The libertarian disconnect!!

Yeah I use to say this exact same thing constantly. I still agree with it, actually.

 

Well, then we agree...cool.

 

How do either of those discount my claim that libertarians do not use violence against peaceful people? Funding the military may present a problem, but actually having one is not implicit violence against those who have not initiated aggression themselves. Nor is execution, though I am against that.

You have a reading comprehension problem. I was quite specific about libertarians being against violence against peaceful people. Stealing is not peaceful, it is assault on what a person has justly acquired.

Strawmen and unsupportable ad hominem. Typical of those who try to justify their own bloodlust against peaceful people.

Objectively, if it's justified to use violence against anyone you care to use it against to justify your agenda, then it's justified for anyone else to use violence to advance their own. Your ethics are based on the premise of might is right, so long as it works in your favor.

I don't pretend that insisting that others interfere with the lives of my peaceful neighbors through threats and use of violence is good and wholesome because it advances my agenda. That's why I'm not an ethically stunted moral relativist.

It's not unlike your "the poor will starve" and the "libertarians hate the poor" cards. If you don't like such tactics, why do you use them yourself?

Oh, I see, having the tactics you enjoy using used on you pisses you off.

You have not problem with consequences to people. If their lives are ruined in prisons, or they are bombed by your favorites in power, you don't care so long as those favorites pay lip services to your cause.

Getting what I want at the expense of others without their consent is wrong whether I do it myself with a gun, or whether I demand that others do it on my behalf and call it "government." If, as you claim, it's justifiable sometimes because your intentions are good, then there is no objective reason that any violence is wrong so long as the intentions are good on the part of those committing the violence. And, unlike you, I am a rational person, I prefer to base my ethics on logic and objective principles rather than the ends justify the means gut emotions.

 

Most of your post is great - except this part. No, no no no, and NO!. Private property and economics as a whole are NOT zero sum games. Exactly how many computers, houses, ipads, sunglasses, shoes, big macs, etc existed in 10,000 BC?

A: Not a lot and definitely much less than today and in many cases infinitely more.

Hell we can even create land (albeit very expensive).

You can increase the pie and the size of said pie is NEVER static, it is always changing. What you are spouting is what's also called the Broken Window Fallacy.

http://www.learnliberty.org/content/broken-window-fallacy
http://www.learnliberty.org/content/trade-made-win-part-1-wealth-creation


Thus - the economy has grown and the pie is bigger - everyone won.

 

I don't like direct democracy - it always leads to totalitarianism poverty and death.

Besides that I agree that our government is corrupt. The solution - since you can't prevent greed/corruption, is to limit the damage they can do. Thus - empower individuals and protect private property rights.

 

That's great, but I also support some things being public property. This would include air.

 

So you have an example?

 

That's over a long period of time, usually longer than a human lifetime, that the entirety of aggregate resources and wealth increases significantly. That's the point: if it's being used at the same speed or close to the same speed as it's being created (material wealth in this case), it doesn't count as infinite.

In any one point in time, if one person has something, other people don't have it. Period. That's the way it works. I do however think that's the way it should work in many situations.

However, one can't deny that the most efficient way to use something is to jointly have more than one person use it (if that is possible with whatever is at hand; with a computer, it's very easily possible, with food, it's not). That does not, however, mean that the most efficient way to use something necessarily equates to the "best" way, IMHO. That would be pure utilitarianism, whereas my ideologies are influenced by, but not even closely equal to, utilitarianism.

 

DA, I'd like to say that to be ideologically consistent, you have to accept the idea of public property rights in order to support any kind of societal democracy.

 

I disagree - I think you own the air above your property (at a specific point in time of course). If someone pollutes said air - should you not have legal recourse to sue said polluter? If it is a private good you run in to the tragedy of the commons problem that afflicts public goods.

That said - I have no problem with a group of people sharing ownership of said air, as long as its voluntary

 

Wealth doesn't exist if it isn't being used!

