck's definition [sans complete privatization of infrastructure].


On edit:So their adherence to the Judeo-Christian moral code is what makes libertarians (note I use the small l, not the big L of the Libertarian Party, which most self-confessed libertarians do not belong to) don’t see anything wrong with smoking pot, whoredom, adultery et cetera?You're not listening [er..reading]. I DO have a problem with whoredom, smoking pot and adultury. I personally have done neither, I see them as immoral. I simply believe that my moral code should not be enforced coercively. I will live the way I want to, adhering to the Judeo Christian code, but I understand that others will not want to, and I believe that that is their choice.

It's been an interesting debate, I'm off to bed, I'll continue in the morning.

-NC

[Buck Laser]

By "worked," I mean a society that had an absolutely minimal government, no restrictions on victimless personal behavior, private ownership of all the infrastructure, and that was able to defend its borders. Not making war on its neighbors would be nice, too. Is that an adequate definition of "worked?"

If you extend the definition to private ownership of all infrastructure [an anarcho-capitalist, not minarchist ideal] then no, such a society has not existed. If you do not include that caveat, then yes, Early America [sans slavary] was a libertarian country fully capable of defending it's own borders. Now, the slavary issue. Slavary is clearly unlibertarian, but ask yourself this, if black Americans were not slaves, would the society be any less libertarian. The answer to that, of course, is no. Structurally [size/scope of gov't, etc.] the society was libertarian.
-NC

I think you're wrong on several important points. Personal behavior was seriously controlled in 18th and 19th century England. Everything from neglecting the Sabbath to being an atheist was prosribed. And there were definitely classes of citizenship in those days. Even within my lifetime, I can remember bond elections where only property owners were allowed to vote. If you don't understand the basic crime of this, then I don't have time to educate you.

As to property rights, the railroads and the bigger businesses had ways of running roughshod over the little guys. Remember all those movies about the cattlemen and the nasty sheep men?

Slavery wasn't just a problem in the south, because Boston was the early hub of the slave trade. They might not have had many slaves in the north, but there were a lot of northern fortunes built slave trade.

In my own opinion, what you call libertarianism was simply a matter of much smaller population, lots of available land, and a concerted program to kill off the Indians. If we were suddenly to discover a new continent, almost empty of human poplulation, and send some settlers there, we MIGHT be able to recreate your idyllic dream of America as she used to be.

But so long as so many people live so close to one another, and have to compete for limited resources and limited land, the paradise you envision is just never gonna happen. I guess I'd like it too, if I got to be one of the lucky "haves." But the rules of probability being what they are, I don't think I'd make the list. What makes you think YOU would?

[NortheastCynic]

But so long as so many people live so close to one another, and have to compete for limited resources and limited land, the paradise you envision is just never gonna happen. I guess I'd like it too, if I got to be one of the lucky "haves." But the rules of probability being what they are, I don't think I'd make the list. What makes you think YOU would?I don't subscribe to the theory that individuals you deem to be the 'haves' are 'haves' due to 'probability'...So I think I'd be a have because I will be educated and determined to become one of the 'haves'.

As for early America, you are talking about local laws regarding the Sabbath, etc., I do not dispute that. My point was mainly that the scope of the gov't [i.e., the federal government] was libertarian. Perhaps I should have made that more clear. In either case, a completely [as in from federal to local government] a true libertarian gov't hasn't existed for the very reason I cited; there are two constants in gov't, one is that it will grow. I fail to see how the nonexistance of a 'completely' libertarian society proves much of anything, however.

-NC

[flaja]

Because if a watch is on the ground, it has an owner, meaning you do not have the right [legally/ethically] to claim it as your own. I used a raw material because anything that has been created [i.e. not a natural material] has an owner.

If only a manufactured product can have an owner, what gives you a right to claim ownership of the natural resources needed to make the manufactured product?

Seeing the deer is irrelevant. Comitting the act that turns the deer into property [killing it], is key. If you shoot and kill the deer, it's all yours, if hunter B does; better luck next time.

