Some basic questions from a budding Libertarian
Lizard
one of Harry Browne's books and liked what he had to say..
But I need to address two concerns:
It seems prima facia that the environment would suffer under this political
system. How does environmentalism fit into the free market system?
Also, would the rich-poor divide be unfairly wide?
Thanks!
--
*·.¸_¸.·'¨¨)
¸.·'
(_¸.·' Lizard
Todd A. Anderson
"Lizard" <jat...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:tzEx9.6304$6g.21...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
> I understand the basics of the political philosphy and I like it. I've
read
> one of Harry Browne's books and liked what he had to say..
>
> But I need to address two concerns:
>
> It seems prima facia that the environment would suffer under this
political
> system. How does environmentalism fit into the free market system?
>
> Also, would the rich-poor divide be unfairly wide?
Fairness is getting what you have earned. The work product of the rich is
valued by the public so they get handsomely rewarded. The work product
of the poor is not highly valued so they get paid less. You have to banish
the notion of equality (or near equality) of outcome from your psyche. Such
notions provide fertile ground for Democratic and Republican pandering
and wealth redistribution.
William C Colley
"Lizard" <jat...@adelphia.net> wrote in message news:<tzEx9.6304$6g.21...@news1.news.adelphia.net>...
> I understand the basics of the political philosphy and I like it. I've read
> one of Harry Browne's books and liked what he had to say..
>
> But I need to address two concerns:
>
> It seems prima facia that the environment would suffer under this political
> system. How does environmentalism fit into the free market system?
>
From http://www.lp.org/organization/history/platform/1996/pol.html
</begin quote>
Pollution of other people's property is a violation of individual
rights. Present legal principles, particularly the unjust and false
concept of "public property," block privatisation of the use of the
environment and hence block resolution of controversies over resource
use. We support the development of an objective legal system defining
property rights to air and water. We call for a modification of the
laws governing such torts as trespass and nuisance to cover damages
done by air, water, radiation, and noise pollution. We oppose
legislative proposals to
exempt persons who claim damage from radiation from having to prove
such damage was in fact caused by radiation. Strict liability, not
government agencies and arbitrary government standards, should
regulate pollution. We therefore demand the abolition of the
Environmental Protection Agency. We also oppose government-mandated
smoking and non-smoking areas in privately owned businesses.
Toxic waste disposal problems have been created by government policies
that separate liability from property. Rather than making taxpayers
pay for toxic waste clean-ups, individual property owners, or in the
case of corporations, the responsible managers and employees, should
be held strictly liable for material damage done by their property.
Claiming that one has abandoned a piece of property does not absolve
one of the responsibility for actions one has set in motion. We
condemn the EPA's Superfund whose taxing powers are used to penalize
all chemical firms, regardless of their conduct. Such clean-ups are a
subsidy of irresponsible companies at the expense of responsible ones.
</end quote>
From http://www.lp.org/issues/environment.html
</begin quote>
Who's the greatest polluter of all? The oil companies? The chemical
companies? The nuclear power plants?
If you guessed "none of the above," you'd be correct. Our government,
at the federal, state, and local levels, is the single greatest
polluter in the land. In addition, our government doesn't even clean
up its own garbage!
</end quote>
Short answer, any pollution that enters your land from somewhere else
should give you the right to sue the producer of said pollution.
>
> Also, would the rich-poor divide be unfairly wide?
>
There will always be a difference in individual wealth since there
will always be a difference in individual ability. The only solution
that government supplies is to forcibly take money from those that
have it and give it to, well in reality anyone the politicians
desire. Sometimes that includes "poor" people, often it includes rich
people as well. Think corporate welfare.
IMHO, I have much less problems with local governments using local tax
revenue to support the "poor" than I do with the Federal government
doing the same.
The reason I put "poor" in parentheses is that it is a relative term.
The poor in America today are nothing like the truely horrible poor in
other parts of the world.
Short answer, all working poor people would automatically pay no
income tax in a Libertarian society.
Hope this helps.
William C Colley
Lizard
> of the poor is not highly valued so they get paid less.
Ok, but isn't it society's responsibility to make sure that babies aren't
born into squalor? They have to be given a chance to be educated and become
a successful member of society
--
*·.¸_¸.·'¨¨)
¸.·'
(_¸.·' Lizard
"Todd A. Anderson" <drt...@aaahawk.com> wrote in message
news:aq93i2$t72$1...@news01.intel.com...
>
> "Lizard" <jat...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
> news:tzEx9.6304$6g.21...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
> > I understand the basics of the political philosphy and I like it. I've
> read
> > one of Harry Browne's books and liked what he had to say..
> >
> > But I need to address two concerns:
> >
> > It seems prima facia that the environment would suffer under this
> political
> > system. How does environmentalism fit into the free market system?
> >
> > Also, would the rich-poor divide be unfairly wide?
>
> Fairness is getting what you have earned. The work product of the rich is
> valued by the public so they get handsomely rewarded. You have to banish
Lizard
> should give you the right to sue the producer of said pollution.
But what if it's not my or anyone's property? What if it's the ocean? Or a
forest? Or just air quality? This hurts everybody. How are polluters held
responsible?
--
*·.¸_¸.·'¨¨)
¸.·'
(_¸.·' Lizard
"William C Colley" <chri...@panola.com> wrote in message
news:38bdf9d7.02110...@posting.google.com...
>
> >
Strabo
Lizard wrote:
>
> >The work product
> > of the poor is not highly valued so they get paid less.
>
> Ok, but isn't it society's responsibility to make sure that babies aren't
> born into squalor? They have to be given a chance to be educated and become
> a successful member of society
Is there something inherently bad about 'squalor'?
And just what is 'society'?
<snipped>
Strabo
Lizard wrote:
>
> > Short answer, any pollution that enters your land from somewhere else
> > should give you the right to sue the producer of said pollution.
>
> But what if it's not my or anyone's property? What if it's the ocean? Or a
> forest?
Simple - the problem holds the solution.
As a good socialist you can pass a law. After all, you will have to
do something. Then you can associate some undesirable with the crime.
Then with your new law you can go ruin his life.
This way you will have made everyone feel good and rid the planet of a
criminal.
> Or just air quality? This hurts everybody. How are polluters held
> responsible?
As above. Identify the problem. Create a demon. Blame the problem on
the demon. The problem then becomes the demon. Destroy the demon,
problem solved.
<snipped>
Todd A. Anderson
> >The work product
> > of the poor is not highly valued so they get paid less.
>
> Ok, but isn't it society's responsibility to make sure that babies aren't
> born into squalor? They have to be given a chance to be educated and
become
> a successful member of society
No, the only job of government is to stop people from violating others'
rights and
to punish the violators when they can't be stopped. If you see babies being
born
into squalor and not getting an education then why don't you organize a
fundraiser
for them. Donations at a fundraiser are voluntary and don't violate
anyone's rights.
What you shouldn't do is come to my house with an army and demand that I
give
you money to educate someone else's child. Unfortunately, this is exactly
what
government does today.
The purpose of government is not to engineer society.
Lizard
> Is there something inherently bad about 'squalor'?
Yeah! Am I missing something here? I don't think you need statistics to
tell you that babies born into squalor have a much more difficult time
realizing the American Dream than someone with wealthy parents. It can be
done, for sure, but it's much harder. Isn't society ethically and morally
obliged to help their fellow man?
>
> And just what is 'society'?
Perhaps community is a better word? I don't know the answer to this really,
but I also don't know the point of your question....
--
*·.¸_¸.·'¨¨)
¸.·'
(_¸.·' Lizard
"Strabo" <str...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3DC89FE6...@mindspring.com...
>
>
> Lizard wrote:
> >
> > >The work product
> > > of the poor is not highly valued so they get paid less.