Actually, more often either one specific person has it or nobody does.

 

Why would you support (clean) air being public property? It's leading to a tragedy of the commons, as no one is truly responsible for it. But yeah, if you want tons of pollution and no accountability, it's a good idea.

Private property is for dealing with scarce resources. Guess what? Clean air is becoming a scarce resource and people need to accept this.

And the over-population thing is a long-standing myth. It's only a problem, because of world-wide economic systems. Otherwise population increases would more than make up for themselves, as the average person produces FAR MORE than he or she consumes, especially in the age of large capital investment.

 

This is demonstrably false. I agree with you that in one screenshot of time this is true. HOWEVER, trade occurs through time so your analogy really doesn't reflect life. It takes time to produce, it takes time to trade, it takes time to live. Time does not stop - therefore, it is unrealistic to explain economics without accommodating time.

Your second statement that "it should work in many situations" doesn't make any sense to me. Why would you want the pie to always stay the same, for any good?

 

This is called scarcity (see: reality).

 

Because if it were private property, people could charge you 100 bucks a minute just to breathe. When you ran out of money, you'd suffocate and die, or else fight in gladiator arenas for their entertainment, just so that you didn't have to keep paying them to breathe. They'd become your rulers; your TYRANTS.

Do you want that? Really???

 

This sums up the whole point. In extreme situations, it's not worth it to privatize everything. Sometimes it's better to go to consequentialism, IMHO.

 

Well, what exact level of pollution would be necessary, in your opinion? If someone exhales CO2 and a CO2 particle floats to the air above your yard, should they be punished or prevented from doing so?

This actually brings up another entirely relevant point: Every possible political ideology of justice, must eventually resort to being arbitrary for the sake of being practical. Otherwise, you can't actually apply said ideology. Which would make it useless.

 

...

I see public schooling and the scare stories of private property got to you.

To the other, yes I do think polluters should be legally accountable. Guess what, that's an enforcement of private property rights.

And what does consequentialism imply the solution is?

Edit: Wait, it's the same person... You quoted yourself and then agreed with it

 

Absolutely, thanks for asking.

Ancient Greece, Rome, 1920's Germany to name a few. Most "democracies" today are actually Republics, aka Rule of Law via a Constitution. There is a very distinct difference between direct democracy and a representative democracy (aka Republic).

Revolutionary France dabbled in direct democracy as well and resulted in Napoleon.

 

No - if someone polluted your air you'd have legal recourse to seek damages. Also - how would you enforce stopping someone from breathing? I again think your example doesn't make sense.

 

The Consequentialist stance on air would be to sue the bastard that polluted it =p as the consequence of your action is tort. This does not conflict with private property rights.

I think you're under the impression that private property rights gives you the right to pollute other people's air?

 

Because you didn't actually "work for" the air that flows above your yard. Therefore people could simply suck it all up into huge vaccuums (theoretically) and then charge you anything they wanted so that you could breathe.

Also, as for a more realistic example, what if 10% of people owned 100% of Earth's land..AND oceans? They could tell people to either get off their property (which would of course be impossible), or else fight to the death in huge gladiator arenas.

Looks like they'd have exactly one option.

 

I agree with you actually. Therefore you must prove using science that the pollution harmed you to a jury. You have the right to use experts as does the accused. That's the best answer I have for you. If you think something harmed you - it's probably for good reason. It shouldn't be too difficult in proving it, and if you can't perhaps it didn't hurt you in the first place?

 

Not necessarily. But my solution would be to say that air is innately owned by everyone.

Ultimately, I think that the only things anyone does innately truly privately own, are their bodies, their minds, and everything that results from those things. But that's not quite the same discussion.

No, but it does give you the right to possess 100% of a given thing and then charge people anything you want to have it, which isn't necessarily ethically acceptable IMHO.

 

In accordance with my ideology..air should be innately owned by everyone. However, that doesn't give people the right to massively pump pollution into the air, because it'd violate others' health.