What if you both shoot at the same time and both blows strike the deer at the same time and both blows played an equal role in killing the deer? You are avoiding my questions and I cannot help but think that you are doing so intentionally. My questions are simple, so why can you not give me any straight answers?

So if the deer drinks from a person's pond and I kill it and eat it, have I stolen property. No.

How not? What right did you have to this person’s water regardless of how you acquired it? If this owner’s property sustained the deer, why doesn’t the owner have as much right to it as you do?

Let me simplify the issue: If a piece of land is un-owned, what gives you a right to claim it?

All of your example refer to the 13 colonies, not America.

What’s the difference?

You're not listening [er..reading]. I DO have a problem with whoredom, smoking pot and adultury. I personally have done neither, I see them as immoral.

But you don’t have any problem letting others engage in immoral behavior that puts society at risk? What you find unacceptable in yourself, you accept in others. What a hypocrite you must be.

[Buck Laser]

I don't subscribe to the theory individuals you deem to be the 'haves' are 'haves' due to 'probability'...So I think I'd be a have because I will be educated and determined to become one of the 'haves'.[/quote]
I guess that makes you a social Darwinist then. I thought pretty nearly everyone had given up on that--except the Xns who believe their faith can make them rich. I've known, in my fairly long life, too many people who couldn't make it for reasons beyond their control--the color of their skins, their religion (think about CWN and his thing about Muslims), bad health, physical disabilities, etc. Do we just say "fuck 'em, they had their chance and they blew it?"

As for early America, you are talking about local laws regarding the Sabbath, etc., I do not dispute that. My point was mainly that the scope of the gov't [i.e., the federal government] was libertarian. Perhaps I should have made that more clear. In either case, a completely [as in from federal to local government] a true libertarian gov't hasn't existed for the very reason I cited; there are two constants in gov't, one is that it will grow. I fail to see how the nonexistance of a 'completely' libertarian society proves much of anything, however.
-NC
What you overlook here and pretty much in your entire libertarian ideal is that by far the largest factor in "government" is local government. And yet you want to do away with public schools, fire departments, police to deal with interstate crime, civil rights legislation--on and on.

I just don't get it. I can understand being pissed that you can't drive however fast you want to, or having to pay school taxes when you don't have school age kids, but I still see libertarianism as hopelessly utopian.

[NortheastCynic]

If only a manufactured product can have an owner, what gives you a right to claim ownership of the natural resources needed to make the manufactured product?I never said only manufactured products can have owners, I said that only raw materials can be ownerless.

What if you both shoot at the same time and both blows strike the deer at the same time and both blows played an equal role in killing the deer? You are avoiding my questions and I cannot help but think that you are doing so intentionally. My questions are simple, so why can you not give me any straight answers?I have answered every question you've answered. Whether or not you like the answers is frankly none of my concern. If both bullets strike the animal simultaneously and kill it then it is obvious that by my logic it belongs to both of you.

Let me simplify the issue: If a piece of land is un-owned, what gives you a right to claim it?Because the alternatives are thus:
A: I claim the land as my own, I am free to do with it what I want.
B: A group of people [i.e. gov't] owns the land and arbitrates/mediates/regulates its use on behalf of 'everyone'.
C: 'Everyone' 'owns' the land, it is divided in 8 billion pieces and administered by 'us'.

B restricts liberty, C is impossible. A looks like a winner.

What’s the difference?One was administered by England and one wasn't...