> >
> > Ok, but isn't it society's responsibility to make sure that babies
aren't
> > born into squalor? They have to be given a chance to be educated and
become
> > a successful member of society
>
>
> <snipped>
Lizard
> born
> into squalor and not getting an education then why don't you organize a
> fundraiser
> for them.
Good point, but what if the problem is so massive that it requires a huge
organization to tackle it? I'm not just talking about the poor...
--
*·.¸_¸.·'¨¨)
¸.·'
(_¸.·' Lizard
"Todd A. Anderson" <drt...@aaahawk.com> wrote in message
news:aqblde$rg3$1...@news01.intel.com...
> "Lizard" <jat...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
> news:iaZx9.6790$6g.25...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
> > >The work product
> > > of the poor is not highly valued so they get paid less.
> >
> > Ok, but isn't it society's responsibility to make sure that babies
aren't
> > born into squalor? They have to be given a chance to be educated and
> become
> > a successful member of society
>
> No, the only job of government is to stop people from violating others'
> rights and
> to punish the violators when they can't be stopped. Donations at a
Lizard
Let me reword my question, with regards to Environment:
How would a Libertarian administration tackle Environmental problems? I
understand this much: if a factory upstream from me is polluting the water,
they ought be help responsible because they are infringing upon my rights.
But what about Pollution on unowned property? Forests, oceans, seas, lakes,
etc. etc. How are these problems avoided? If business operate Lezzais
Faire, what is to stop them from polluting the environment? If the
government doesn't step in, who else CAN? No private citizen can take on a
company until after the deed is done. Realistically speaking, don't there
HAVE to be some restrictions on businesses to avoid this?
--
*·.¸_¸.·'¨¨)
¸.·'
(_¸.·' Lizard
"Strabo" <str...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3DC8A1E2...@mindspring.com...
Devnull
news:%Thy9.7956$6g.29...@news1.news.adelphia.net:
> > If you see babies being
> > born
> > into squalor and not getting an education then why don't you
> > organize a fundraiser
> > for them.
>
> > No, the only job of government is to stop people from violating
> > others' rights and
> > to punish the violators when they can't be stopped. Donations at a
> fundraiser are voluntary and don't violate
> > anyone's rights.
> > What you shouldn't do is come to my house with an army and demand
> > that I give
> > you money to educate someone else's child. Unfortunately, this is
> > exactly what
> > government does today.
> >
> > The purpose of government is not to engineer society.
> Good point, but what if the problem is so massive that it requires a
> huge organization to tackle it? I'm not just talking about the
> poor...
Evolution is a valid solution. WE are one of its products.
If there is a REAL problem, people should recognize it and the solution.
Multiple individuals will work towards the same goal, each doing this out
of self interest. A HUGE organization is not necessary. The sole
purpose of HUGE organizations is to impose its will on others.
Remember, survival of the fittest also means the death of the unfit
Sean P. Burke
Devnull <Dev...@ether.net> writes:
> "Lizard" <jat...@adelphia.net> wrote in
> news:%Thy9.7956$6g.29...@news1.news.adelphia.net:
>
> > > The purpose of government is not to engineer society.
>
>
> > Good point, but what if the problem is so massive that it requires a
> > huge organization to tackle it? I'm not just talking about the
> > poor...
>
> Evolution is a valid solution. WE are one of its products.
> If there is a REAL problem, people should recognize it and the solution.
> Multiple individuals will work towards the same goal, each doing this out
> of self interest. A HUGE organization is not necessary. The sole
> purpose of HUGE organizations is to impose its will on others.
Exactly. Consider, for example, how the massive problem of feeding
everyone on the planet is solved. Resources like tractors, fuel and
fertilizer are conveyed to agricultural regions, and foodstuffs are
conveyed in return to industrial regions. Everyone involved in the
system does so purely voluntarily, in the pursuit of personal gain.
There is no controlling authority, and yet the system is very successful.
-SEan
Kevin Robinson
>.
>
> But what about Pollution on unowned property?
Well, first we would want to minimize the government ownership of
such "unowned property," and get as much of it into the hands of
private individuals or groups (either for-profit OR not-for-profit)
as we can. So if the Nature Conservancy owns a forest, or Georgia
Pacific does, whoever gets harmed can call for the offenders'
prosecution, and sue them, too. Read up on an idea called
"The tragedy of the commons."
> How are these problems avoided? If business operate Laissez
> Faire, what is to stop them from polluting the environment?
1.) Criminal prosecution for endangering the lives of others, and/or
harming their property.
2.) Lawsuits to get compensation for such acts.
> If the
> government doesn't step in, who else CAN? No private citizen can take on a
> company until after the deed is done.
Even under current law, individuals or groups can ask the courts for
injunctions to stop practices that may be illegal, at least until
that can be sorted out in court. Laws like the Refuse Act even
allow for a kind of "bounty hunting" against the polluters of the
public waterways.
You could even take out insurance against being the victim of a
polluter, and, should your property be contaminated, your
insurance co. would pay you, and then go after the dumper.
Look at these sites:
(Result of a search on "free market environmentalism")
Kevin
Strabo
Lizard wrote:
>
> > Is there something inherently bad about 'squalor'?
>
> Yeah! Am I missing something here? I don't think you need statistics to
> tell you that babies born into squalor have a much more difficult time
> realizing the American Dream than someone with wealthy parents. It can be
> done, for sure, but it's much harder.
Harder perhaps, but that is different from impossible. Relative deprivation
usually increases motivation. Great achievement comes from overcoming
deprivation.
Squalor is a word reserved for fundamental lack of resources. There are
sloppy people in the US who lack pride but there is no 'squalor'.
> Isn't society ethically and morally
> obliged to help their fellow man?
If it is obligated where would this responsibility end?
Hint: It doesn't. Therefore if a society is to survive its job is to
instill self-sufficiency. (see below)
> > And just what is 'society'?
>
> Perhaps community is a better word? I don't know the answer to this really,
> but I also don't know the point of your question....
Society (or community) cannot confiscate from one part and give to
another part of itself. When you use 'society' you are speaking of
an external power, i.e., government.
So it is not 'society' that is obligated.
Strabo
Lizard wrote:
>
> I'm sorry, I don't understand your response...
>
> Let me reword my question, with regards to Environment:
>
> How would a Libertarian administration tackle Environmental problems? I
> understand this much: if a factory upstream from me is polluting the water,
> they ought be help responsible because they are infringing upon my rights.
>
> But what about Pollution on unowned property? Forests, oceans, seas, lakes,
> etc. etc. How are these problems avoided? If business operate Lezzais
> Faire, what is to stop them from polluting the environment? If the
> government doesn't step in, who else CAN? No private citizen can take on a
> company until after the deed is done. Realistically speaking, don't there
> HAVE to be some restrictions on businesses to avoid this?
You could shoot the bastards, or more politely, sue them. Both are
effective.
But since you have precluded these alternatives why ask the question?
For you government is the only answer.
ActualGeek
"Lizard" <jat...@adelphia.net> wrote:
> I understand the basics of the political philosphy and I like it. I've read
> one of Harry Browne's books and liked what he had to say..
>
> But I need to address two concerns:
>
> It seems prima facia that the environment would suffer under this political
> system. How does environmentalism fit into the free market system?
>
> Also, would the rich-poor divide be unfairly wide?
Read the Probability Broach by L Neil Smith for a good example of how
libertarianism would solve this.
Or let me put it to you this way--is the problem with people being poor
that others have more money than them (Eg: jealousy) or that they can't
afford to take good care of themselves (Eg: practical)?
If its practical, then libertarianism answers it in spades. If its
jealousy, then it will never be answered by any political party.
Lizard
>
> For you government is the only answer.
Hey take it easy buddy, look at the subject line. I'm a budding Libertarian
and these are some questions I have. Government is NOT "the only answer"
for me.
It seems to me that the Libertarian world often resorts to legal action.
Wouldn't this lead to an overly litigious society?
--
*·.¸_¸.·'¨¨)
¸.·'
(_¸.·' Lizard
"Strabo" <str...@flashnet.com> wrote in message
news:3DCA244E...@flashnet.com...
>
>
> Lizard wrote:
> >
> > I'm sorry, I don't understand your response...
> >
> > Let me reword my question, with regards to Environment:
> >
> > How would a Libertarian administration tackle Environmental problems? I
> > understand this much: if a factory upstream from me is polluting the
water,
> > they ought be help responsible because they are infringing upon my
rights.
> >
> > But what about Pollution on unowned property? Forests, oceans, seas,
lakes,
> > etc. etc. How are these problems avoided? If business operate Lezzais
> > Faire, what is to stop them from polluting the environment? If the
> > government doesn't step in, who else CAN? No private citizen can take
on a
> > company until after the deed is done. Realistically speaking, don't
there
> > HAVE to be some restrictions on businesses to avoid this?
>
>
> You could shoot the bastards, or more politely, sue them. Both are
> effective.
>
>
>
>
>
ActualGeek
"Lizard" <jat...@adelphia.net> wrote:
> > Is there something inherently bad about 'squalor'?
>
> Yeah! Am I missing something here? I don't think you need statistics to
> tell you that babies born into squalor have a much more difficult time
> realizing the American Dream than someone with wealthy parents.
Actually, the statistics say quite the opposite.
While they don't go into whether the person was born into "Squalor" or
not, there was a large investigation into the lives of americans who
have a net worth over $1 million. So, in response to your statement,
I'm using having a net worth over $1M as proxy for "the american dream".
This reasearch was reported in "The millionaire next door" and "The
millionaire mind."
What they found was, on average, those who were worth a million did not
come from wealtly families, and on average a small proportion (under
%20) of their net worth was inherited.
The average millionaire in the US worked their way into the position
mostly by being responsible with money, and working hard. This is
something anyone can do.
The most popular car among those surveyed was a used Ford Ranger.
> It can be done, for sure, but it's much harder.
I think if this were the case, you'd see a high percentage of
millionaires who inherited the money.
> Isn't society ethically and morally
> obliged to help their fellow man?
This is the standard red herring. Even if you believe that you should
help your fellow man, this does not justify the huge taxation and waste
that goes on in our government.
Morally, I think taking $10 from somebody when only $1 actually goes to
help your fellow man but the justification for taking the $10 was to
help the other guy is fraud.
Furthermore, forcing someone to give up that $10 when they may need it
more than the guy you're giving it to, or may have a relative in dire
straights that they are PREVENTED from helping out, so that you can fund
some pork-belly project to get yourself re-elected is not exactly what I
would call "ethical" or "moral".
> > And just what is 'society'?
>
> Perhaps community is a better word? I don't know the answer to this really,
> but I also don't know the point of your question....
We are individuals. Society is an excuse. Society has no natural claim
on the individual-- short of the individual explicitly accepting that
claim, which the average tax payer never has.
If you join the Audobon society, you accept their claim on your dues
payments. No problem, then that society has such a claim on you. But
you freely chose to enter that society.
I don't accept the values of the democratic or republican
administrations, have not freely chosen to enter their society. I live
under their oppression because it is the only choice I have in this
country. And I have not (Yet) left this country because I was born
here-- I have just as much right to live here as any other individual.
Living is not sufficient to claim consent to oppression.
William C Colley
"Lizard" <jat...@adelphia.net> wrote in message news:<zgZx9.6794$6g.25...@news1.news.adelphia.net>...
> > Short answer, any pollution that enters your land from somewhere else
> > should give you the right to sue the producer of said pollution.
>
> But what if it's not my or anyone's property? What if it's the ocean? Or a
> forest? Or just air quality? This hurts everybody. How are polluters held
> responsible?
>
Well, if it's not "my or anyone's property" then who's property is it?
Why it must be public property, i.e. government property.
Individuals with a vested interest in property take care of it.
Individuals using other peoples property or public property are less
likely to take care of it.
If individuals had private property rights that applied to the oceans
or the atmosphere, then individuals would have a vested interest in
the property and come up with any number of innovative ways to protect
their investment.
As long as the government is responsible then the people making the
decisions will worry most about political considerations, not
environmental consdierations.
William C Colley
Ben Sharvy
> Fairness is getting what you have earned.
That makes the riches of most rich people unfair, since most extreme
wealth is inherited.
It also doesn't account for privledge; e.g., junior gets the juicy job
because of his dad's connections.
> The work product of the rich is
> valued by the public so they get handsomely rewarded.
Even if we disregard inheritance and connections, you have to account
for prejudice. Suppose you have a society that is, oh say, 80% white
and 20% black, and a substantial portion of the whites are racist. We
don't have to posit racist laws in this scenario, just racist people.
The "work product" of the minority may be less valued by the public
merely because of prejudice, i.e. the public considered as an
aggregate, values "white-made" in its products. That leads to a wealth
gap which doesn't seem fair.
> The work product
> of the poor is not highly valued so they get paid less.
But perhaps it is poorly valued for unfair reasons.
Ben Sharvy
> > I don't think you need statistics to
> > tell you that babies born into squalor have a much more difficult time
> > realizing the American Dream than someone with wealthy parents.
>
> Actually, the statistics say quite the opposite.
>
> While they don't go into whether the person was born into "Squalor" or
> not,
Then it can't say just the opposite.
> ...there was a large investigation into the lives of americans who
> have a net worth over $1 million. So, in response to your statement,
> I'm using having a net worth over $1M as proxy for "the american dream".
>
> This reasearch was reported in "The millionaire next door" and "The
> millionaire mind."
>
> What they found was, on average, those who were worth a million did not
> come from wealtly families, and on average a small proportion (under
> %20) of their net worth was inherited.
That's an inheritance of $200,000. Probably not a background of
squalor.
Anyway, your statistics are a bit tweaked. If you pick the bottom
range of a given definition of "extreme wealth", you are going to find
the highest percentage of those who got there from below that range.
As you move into the middle range of your definition, say, those worth
$100 million, you are going to find more inheritances of over a
million.
A million nowadays ain't no big deal. Somebody who bought a $100,000
house 30 years ago, and has worked steadily up the career ladder, had
no more than 2.5 kids, can easily have a net worth of a million today.
Particularly if they were born into a household that was able to raise
them well and give them a college education....
> > It can be done, for sure, but it's much harder.
>
> I think if this were the case, you'd see a high percentage of
> millionaires who inherited the money.
20% is higher than the percentage of millionaires in the general
population. Therefore, the statistic supports the conclusion that it's
easier to be a millionaire if you inherit a million dollars, which,
you know, is sort of obvious anyway.
ActualGeek
luvn...@www.com (Ben Sharvy) wrote:
> "Todd A. Anderson" <drt...@aaahawk.com> wrote in message
> news:<aq93i2$t72$1...@news01.intel.com>...
>
> > Fairness is getting what you have earned.
>
> That makes the riches of most rich people unfair, since most extreme
> wealth is inherited.
Ah! A common misconception that I am happy to dispell!
http://www.forbes.com/2002/09/13/rich400land.html
If the top 24 (ranked by net worth) only 5 of them inherited their
money-- all of them from Sam Walton, and 4 of whom work for the company
that made them rich.
Out of those twenty four there are NO 3rd generation inheriters.
Furthermore, if you look not just at extreme wealth (As this list does)
but at the average millionaire, you'll find that well over %80 of them
are self made, and none of them are second generation inherited.