But you don’t have any problem letting others engage in immoral behavior that puts society at risk? What you find unacceptable in yourself, you accept in others. What a hypocrite you must beA hypocrite is someone who espouses one thing and does another. I personally live by the Judeo-Christian guidelines...I simply do not believe that others shoudl be forced to live as I do...I'm not that self-righteous...Sorry. Spare me your judgement, because frankly, it is irrelevant. In addition, I don't subscribe to the theory [Read: myth] that is society. Society is a way the collectivist groups individuals together. If my neighbor wishes to live a sinful lifestyle, that is his/her choice, and he/she will be judged by God. I am not arrogant enough to think it is my responsibility to force everyone to live the Judeo-Christian lifestyle.
-NC[hr]I don't subscribe to the theory individuals you deem to be the 'haves' are 'haves' due to 'probability'...So I think I'd be a have because I will be educated and determined to become one of the 'haves'.
I guess that makes you a social Darwinist then. I thought pretty nearly everyone had given up on that--except the Xns who believe their faith can make them rich. I've known, in my fairly long life, too many people who couldn't make it for reasons beyond their control--the color of their skins, their religion (think about CWN and his thing about Muslims), bad health, physical disabilities, etc. Do we just say "f_ck 'em, they had their chance and they blew it?"[/quote]What you overlook here, and pretty much in your entire welfare-statist ideology is the power of the private sector to do good. You assume that if the gov't doesn't force people to be charitable to people you mention, that they won't be helped. This is a fallacy.

What you overlook here and pretty much in your entire libertarian ideal is that by far the largest factor in "government" is local government. And yet you want to do away with public schools, fire departments, police to deal with interstate crime, civil rights legislation--on and on.I thought we were only talking about the Federal gov't. If I knew otherwise, I would've covered local gov't as well, Buck.

I just don't get it. I can understand being pissed that you can't drive however fast you want to, or having to pay school taxes when you don't have school age kids, but I still see libertarianism as hopelessly utopian.So you've told me...On several occasions.:rolleyes:

-NC

[Buck Laser]

I just don't get it. I can understand being pissed that you can't drive however fast you want to, or having to pay school taxes when you don't have school age kids, but I still see libertarianism as hopelessly utopian.

So you've told me...On several occasions.:rolleyes:
-NC

Yeah, and I'm gonna keep on tellin' you until I beat some sense into your thick head. That's my mission in life...unless I get distracted. :madlaugh:

[flaja]

I think you're wrong on several important points. Personal behavior was seriously controlled in 18th and 19th century England.

As it was in America as well. Both the Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay Colonies had a state church- one that was supported by tax money and one where attendance was mandated by law (even though not all of the original Plymouth settlers were Separatist Puritans).

Also, I lived in Valdosta, Georgia for a while in the early 1970s and I remember that place still having Blue Laws that shut down everything in town on Sundays except churches and the pharmacy counter in stores where you could buy prescription drugs.

As to property rights, the railroads and the bigger businesses had ways of running roughshod over the little guys. Remember all those movies about the cattlemen and the nasty sheep men?

The end result of laissez faire libertarianism. When left to their own devices the strong will always exploit the weak.

In my own opinion, what you call libertarianism was simply a matter of much smaller population, lots of available land, and a concerted program to kill off the Indians. If we were suddenly to discover a new continent, almost empty of human poplulation, and send some settlers there, we MIGHT be able to recreate your idyllic dream of America as she used to be.

Actually you almost describe Australia- except the first settlers were all convicts.[hr]
I don't subscribe to the theory that individuals you deem to be the 'haves' are 'haves' due to 'probability'...

So the likes of Ted Kennedy and George W. Bush have had to work for a living? I was under the impression that they just inherited daddy's money.

As for early America, you are talking about local laws regarding the Sabbath, etc., I do not dispute that. My point was mainly that the scope of the gov't [i.e., the federal government] was libertarian.

In what way? The federal government was never as constitutionally limited as you seem to think. Apart from the income tax, Congress has no more power now than it has had since the Bill of Rights was ratified. [hr]
I guess that makes you a social Darwinist then. I thought pretty nearly everyone had given up on that--except the Xns who believe their faith can make them rich.

You mean Pentecostals, not Christians. Name it and claim it is not found in the Bible.

[NortheastCynic]

So the likes of Ted Kennedy and George W. Bush have had to work for a living? I was under the impression that they just inherited daddy's money.No, neither has had to work for their money, that is clear. And what is equally clear is that they are in the minority. Most people work for what they have, or work to add onto what they have. Being successful is not strictly a game of chance, that was my point and I stand by it.

In what way? The federal government was never as constitutionally limited as you seem to think. Apart from the income tax, Congress has no more power now than it has had since the Bill of Rights was ratified.I've voiced no concern regarding the power of Congress. The Executive branch has grown in power exponentially, as has the federal bureaucracy [nat'l banking system, IRS, etc.]