Yes, sometimes a really rich person dies and leaves their money and
their kids become really wealthy by inheritance, but this is a minority
of the cases.
The idea that the rich got that wy by inheritance is a myth. Almost all
of them earned it.
> It also doesn't account for privledge; e.g., junior gets the juicy job
> because of his dad's connections.
The research done for the Millionaire Next Door did account for this and
found that it has little to do with whether one becomes a millionaire.
In fact, they found a contrary trend-- those who have it too easy
growing up tend to be big spenders and under accumulators of wealth and
tend not to end up rich.
> > The work product of the rich is
> > valued by the public so they get handsomely rewarded.
>
> Even if we disregard inheritance and connections, you have to account
> for prejudice. Suppose you have a society that is, oh say, 80% white
> and 20% black, and a substantial portion of the whites are racist. We
> don't have to posit racist laws in this scenario, just racist people.
> The "work product" of the minority may be less valued by the public
> merely because of prejudice,
Except that, again, this is not the case in the US. The only thing
keeping black people poor (though many of them are quickly leaving that
state) is cultural. Not racism.
This article makes the case:
http://www.city-journal.org/html/11_1_whats_holding_blacks.html
>i.e. the public considered as an
> aggregate, values "white-made" in its products. That leads to a wealth
> gap which doesn't seem fair.
It doesn't seem fair because you've made some false assumptions. Except
for forcible wealth redistirbution programs, generally it is fair.
Those who work harder and smarter make more than those who don't.
Strabo
It seems to me that the first step will be to make clear who really
owns the property.
Just as government does not have rights it also can not 'own' property.
Instead it manages trusts into which certain property is placed for
various reasons. It remains the property of the people as a
whole though unless put off by national security concerns, the individual
has certain access to the land.
Of course the politicians and bureaucrats want the public to consider
such property as 'owned' by government because it minimizes public
interference but it is really public property.
Ben Sharvy
> Pollution of other people's property is a violation of individual
> rights.
If that philsophy is taken seriously, and is libertarian, then in a
libertarian society you could be sued every time you drove a car.
> Present legal principles, particularly the unjust and false
> concept of "public property,"....
How can a concept be unjust or false?
> ....block privatisation of the use of the
> environment and hence block resolution of controversies over resource
> use.
This is the big hole in standard libertarian doctrine. The usual
argument is that you own your body, and by extension, the product of
your labor. But nature is, by definition, not a human product. You
can't own it. The libertarian makes arguments about mixing one's labor
with the natural resource, but that doesn't justify any sort of
ownership of wilderness. Additionally, it is not clear why we should
believe that mixing one's labor with a part of nature causes the
natural resource to become one's private property. Perhaps it merely
causes one's labor to go out into nature.
> We support the development of an objective legal system defining
> property rights to air and water.
How can anybody own the air? I suppose in the libertarian scheme, if
I'm standing by the fence between our properties, and inhale deeply
such that I suck some air moelcules across from your side, I've
violated your property rights.
ActualGeek
> > What they found was, on average, those who were worth a million did not
> > come from wealtly families, and on average a small proportion (under
> > %20) of their net worth was inherited.
>
> That's an inheritance of $200,000. Probably not a background of
> squalor.
No, under %20 had ANY net worth inherited. They didn't inherit anything
close to $200,000-- and many of them only inherited the money after
they'd made themselves millionaires already.
> Anyway, your statistics are a bit tweaked. If you pick the bottom
> range of a given definition of "extreme wealth", you are going to find
> the highest percentage of those who got there from below that range.
Unfortunately, this is not true. Look at the top range-- 5 of the
people in the top 50 of the Forbes 400 wealthiest americans inherited
their wealth- and four of them work for the company in question.
Yes, sometimes someone makes so much money that the next generation is
born rich.
But the fact of the matter is-- millionaires in this country, generally,
are self made, and not the result of inheritance.
> As you move into the middle range of your definition, say, those worth
> $100 million, you are going to find more inheritances of over a
> million.
The "millionaire" definition was not JUST people worth a million, it was
all people worth at LEAST a million. Many of them are worth more than
$100 million and often much more.
> A million nowadays ain't no big deal. Somebody who bought a $100,000
> house 30 years ago, and has worked steadily up the career ladder, had
> no more than 2.5 kids, can easily have a net worth of a million today.
They could-- they have the opportunity, but the vast majority of them
don't make use of it.
> 20% is higher than the percentage of millionaires in the general
> population. Therefore, the statistic supports the conclusion that it's
> easier to be a millionaire if you inherit a million dollars, which,
> you know, is sort of obvious anyway.
Yes, but it was less than twenty percent. I used %20 to be generous. I
think the actuall figure was %7, and I think the average inheritance for
those people was $60,000. Not a million.
Your conclusion does not fit the results of that study, and most of the
holes you've tried to poke are based in false assumptions.
The wealthy in this country didn't get that way by having huge salaries
or by inheriting it, they got that way by being prudent with their money.
AS you pointed out, its possible for those people to get a million
dollar net worth on a middle class income-- but the vast majority don't
because they CHOOSE not to. In fact, the average family is in debt, and
has a negative net worth because they CHOOSE TO.
ActualGeek
> chri...@panola.com (William C Colley) wrote in message
> news:<38bdf9d7.02110...@posting.google.com>...>
>
> > Pollution of other people's property is a violation of individual
> > rights.
>
> If that philsophy is taken seriously, and is libertarian, then in a
> libertarian society you could be sued every time you drove a car.
You could be sued every time you drive your car right this minute.
In a libertarian society it would be difficult to show damages when they
don't exist.
As it is now, we have human rights interferred by people who have never
shwon damages, but merely claimed that second hand smoke huts people.
Hell, boulder colorado is trying (or has) made it illegal to smoke in
your own home!
> > Present legal principles, particularly the unjust and false
> > concept of "public property,"....
>
> How can a concept be unjust or false?
There is no public. The idea that the public owns government property
is a lie-- if you own something you can trade it, sell it or occupy it.
This is not true of most government property.
> This is the big hole in standard libertarian doctrine. The usual
> argument is that you own your body, and by extension, the product of
> your labor.
True.
> But nature is, by definition, not a human product.
Yes...
> You can't own it.
This is a non-sequitor. It does not follow from the previous two
points. All property requires labor to improve, mark, manage and map.
Thus when you sell property you are selling the product of human labor.
The problem is, how do you initially divide the property, and that is
someting that it is not clear to me that libertarians have a good answer
to.
Possible the solution is to create a public property corporation that
every one gets shares in, and that they can then trade the shares, buy
property from the company, or visit their property that they jointly own
with others-- this is NOT what the governmetn does. The governmetn
takes the property and provides no rights to it to the "public".
> The libertarian makes arguments about mixing one's labor
> with the natural resource, but that doesn't justify any sort of
> ownership of wilderness.
Sorry, it doesn't need to be justified. Everyone so far, who has made
these claims really isn't concerned about ownership of property-- they
are after self ownership and wish to enslave everyone. IF this is not
your goal, then you're going to have to explain how you believe that
people cannot own property.
If I put an office building up, I cannot own it? That makes no sense.
> Additionally, it is not clear why we should
> believe that mixing one's labor with a part of nature causes the
> natural resource to become one's private property. Perhaps it merely
> causes one's labor to go out into nature.
The tomatos in a garden would not have existed if they hadn't been
cultivated, grown, havested, watered, taken care of. The tomatos were
created by the labor.
> > We support the development of an objective legal system defining
> > property rights to air and water.
>
> How can anybody own the air? I suppose in the libertarian scheme, if
> I'm standing by the fence between our properties, and inhale deeply
> such that I suck some air moelcules across from your side, I've
> violated your property rights.
You're being pretty silly.
Ben Sharvy
> In article <7ae24ad2.02110...@posting.google.com>,
> luvn...@www.com (Ben Sharvy) wrote:
>
> > chri...@panola.com (William C Colley) wrote in message
> > news:<38bdf9d7.02110...@posting.google.com>...>
> >
> > > Pollution of other people's property is a violation of individual
> > > rights.
> >
> > If that philsophy is taken seriously, and is libertarian, then in a
> > libertarian society you could be sued every time you drove a car.
>
> You could be sued every time you drive your car right this minute.
How so?
> In a libertarian society it would be difficult to show damages when they
> don't exist.
What do you mean? Driving a car pollutes what isn't yours. You wrote
that pollution of other people's property violates their rights. Is
the air in my lungs my property?
> As it is now, we have human rights interferred by people who have never
> shwon damages, but merely claimed that second hand smoke huts people.
Second-hand smoke from cigarettes doesn't cause global warming. I said
something about auto exhaust, not cigarettes.
> There is no public.
That's a word game.
> The idea that the public owns government property
> is a lie
That's right, but nobody says that. The public owns public property;
the government owns government property.
> > The usual
> > argument is that you own your body, and by extension, the product of
> > your labor.
>
> True.
>
> > But nature is, by definition, not a human product.
>
> Yes...
>
> > You can't own it.
>
> This is a non-sequitor. It does not follow from the previous two
> points. All property requires labor to improve, mark, manage and map.
Then nature can't be property, and it is nonsense to argue that
private property will bring about environmentalist results.
> Thus when you sell property you are selling the product of human labor.
Not quite. You are selling a something that is a mixture of human
labor and not human labor (natural resources). Perhaps, if you sell a
poem or song--intellectual property--you are selling something that is
purely human labor. But most porperty is not like that. But, you want
us to believe that your property rights in somethig that is only
partially human labor should be the same as your rights in something
that is entirely human labor. Why?
> > The libertarian makes arguments about mixing one's labor
> > with the natural resource, but that doesn't justify any sort of
> > ownership of wilderness.
>
> Sorry, it doesn't need to be justified. Everyone so far, who has made
> these claims really isn't concerned about ownership of property-- they
> are after self ownership and wish to enslave everyone. IF this is not
> your goal, then you're going to have to explain how you believe that
> people cannot own property.
>
> If I put an office building up, I cannot own it? That makes no sense.
You're not addressing much of what I said. I said something about the
ownership of wilderness, regarding whether libertarian schemes provide
environmental protection. What does ownership of an office building
have to do with the status of wilderness?
> > Additionally, it is not clear why we should
> > believe that mixing one's labor with a part of nature causes the
> > natural resource to become one's private property. Perhaps it merely
> > causes one's labor to go out into nature.
>
> The tomatos in a garden would not have existed if they hadn't been
> cultivated, grown, havested, watered, taken care of. The tomatos were
> created by the labor.
You didn't answer the question.
Again, only intellectual property is created purely by human labor.
The tomatoes came about due to a variety factors, some human
generated, some not. And you are dodging the original topic, which was
protection of wilderness.
> > > We support the development of an objective legal system defining
> > > property rights to air and water.
> >
> > How can anybody own the air? I suppose in the libertarian scheme, if
> > I'm standing by the fence between our properties, and inhale deeply
> > such that I suck some air moelcules across from your side, I've
> > violated your property rights.
Answer the question. How would property rights to air be defined,
given you reject the concept of public property?
Ben Sharvy
> In article <7ae24ad2.02110...@posting.google.com>,
> luvn...@www.com (Ben Sharvy) wrote:
>
> > > What they found was, on average, those who were worth a million did not
> > > come from wealtly families, and on average a small proportion (under
> > > %20) of their net worth was inherited.
> >
> > That's an inheritance of $200,000. Probably not a background of
> > squalor.
>
> No, under %20 had ANY net worth inherited.
You wrote that the average ineherited 20% of their wealth.
> > Anyway, your statistics are a bit tweaked. If you pick the bottom
> > range of a given definition of "extreme wealth", you are going to find
> > the highest percentage of those who got there from below that range.
>
> Unfortunately, this is not true. Look at the top range-- 5 of the
> people in the top 50 of the Forbes 400 wealthiest americans inherited
> their wealth- and four of them work for the company in question.
1) It's not clear what that means. You mean they inherited all their
wealth? Or, they inherited a million and now are worth a billion, or
what?
2) 5 out of 50 is 10%. The top 50 wealthiest people in the world are
multibillionaires. 10% is considerably larger than the percentage of
the general population that are multipbillionaires. Therefore, it is
easier to be a multibillionaire if you inherit multibillions. Which,
you know, is sort of obvious anyway. This conversation is a bit silly.
> But the fact of the matter is-- millionaires in this country, generally,
> are self made, and not the result of inheritance.
The claim was merely that it is easier to be wealthy if you inherit
wealth.
> The "millionaire" definition was not JUST people worth a million, it was
> all people worth at LEAST a million. Many of them are worth more than
> $100 million and often much more.
But your statistics don't break down the routes to that level of
wealth, according to level wealth. So the statistics about the
relatively rare status of billionaires will be diluted by the results
for the single-digit millionaires.
> > A million nowadays ain't no big deal. Somebody who bought a $100,000
> > house 30 years ago, and has worked steadily up the career ladder, had
> > no more than 2.5 kids, can easily have a net worth of a million today.
>
> They could-- they have the opportunity, but the vast majority of them
> don't make use of it.
The point was that a million dollars doesn't count as "extreme wealth"
these days.
ActualGeek
luvn...@www.com (Ben Sharvy) wrote:
> ActualGeek <Actua...@no.real.address> wrote in message
> news:<ActualGeek-7CF90...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > In article <7ae24ad2.02110...@posting.google.com>,
> > luvn...@www.com (Ben Sharvy) wrote:
> >
> > > chri...@panola.com (William C Colley) wrote in message
> > > news:<38bdf9d7.02110...@posting.google.com>...>
> > >
> > > > Pollution of other people's property is a violation of individual
> > > > rights.
> > >
> > > If that philsophy is taken seriously, and is libertarian, then in a
> > > libertarian society you could be sued every time you drove a car.
> >
> > You could be sued every time you drive your car right this minute.
>
> How so?
Cause I don't like the look of it. And I'm not so sure I like the way
you drive, either.
> > In a libertarian society it would be difficult to show damages when they
> > don't exist.
>
> What do you mean? Driving a car pollutes what isn't yours.
No it doesn't.
>You wrote
> that pollution of other people's property violates their rights. Is
> the air in my lungs my property?
You have to show damage, not to the air, but to your lungs.
> > As it is now, we have human rights interferred by people who have never
> > shwon damages, but merely claimed that second hand smoke huts people.
>
> Second-hand smoke from cigarettes doesn't cause global warming. I said
> something about auto exhaust, not cigarettes.
Yes, but the laws about smoking are proof that what you guys want is not
to prevent damage, but to control people.
> > There is no public.
>
> That's a word game.
No, its true. There are individuals, and some of them want to control
all the others, and those control freaks created this idea of the
"public good" and use it to justify cheating and robbing the majority.
> > The idea that the public owns government property
> > is a lie
>
> That's right, but nobody says that. The public owns public property;
> the government owns government property.
Talk about word games! The public owns neither.
> > > The usual
> > > argument is that you own your body, and by extension, the product of
> > > your labor.
> >
> > True.
> >
> > > But nature is, by definition, not a human product.
> >
> > Yes...
> >
> > > You can't own it.
> >
> > This is a non-sequitor. It does not follow from the previous two
> > points. All property requires labor to improve, mark, manage and map.