-NC

[Questerr]

Cynic, here's a practical, realistic scenario that I want you to try and answer with what would be the best resolution from a libertarian point of view:

I live in Hill Country in Texas. Sometime in the future we adopt Libertarian policies in the US and I am free to do what I want with my property although I am not allow to violate the property of others (claiming fiat here, the route to libertarianism is not important).

I own a ranch and grow wheat, as does my neighbor down the hill. My farm and his are large and profitable because I have a large fresh water spring on my land (water being both scarse and valuable in the Hill Country) and it forms a stream that feeds his lands.

Some time in the future, I make enough money that I decide to retire and not farm anymore. My neightbor hasn't reached that point and he still needs to continue farming. Not needing my spring to water my fields anymore however, I decide to dam the spring to create a stocked fishing lake so I can spend all my retirement fishing and relaxing on my land with no interference.

The creation of my lake from my property by damming the spring will stop the stream and kill my neighbor's farm. I own all the rights to water from the stream because I own the spring (the source of the raw materials).

What should the resolution be? Bear in mind, I am not willing to negotiate my lake, I want my damn fish.

[NortheastCynic]

In a vaccum, this is simple enough. You own the source of water which flows through his land. The source here is key. He [your neighbor] only owns the water that flows onto his property, he has no right to any water not on his property. If you dam water that is not on his property, that is legitimate even if it results in NEW water no longer FLOWING onto his property. He only has rights to water ON his property not water that will EVENTUALLY flow onto his property. Good luck with your retirement. ;)

-NC

[Truth_and_Power]

What you are saying is I should be a liberal and see everyone as a rotten, thieving threat who will take what is not his with no reservation.

Instead you are a conservative who sees every liberal as a rotten, thieving threat who will take what is not his with no reservation.

Big improvement.

[ClayBarham]

Liberals, socialists, communists, those who believe the elite few should rule the many are usually good, caring people who do not buy into the idea that men and women should be free to pursue their own interests, that when they do, they trample on the rest of the people. Conservatives, those who believe everyone should be free to follow their own personal interests and aspirations, using their own skills and talents are good people as well, just so long as their interests do not trample on everyone else's interests. Where the views of nasty, evil, rotten and thieving come from is how each often describes the other, because they are in opposition to one another in imposing their dream state. I believe both sides have valid points and should debate them reasonably, without all the masking name-calling used to impress an audience that is unfamiliar with both sides. I believe the side you are on is the oldest one with the most experience. I believe the side I represent is the newest, barely 400 years old and having grown and evolved in an atmosphere of freedom. I think I am right and you obviously think you are right. The problem is we cannot seem to debate the root issues or the issues growing from each root, without name-calling and insults. That is too bad. I think a reasoned exchange of ideas is healthy.

[Questerr]

In a vaccum, this is simple enough. You own the source of water which flows through his land. The source here is key. He [your neighbor] only owns the water that flows onto his property, he has no right to any water not on his property. If you dam water that is not on his property, that is legitimate even if it results in NEW water no longer FLOWING onto his property. He only has rights to water ON his property not water that will EVENTUALLY flow onto his property. Good luck with your retirement. ;)

-NC


But you don't see the issue with this scenario? My greed and selfishness is going to bankrupt my neighbor. And most importantly, he has no recourse. Even you state that under a libertarian system, the only recourse he has is to move away and start all over again.

This is just one of many scenarios of why you need a least some measure of government interference and regulation.

[NortheastCynic]

That implies that he has the right to his business/farm, the right to stay in his land regardless of extinuating circumstances and the right to water which derives from my property. I do not believe any of those and therefore do not see the need for government interference.

-NC

[Questerr]

That implies that he has the right to his business/farm, the right to stay in his land regardless of extinuating circumstances and the right to water which derives from my property. I do not believe any of those and therefore do not see the need for government interference.

-NC


How the about the Rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness?

My dam deprives him of his livelihood. It forces him into a corner and leaves him no way out. Especially, given the scenario, it may be impossible to find another site where he can gain access to water, let alone a piece of open land.