>
> Then nature can't be property, and it is nonsense to argue that
> private property will bring about environmentalist results.
Your first sentence is a nonsequitor.
Your second sentence ignores history.
Government land is the worst managed and most polluted anywhere. In
fact, the government is responsible for most all the pollution and land
destruction done in this country, in terms of total acres ruined.
Those who own property historically, and in all ways, take good care of
it.
Look at houses owned by people (Say the work of Habitat for Humanity)
verses housing projects. The projects are abused, the Habitat people
take good care of their homes.
> > > The libertarian makes arguments about mixing one's labor
> > > with the natural resource, but that doesn't justify any sort of
> > > ownership of wilderness.
> >
> > Sorry, it doesn't need to be justified. Everyone so far, who has made
> > these claims really isn't concerned about ownership of property-- they
> > are after self ownership and wish to enslave everyone. IF this is not
> > your goal, then you're going to have to explain how you believe that
> > people cannot own property.
> >
> > If I put an office building up, I cannot own it? That makes no sense.
>
> You're not addressing much of what I said. I said something about the
> ownership of wilderness, regarding whether libertarian schemes provide
> environmental protection. What does ownership of an office building
> have to do with the status of wilderness?
You were arguing against the ownership of real property, I made my
point. Now you misunderstand or dodge.
Office buildings require a lot of labor, how can you say that you own
the building but can never own the land under it?
As to forests , the governmetn clearcusts its forests. Private owners
don't. Private companies that own forests may clearcut them, but they
also replant. Government forest is the worst managed forest of all
three groups-- even those paper companies that own forests take better
care of the forest than the government does.
> > > Additionally, it is not clear why we should
> > > believe that mixing one's labor with a part of nature causes the
> > > natural resource to become one's private property. Perhaps it merely
> > > causes one's labor to go out into nature.
> >
> > The tomatos in a garden would not have existed if they hadn't been
> > cultivated, grown, havested, watered, taken care of. The tomatos were
> > created by the labor.
>
> You didn't answer the question.
Of course I did.
> Again, only intellectual property is created purely by human labor.
> The tomatoes came about due to a variety factors, some human
> generated, some not.
No, if the seeds hadn't been planted the tomatos wouldn't have existed
at all.
>And you are dodging the original topic, which was
> protection of wilderness.
You don't get to change the topic and then accuse me of dodging it!
>
> > > > We support the development of an objective legal system defining
> > > > property rights to air and water.
> > >
> > > How can anybody own the air? I suppose in the libertarian scheme, if
> > > I'm standing by the fence between our properties, and inhale deeply
> > > such that I suck some air moelcules across from your side, I've
> > > violated your property rights.
>
> Answer the question. How would property rights to air be defined,
> given you reject the concept of public property?
Seems you cut my answer.
ActualGeek
luvn...@www.com (Ben Sharvy) wrote:
> ActualGeek <Actua...@no.real.address> wrote in message
> news:<ActualGeek-5172D...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > In article <7ae24ad2.02110...@posting.google.com>,
> > luvn...@www.com (Ben Sharvy) wrote:
> >
> > > > What they found was, on average, those who were worth a million did not
> > > > come from wealtly families, and on average a small proportion (under
> > > > %20) of their net worth was inherited.
> > >
> > > That's an inheritance of $200,000. Probably not a background of
> > > squalor.
> >
> > No, under %20 had ANY net worth inherited.
>
> You wrote that the average ineherited 20% of their wealth.
No, I didn't. I was not clear, sure, I left out the word "any".
The sentence was meant to read:
"On average, a small portion (under %20) got any of their net worth from
inheritance."
My error created a false statement-- they didn't inherit %20 of their
net worth, far less, actually.
>
> > > Anyway, your statistics are a bit tweaked. If you pick the bottom
> > > range of a given definition of "extreme wealth", you are going to find
> > > the highest percentage of those who got there from below that range.
> >
> > Unfortunately, this is not true. Look at the top range-- 5 of the
> > people in the top 50 of the Forbes 400 wealthiest americans inherited
> > their wealth- and four of them work for the company in question.
>
> 1) It's not clear what that means. You mean they inherited all their
> wealth? Or, they inherited a million and now are worth a billion, or
> what?
It means that %90 of the top 50 richest people made their own money, and
of those who inherited some percentage of their net worth, all of them
are in the first generation.
This blows away the arugment that the wealthy get that way by
inheritance-- I pointed to the millionaires, and you said, look at the
richest-- even they don't get there that way. The %10 who did in this
example all got their inheritance from one fortune- meaning if the guy
had had one kid instead of 5, the proportion would have been %2 instead
of ten.
> 2) 5 out of 50 is 10%. The top 50 wealthiest people in the world are
> multibillionaires. 10% is considerably larger than the percentage of
> the general population that are multipbillionaires.
This is nonsense. %10 of the people in the top fifte inherited their
money, all from the death of one billionaire. OF course when you look
at the top 50 net worths in the country you'll find a higher percentage
of billionaires! Even a higher percentage of people who inherited a
billion!
> Therefore, it is
> easier to be a multibillionaire if you inherit multibillions.
Nonsense. %90 of them didn't. If you go back a few years, that
becomes %98 of the wealthiest people made their money themselves.
It is not statistically easier, though it is easier from a labor
perspective.
>Which,
> you know, is sort of obvious anyway. This conversation is a bit silly.
Only the contortions you're going thru to claim that to be wealthy you
have to inherity the money, in the face of the fact that the wealthy did
not get that way thru inheritance, in general.
> > But the fact of the matter is-- millionaires in this country, generally,
> > are self made, and not the result of inheritance.
>
> The claim was merely that it is easier to be wealthy if you inherit
> wealth.
Sure, it takes less labor if someone gives you the money. But that's a
pretty silly claim, and usually people are claiming that the only way to
be wealthy is to inherit it-- that is a common myth and I have dispelled
it.
> > The "millionaire" definition was not JUST people worth a million, it was
> > all people worth at LEAST a million. Many of them are worth more than
> > $100 million and often much more.
>
> But your statistics don't break down the routes to that level of
> wealth, according to level wealth.
They do, but I haven't presented them here. Since a millionaire is a
wealthy person, the whole class suffices.
> > > A million nowadays ain't no big deal. Somebody who bought a $100,000
> > > house 30 years ago, and has worked steadily up the career ladder, had
> > > no more than 2.5 kids, can easily have a net worth of a million today.
> >
> > They could-- they have the opportunity, but the vast majority of them
> > don't make use of it.
>
> The point was that a million dollars doesn't count as "extreme wealth"
> these days.
We were talking about the rich, not the extremely rich.
And if you just want to talk about the extremely rich, you have no point
that is at all relevant to this newsgroup.
Ben Sharvy
> > > Look at the top range-- 5 of the
> > > people in the top 50 of the Forbes 400 wealthiest americans inherited
> > > their wealth- and four of them work for the company in question.
> >
> > 1) It's not clear what that means. You mean they inherited all their
> > wealth? Or, they inherited a million and now are worth a billion, or
> > what?
>
> It means that %90 of the top 50 richest people made their own money,
But that isn't the topic, and you are dodging the question of what
exactly it means to have "made your own money." If my family pays
$20,000 a year in college tuition for four years, and sends me to good
schools k-12, and I use those (expensive) resources to go on to make
millions/billions as a CEO or pioneer computer innovator, I have "made
my own money". But, I am not a counter-example to the claim that money
comes from money, or that those born into squalor have a much harder
time of realizing the American Dream. How many of the richest people
have no college education? How many were on food stamps as kids?
That's the topic.
I looked at the Forbes list. The list I saw shows the 10 richest
people in the USA, and five of them are Waltons. That 50% inherited. I
didn't look at the top 50, and didn't see how to assess the percent
that are heirs.
> This blows away the arugment that the wealthy get that way by
> inheritance-- I pointed to the millionaires, and you said, look at the
> richest-- even they don't get there that way.
The list doesn't say that. Presumably, if Forbes lists somebody as
having a worth of $15 billion, and he inherited a million, the list
will not say he got his wealth by inheritance. It will not say that,
even if he used that million to start a business whose net worth now
dwarfs the initial investment.
> > 2) 5 out of 50 is 10%. The top 50 wealthiest people in the world are
> > multibillionaires. 10% is considerably larger than the percentage of
> > the general population that are multipbillionaires.
>
> This is nonsense. %10 of the people in the top fifte inherited their
> money, all from the death of one billionaire.
Perhaps. I saw 50% of the top ten.
> OF course when you look
> at the top 50 net worths in the country you'll find a higher percentage
> of billionaires!
That isn't what I said and has nothing to do with what I said.
> Even a higher percentage of people who inherited a
> billion!
That's right. Which means it is easier to be a billionaire if you
inherit a billion dollars. Which is the claim you are, somewhat
inexplicably, attempting to dispute.
> > Therefore, it is
> > easier to be a multibillionaire if you inherit multibillions.
>
> Nonsense. %90 of them didn't.
You're being obtuse.
> Only the contortions you're going thru to claim that to be wealthy you
> have to inherity the money, in the face of the fact that the wealthy did
> not get that way thru inheritance, in general.
Nobody said you have to inherit wealth to have wealth; we said it is
(obviously) easier to have wealth if you start with wealth.
> Sure, it takes less labor if someone gives you the money.
Ahaha. A major breakthrough by you.
> But that's a
> pretty silly claim, and usually people are claiming that the only way to
> be wealthy is to inherit it-- that is a common myth and I have dispelled
> it.
Nobody has claimed that here. I've never heard anybody claim it
anywhere.
Ben Sharvy
> > > > > Pollution of other people's property is a violation of individual
> > > > > rights.
> > > >
> > > > If that philsophy is taken seriously, and is libertarian, then in a
> > > > libertarian society you could be sued every time you drove a car.
> > >
> > > You could be sued every time you drive your car right this minute.
> >
> > How so?
>
> Cause I don't like the look of it. And I'm not so sure I like the way
> you drive, either.
None of those things violate your rights, therefore they are not
comparable to pollution of something which is not yours. You
chracterized pollution as a violation of individual rights.
In any case, you can't sue people because you don't like the way they
look.
> > What do you mean? Driving a car pollutes what isn't yours.
>
> No it doesn't.
OK. Cars don't cause air pollution. You rock dude.
> > > > But nature is, by definition, not a human product.
> > >
> > > Yes...
> > >
> > > > You can't own it.
> > >
> > > This is a non-sequitor. It does not follow from the previous two
> > > points. All property requires labor to improve, mark, manage and map.
> >
> > Then nature can't be property, and it is nonsense to argue that
> > private property will bring about environmentalist results.
>
> Your first sentence is a nonsequitor.
It is the logical result of your premises. 1) Nature is not a product
of human labor. 2) All property is a product of human labor. It
follows that nature cannot be property, and it is nonsensical to argue
that a system of private property rights can protect nature. Try to be
logical.
> Government land is the worst managed and most polluted anywhere.
You've already established that you refuse to distinguish between
government land, e.g. a naval base, and public land, e.g. a park. So
pursuing this topic with you would be pointless.
> > You're not addressing much of what I said. I said something about the
> > ownership of wilderness, regarding whether libertarian schemes provide
> > environmental protection. What does ownership of an office building
> > have to do with the status of wilderness?
>
> You were arguing against the ownership of real property,
No. I was arguing against the idea that making all land privately
owned will produce environmentalist results, i.e., protect wilderness.
In other words, I said exactly what I say in the text you cited above,
but then ignored.
> As to forests , the governmetn clearcusts its forests.
No it doesn't.
> Private owners
> don't.
Wrong again. The white pine forests of Michigan and Wisconsin were
completely destroyed by private operations.
> Private companies that own forests may clearcut them, but they
> also replant.
1) You don't know anything about environmentalism. Clearcutting,
followed by replanting, is not wilderness protection. What you don't
understand perfectly illustrates the flaw in wilderness protection
through privatization. Yes, private land owners will protect the value
of the their land. But if their land has more value as a tree farm
than an untouched wilderness, their land will become a tree farm. The
fact that it is being replanted after cutting does not make it an
environmentally sound process.
2) Government sells the rights to log, sometimes clearcut, public
land, to private companies. This land is always replanted, are least
in Oregon, which is where I live.
3) In any case, an environemtnalist will argue that clearcutting on
public land is a result of living in a capitalist democracy, i.e.
politicans in the pocket of big business. It no more points to
libertarian solutions than anti-capitalist (e.g. socialist) ones.
> > Again, only intellectual property is created purely by human labor.
> > The [garden] tomatoes came about due to a variety factors, some human
> > generated, some not.
>
> No, if the seeds hadn't been planted the tomatos wouldn't have existed
> at all.
OK, you aren't even trying to think. Bye.
Strabo
Ben Sharvy wrote:
>
> chri...@panola.com (William C Colley) wrote in message news:<38bdf9d7.02110...@posting.google.com>...>
>
> > Pollution of other people's property is a violation of individual
> > rights.
>
> If that philsophy is taken seriously, and is libertarian, then in a
> libertarian society you could be sued every time you drove a car.
You could be but you won't because common sense prevails where
'big brother' government is absent.
Libertarians come as close to a group of mature citizens as exists.
They realize that risk exists in all endeavors and will not favor
the whiners.
If you don't approve of gas engines then don't use them and
educate others of the danger.
If there is a consensus that they are dangerous then they will
be discarded.
<snipped>
> This is the big hole in standard libertarian doctrine. The usual
> argument is that you own your body, and by extension, the product of
> your labor. But nature is, by definition, not a human product. You
> can't own it. The libertarian makes arguments about mixing one's labor
> with the natural resource, but that doesn't justify any sort of
> ownership of wilderness. Additionally, it is not clear why we should
> believe that mixing one's labor with a part of nature causes the
> natural resource to become one's private property. Perhaps it merely
> causes one's labor to go out into nature.
Muddled thoughts.
> > We support the development of an objective legal system defining
> > property rights to air and water.
>
> How can anybody own the air? I suppose in the libertarian scheme, if
> I'm standing by the fence between our properties, and inhale deeply
> such that I suck some air moelcules across from your side, I've
> violated your property rights.
Cute.
CR
> It seems prima facia that the environment would suffer under this political
> system. How does environmentalism fit into the free market system?
http://www.harrybrowne.org/GLO/Environment.htm
I still believe there are a few forms of pollution that can't be dealt
with in the classical libertarian way of using private property and
the courts. For example car pollution. One car doesn't generate enough
pollution to cause any measurable damage, however a city full of cars
will. In these cases I think the government should focus on limiting
the damage in the simplest, least intrusive way possible. For example
instead of defining how gas should be refined and what type of engine
can be sold and what the average mpg shoud be, etc, etc, I would
rather see a polluter get a ticket for driving a vehicle that is
polluting too much. I would like to see the crime prosecuted at the
point when it occurs, not 20 steps previous if that makes any sense!
Anyway the point is that privatization will fix 90% of the pollution
problems we have now.
> Also, would the rich-poor divide be unfairly wide?
I don't get this rich-poor gap thing. Why is that bad? Suppose all of
country A's citizens each earn $100 a year. Country B's poor each earn
$10,000 while B's rich make $1,000,000. Country A's rich-poor gap is
zero (and they are all starving) and B's is $990,000. Does that make A
a better country? Help me out here.