I don't know if this is the same in every state, but back in Kansas (where I'm from originally), if water is on multiple properties, than by law, no one owns it. And any changes to it that would significantly affect the other properties require agreement by all parties. While that's not neccesarily government interference (beyond the original laws), it is definately not libertarian, but it is the only way it works without having people literally fighting over whats going to happen.

By the way, I used the water example because that is the way it worked back the 1800's when the area was being settled. If you owned the spring, you owned the water rights. Owners unilaterally deciding what to do with the water started more than a few brushfire wars between pioneers.

Edit: You also mention the right to stay on his land. What if I am using the damming of the water to get him to leave so I can take his land? Wouldn't you consider that theft of his property?

[Truth_and_Power]

In a vaccum, this is simple enough.


Libertarianism in a nutshell. :clapper:

[ClayBarham]

Using the word libertarian in the course of the debate, as you do, implies you oppose any solution which is arrived at between two private parties, even if it goes to civil court and worked out there in accordance with law.. It further implies that no one may have a private property advantage over another and that the "ruler" or his people must step in and make the decision. I think you need to go to Hollywood to find movies where mean ranchers dam up the water on their property to prevent the neighbor from getting any, or realign streams and creeks just to make the other guy squirm. Usually, neighbors are reasonably good to each other in working ranches and farms, as you never know when they will need each other for an emergency. I gather you prefer the dictator, perhaps President Evita, ooops, Hillary, steps in the decide.

[Questerr]

Using the word libertarian in the course of the debate, as you do, implies you oppose any solution which is arrived at between two private parties, even if it goes to civil court and worked out there in accordance with law.. It further implies that no one may have a private property advantage over another and that the "ruler" or his people must step in and make the decision. I think you need to go to Hollywood to find movies where mean ranchers dam up the water on their property to prevent the neighbor from getting any, or realign streams and creeks just to make the other guy squirm. Usually, neighbors are reasonably good to each other in working ranches and farms, as you never know when they will need each other for an emergency. I gather you prefer the dictator, perhaps President Evita, ooops, Hillary, steps in the decide.


I agree with you that the problems that I listed could be solved by one neighbor taking the other to court, but that in itself is government intervention. The kind of government intervention that you talk about doesn't happen on a large scale. You usually don't see the Feds coming in to dictate what a person may do on their land, its ussually the State government, which you seem to advocate by saying that parties in cases like this should go to court to arbitrate.

And yes, things like the example I gave did happen in Hill Country. Shooting wars between groups of farmers and ranchers occured when people were stingy about sharing water.

The point I'm trying to make is that a libertarian system will have some degree of government interference. In cases where two parties are in dispute, courts will still have to be called in to abritarate and the government will still have to have the power to tell me I can't build my dam on my land using my water because it will harm my neighbor. Courts will cost money (as will enforcement) and the government will have to make that money somehow, so some system of taxation or tariffs will still have to exist.

I don't advocate Federal level socialism because it doesn't work. State level socialism can work because state legislatures live with the people their decisions apply to and can take complaints and advice from the people they will affect. Welfare programs and the like can be tailored to the individual needs of an area and increased or lowered as neccesary. The important thing to remember is that when you are trying to provide for the elast common denominator, the more numbers you use, the lower the denominator becomes.

Small federal government, State government sized for the need of the State, Local government sized for the need for the local population.

[Truth_and_Power]

Usually, neighbors are reasonably good to each other in working ranches and farms, as you never know when they will need each other for an emergency. I gather you prefer the dictator, perhaps President Evita, ooops, Hillary, steps in the decide.


Usually still leaves the exceptions. I suppose we revert to "i do not care" for that?

And yes I prefer a dictator to determine every choice I make in my life Achung! Thanks for the realism.

[flaja]

No, neither has had to work for their money, that is clear. And what is equally clear is that they are in the minority. Most people work for what they have, or work to add onto what they have. Being successful is not strictly a game of chance, that was my point and I stand by it.

My point stands. How well someone does in life is greatly affected by the circumstances in which they are born.

BTW: The Baby boomer generation is one of wealthiest ever known to history. Their children and grandchildren will inherit wealth on an unprecedented scale.

I've voiced no concern regarding the power of Congress. The Executive branch has grown in power exponentially, as has the federal bureaucracy [nat'l banking system, IRS, etc.]

You were talking about the federal government, were you not? The President can only enforce laws that are enacted by Congress and he can exercise authority only over the bureaucracy that Congress creates and funds.[hr]
Cynic, here's a practical, realistic scenario that I want you to try and answer with what would be the best resolution from a libertarian point of view:

I live in Hill Country in Texas. Sometime in the future we adopt Libertarian policies in the US and I am free to do what I want with my property although I am not allow to violate the property of others (claiming fiat here, the route to libertarianism is not important).

I own a ranch and grow wheat, as does my neighbor down the hill. My farm and his are large and profitable because I have a large fresh water spring on my land (water being both scarse and valuable in the Hill Country) and it forms a stream that feeds his lands.

Some time in the future, I make enough money that I decide to retire and not farm anymore. My neightbor hasn't reached that point and he still needs to continue farming. Not needing my spring to water my fields anymore however, I decide to dam the spring to create a stocked fishing lake so I can spend all my retirement fishing and relaxing on my land with no interference.

The creation of my lake from my property by damming the spring will stop the stream and kill my neighbor's farm. I own all the rights to water from the stream because I own the spring (the source of the raw materials).

What should the resolution be? Bear in mind, I am not willing to negotiate my lake, I want my damn fish.


I understand what you are saying, but let me extend the scenario a litter further.

How big is the aquifer that feeds the spring on your property? If the groundwater that feeds this spring extends beneath the property of others, would these property owners have a right to dig wells and pump so much water that your spring dries up?

If the Hollywood westerns are any indication no one living in a water-scare region has an absolute right to the water that is found on their property. These legal restrictions on absolute rights are in place for a reason- a reason that libertarians won’t ever understand: everyone must accept certain restrictions on their rights so everyone can maximize their own rights without putting society at risk. Nobody, when left to their own devices, can have absolute rights because the exercise of such rights will invariably lead one man to infringe on the rights of others.

[Questerr]

These legal restrictions on absolute rights are in place for a reason- a reason that libertarians won’t ever understand: everyone must accept certain restrictions on their rights so everyone can maximize their own rights without putting society at risk. Nobody, when left to their own devices, can have absolute rights because the exercise of such rights will invariably lead one man to infringe on the rights of others.

Bingo.

[flaja]

That implies that he has the right to his business/farm, the right to stay in his land regardless of extinuating circumstances and the right to water which derives from my property. I do not believe any of those and therefore do not see the need for government interference.

-NC


Consider this variant scenario:

Person A owns a Christian bookstore in a shopping center. There are no zoning laws in place so person B opens an X-rated movie theater in the storefront next door. Naturally person B’s activities drive away person A’s customers and person A goes bankrupt. And naturally the libertarian fails to see that Person A’s rights have been violated.[hr]
My dam deprives him of his livelihood. It forces him into a corner and leaves him no way out. Especially, given the scenario, it may be impossible to find another site where he can gain access to water, let alone a piece of open land.

Assuming that your neighbor can find a buyer for his waterless property so he will have the money to buy land elsewhere. Ultimately what your dam has done is deprived your neighbor of the full value of his property- but libs are blind to this fact.

Edit: You also mention the right to stay on his land. What if I am using the damming of the water to get him to leave so I can take his land? Wouldn't you consider that theft of his property?


What if you blow up your dam and cause catastrophic flooding on your neighbor’s property? Even the most rabid libertarian will say that you have destroyed your neighbor’s property and you should be held liable for the damage. So why cannot the libertarian see the damage that your dam did to your neighbor’s property in the first place?[hr]
Using the word libertarian in the course of the debate, as you do, implies you oppose any solution which is arrived at between two private parties, even if it goes to civil court and worked out there in accordance with law.. It further implies that no one may have a private property advantage over another and that the "ruler" or his people must step in and make the decision. I think you need to go to Hollywood to find movies where mean ranchers dam up the water on their property to prevent the neighbor from getting any, or realign streams and creeks just to make the other guy squirm. Usually, neighbors are reasonably good to each other in working ranches and farms, as you never know when they will need each other for an emergency. I gather you prefer the dictator, perhaps President Evita, ooops, Hillary, steps in the decide.


To whom is this directed?

I am not opposed to two people solving a dispute without the government getting involved. I am just not naïve enough to believe that such an occurrence happens all that often- human nature being what it is.

[NortheastCynic]

My point stands. How well someone does in life is greatly affected by the circumstances in which they are born.
I have not disputed that it does not affect them. My point of contention with Buck was that ones success is not the crapshoot he made it out to be. There are circumstances into which one is born, obviously. Again, my point was only that success is not a game of roulette, and to a very large extent, you control your destiny.

You were talking about the federal government, were you not? The President can only enforce laws that are enacted by Congress and he can exercise authority only over the bureaucracy that Congress creates and funds.That is not close to being what he can 'only' do. The executive has grabbed power from Congress through the War Powers Act, FISA program and other bureacracy-run programs, a list of which I could continue down, if you wish. To say that the Executive can 'only' execute laws simply is not accurate.

Person A owns a Christian bookstore in a shopping center. There are no zoning laws in place so person B opens an X-rated movie theater in the storefront next door. Naturally person B’s activities drive away person A’s customers and person A goes bankrupt. And naturally the libertarian fails to see that Person A’s rights have been violated.
That's because his rights have not been violated. He has no right to stay in business. His doing so is dependent completely on the market continuing to patronize his store. If they do not, he goes out of business. That's how the market works.

These legal restrictions on absolute rights are in place for a reason- a reason that libertarians won’t ever understand: everyone must accept certain restrictions on their rights so everyone can maximize their own rights without putting society at risk. Nobody, when left to their own devices, can have absolute rights because the exercise of such rights will invariably lead one man to infringe on the rights of others.This is based on the fallacy that libertarians want no boundaries/rules. Libertarians believe that your rights END when they come into conflict with the equal rights of others. It is an absolute fallacy to believe that libertarians do not understand that rights are not completely limitless.

My dam deprives him of his livelihood. It forces him into a corner and leaves him no way out. Especially, given the scenario, it may be impossible to find another site where he can gain access to water, let alone a piece of open land.It doesn't leave him with 'no choices' it leaves him with limited and tough choices. He does not have to farm, nor does he have the right to be a farmer; that is to say, he is not entitled to conditions under which he would prefer to farm. He does not have to live next to you; that is to say he is not entitled to conditions under which he would wish to live near you. Regardless of how much you may not like the situation, he does not have the 'right' to his alleged 'livelihood' [Read: his current job, farming].

Edit: You also mention the right to stay on his land. What if I am using the damming of the water to get him to leave so I can take his land? Wouldn't you consider that theft of his property?Preventing your water from flowing into his property in an attempt to dissuade him from staying is not theft, no. Again, he has NO RIGHT to the water flowing from your spring

Libertarianism in a nutshell
TaP, he gave me an example with absolutely no parameters, it was a situation in a vaccum, I responded in kind...That is in no way a reflection on libertarianism as an ideology.

-NC

[flaja]

I have not disputed that it does not affect them. My point of contention with Buck was that ones success is not the crapshoot he made it out to be.

It is likely more a product of chance than it is anything else- being at the right place at the right time and being born with enough intelligence to take advantage of the chance events while lacking the morals and ethics that would make you care about the consequences your actions have for others. For example Andrew Carnegie began his rise in the business world when he was an entry-level managerial employee for a rail road and the train he was on wrecked. Carnegie took the initiative, when he really lacked the authority, to simply have the train pushed off the track so other trains could continue to go by. Carnegie’s employer agreed with what he did and promoted him. But it could have just as easily gone the other way and Carnegie could have lost his job for destroying company property. Success is often as much luck as it is anything else.

That is not close to being what he can 'only' do. The executive has grabbed power from Congress through the War Powers Act

Huh? The War Powers Act is an unconstitutional law whereby the Congress has assumed the president’s powers as commander-in-chief of the armed forces. If your thinking is this muddled and your command of the facts is so wrong, I don’t see any point in continuing this conversation.

That's because his rights have not been violated. He has no right to stay in business. His doing so is dependent completely on the market continuing to patronize his store. If they do not, he goes out of business. That's how the market works.

Person B has obstructed person A’s ability to conduct business and you don’t think person A’s right to conduct business has been violated? You are a typical libertarian lunatic and I was right, there is no reason to continue this conversation.

[NortheastCynic]

Huh? The War Powers Act is an unconstitutional law whereby the Congress has assumed the president’s powers as commander-in-chief of the armed forces. If your thinking is this muddled and your command of the facts is so wrong, I don’t see any point in continuing this conversation.Typo on my part, my mistake. I was attempting to give you an example of the Congress grabbing power [as you brought up Congress, earlier], and I erred. My mistake.

Person B has obstructed person A’s ability to conduct business and you don’t think person A’s right to conduct business has been violated? You are a typical libertarian lunatic and I was right, there is no reason to continue this conversation.It is sad but not surprising that you have resorted to name calling. Person A doesn't have a 'right' to conduct business in any given area, there is no such right. You have invented the 'right' to do business just as the contemporary leftist has 'invented' the 'right' to medical care. Your bookstore owner does not have a right to stay in business, nor does the porn video store. From where does your imaginary 'right' derive, Flaja. For all you're talk of this conversation being futile, you have yet to back up your rhetoric with substance. Where does this 'right' to continue doing business in the location of one's choice derive from? Ah, I've forgotten, this conversation has no reason to continue :rolleyes:. Sad though, we were having a stimulating conversation until you chose to resort to name calling. Oh well.

-NC

[ClayBarham]

The rapid-fire name-calling is a liberal's first line of defense, which is why I assumed Flaja was a provocateur for the left, but may there's hope for a cooler response at times. After all, we need all the coservatives we can get.

[flaja]

The rapid-fire name-calling is a liberal's first line of defense, which is why I assumed Flaja was a provocateur for the left, but may there's hope for a cooler response at times. After all, we need all the coservatives we can get.


I am a conservative, but I have a very low tolerance level for fools.

[NortheastCynic]

As do I...Which is why I'm giving you another chance to explain to me where this imaginary 'right to do business' derives from. Perhaps you won't answer me; it is fairly obvious what you are doing. You have taken a mistaken I've made [that being the incredibly incorrect citation of the War Powers Act, which I fully admit was a mistake], and used that as an excuse to pretend as though I'm an idiot. It really is a childish techinique, and I hope that you reconsider the use of it.

-NC

[ClayBarham]

Slow it down, add a pinch of patience, read between the lines, don't be too quick to jump on the other guys post, and the debate may become more reasonable. I thoroughly dislike the insults as a mask for inability to stand toe to toe, but over the years I have become used to them. Hate to see a conservative-libertarian-republican doing battle if it is simply over a misunderstanding or typo. We have too many leftist to dump on.

[NortheastCynic]

Well stated, Mr. Barham, as usual.

-NC

[flaja]

Slow it down, add a pinch of patience, read between the lines, don't be too quick to jump on the other guys post, and the debate may become more reasonable. I thoroughly dislike the insults as a mask for inability to stand toe to toe, but over the years I have become used to them. Hate to see a conservative-libertarian-republican doing battle if it is simply over a misunderstanding or typo. We have too many leftist to dump on.


I am perfectly able and willing to engage in a debate that is based on facts and an accurate understanding of them. If someone says something that is blatantly wrong (such as the War Powers Act is a presidential assumption of unconstitutional powers), I see no reason to engage the perpetrator of the error anymore.

[NortheastCynic]

Poor, Flaja, someone else made an error of fact, admitted it and he doesn't know what to do. Come now, Flaja, let's have an answer to my question, where does your imaginary right derive from? I have admitted my error, do you have the courage to admit yours?

-NC