Here is my super, ultimate, can't lose argument in favor of
libertarianism! Rank the countries in the world from most libertarian
to least and see what you get. Here's a link to a website that ranks
them according to economic freedom which is pretty close.
www.heritage.org/index.
Here's the top 10:
1 Hong Kong
2 Singapore
3 New Zealand
4 Estonia
4 Ireland
4 Luxembourg
4 The Netherlands
4 United States
9 Australia
9 Chile
Here's the bottom 10:
152 Laos
153 Cuba
153 Libya
155 Iraq
155 Korea
N/R Angola
N/R Burundi
N/R Congo
N/R Sierra Leone
N/R Sudan
Do you see a pattern? Hmmmmm.....
ActualGeek
> ActualGeek <Actua...@no.real.address> wrote in message
> news:<ActualGeek-6C57F...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > In article <7ae24ad2.02111...@posting.google.com>,
> > luvn...@www.com (Ben Sharvy) wrote:
>
> > > > Look at the top range-- 5 of the
> > > > people in the top 50 of the Forbes 400 wealthiest americans inherited
> > > > their wealth- and four of them work for the company in question.
> > >
> > > 1) It's not clear what that means. You mean they inherited all their
> > > wealth? Or, they inherited a million and now are worth a billion, or
> > > what?
> >
> > It means that %90 of the top 50 richest people made their own money,
>
> But that isn't the topic, and you are dodging the question of what
> exactly it means to have "made your own money."
This is absurd. OF course it is the topic. You, or whoever the
original poster was, said that "all the rich people got that way by
inheritance."
I have just shown that this is not the case. QED. End of discussion.
Ok, now I assume there's something else you want to talk about:
> But, I am not a counter-example to the claim that money
> comes from money, or that those born into squalor have a much harder
> time of realizing the American Dream. How many of the richest people
> have no college education?
I think #1 qualifies.
> How many were on food stamps as kids?
#2 was, or would have been if they'd had food stamps.
> That's the topic.
Except that you change it back again:
> I looked at the Forbes list. The list I saw shows the 10 richest
> people in the USA, and five of them are Waltons. That 50% inherited. I
> didn't look at the top 50, and didn't see how to assess the percent
> that are heirs.
Pure idiocy. If you go back 5 years then it would bt %10 inherited
because Walton hadn't died.
Obviously a smaller sample is not as effective as a larger one. If you
want to dispute my point about the top 50, then try to do so. You
certainly haven't done it by refusing to look at the data as you have
done here!
And, nevermind the fact that I cited more useful data surveying a much
broader class of rich people.
> > > 2) 5 out of 50 is 10%. The top 50 wealthiest people in the world are
> > > multibillionaires. 10% is considerably larger than the percentage of
> > > the general population that are multipbillionaires.
> >
> > This is nonsense. %10 of the people in the top fifte inherited their
> > money, all from the death of one billionaire.
>
> Perhaps. I saw 50% of the top ten.
And I saw %100 if I picked just 5 of the top ten!!!
> > Even a higher percentage of people who inherited a
> > billion!
>
> That's right. Which means it is easier to be a billionaire if you
> inherit a billion dollars.
Easier than WHAT? You're talking nonsense. Easier than earning? Sure,
but that is such a pointless statement that I cannot fathom why you keep
trying to make it.
> Which is the claim you are, somewhat
> inexplicably, attempting to dispute.
No, do not put words in my mouth. What I have proven is that the
majority of those who are wealthy got that way by making themselves
wealthy-- they got that way thru prudent financial management. You
pointed out that any middle class family with a good income can join
those ranks, and I showed that those who are wise with their money are
the ones who do.
NOT THOSE WHO INHERIT WEALTH.
There is a popular fiction that claims that the rich inherited their
wealth and that all the mony has been stuck in the rich and passed down
from generation to generation and that the lower class have no chance
because they didn't inherit wealth.
This is flat out false. The vast majority of the rich got that way in
one generation, and those who didn't are only one generation away from
the person who generated the wealth.
> > > Therefore, it is
> > > easier to be a multibillionaire if you inherit multibillions.
> >
> > Nonsense. %90 of them didn't.
>
> You're being obtuse.
No, you're not making sense.
> Nobody said you have to inherit wealth to have wealth; we said it is
> (obviously) easier to have wealth if you start with wealth.
The person who started this thread did.
Easier because you don't have to work for it? Fine. Obviously. So
obvious in fact that its a pointless stupid thing to say.
That this somehow shows that the poor don't have a chance- - bullshit.
I've disproven that.
> > Sure, it takes less labor if someone gives you the money.
>
> Ahaha. A major breakthrough by you.
You're a fucking idiot. Stand behind your words or shut the hell up.
>
> > But that's a
> > pretty silly claim, and usually people are claiming that the only way to
> > be wealthy is to inherit it-- that is a common myth and I have dispelled
> > it.
>
> Nobody has claimed that here. I've never heard anybody claim it
> anywhere.
Of course they did, that's what started this thread. Exactly that claim.
ActualGeek
> In any case, you can't sue people because you don't like the way they
> look.
Of course you can. You just won't get very far.
You claimed that relying on a judicial system would produce a litigious
society because everyone could sue whoever they want-- well that's the
case now.
> > > What do you mean? Driving a car pollutes what isn't yours.
> >
> > No it doesn't.
>
> OK. Cars don't cause air pollution. You rock dude.
In a libertarian society they wouldn't-- we're almost there
technologically now. IF we'd never taken the detour away from
libertarianism and into socialism we did many years ago, this would have
been rectified decades ago and we'd all be driving fuel cell vehicles.
> It is the logical result of your premises. 1) Nature is not a product
> of human labor. 2) All property is a product of human labor. It
> follows that nature cannot be property, and it is nonsensical to argue
> that a system of private property rights can protect nature. Try to be
> logical.
Ok, since you decided to get insulting about it, no slack for you. One
year.
Premise number 2 above is false.
> > Government land is the worst managed and most polluted anywhere.
>
> You've already established that you refuse to distinguish between
> government land, e.g. a naval base, and public land, e.g. a park. So
> pursuing this topic with you would be pointless.
Because I'm right-- government land is the worst managed anywhere. Ever
been to a naval base?
> > > You're not addressing much of what I said. I said something about the
> > > ownership of wilderness, regarding whether libertarian schemes provide
> > > environmental protection. What does ownership of an office building
> > > have to do with the status of wilderness?
> >
> > You were arguing against the ownership of real property,
>
> No.
Do you know what "real property" is? I think that's the problem.
>I was arguing against the idea that making all land privately
> owned will produce environmentalist results, i.e., protect wilderness.
> In other words, I said exactly what I say in the text you cited above,
> but then ignored.
Then you changed your argument in midstream and insisted on talking
about forests.
Privately owned and managed forest land is much better off
environmentally than government owned and managed forest land. I've
pointed that out before.
> > As to forests , the governmetn clearcusts its forests.
>
> No it doesn't.
Either trust me that they do, or come visit the Northwest and I'll show
it to you.
> > Private owners
> > don't.
>
> Wrong again. The white pine forests of Michigan and Wisconsin were
> completely destroyed by private operations.
Those were logging companies, right? Who owned the land?
> > Private companies that own forests may clearcut them, but they
> > also replant.
>
> 1) You don't know anything about environmentalism. Clearcutting,
> followed by replanting, is not wilderness protection. What you don't
> understand perfectly illustrates the flaw in wilderness protection
> through privatization. Yes, private land owners will protect the value
> of the their land. But if their land has more value as a tree farm
> than an untouched wilderness, their land will become a tree farm. The
> fact that it is being replanted after cutting does not make it an
> environmentally sound process.
Yes, I do know about environmentalism-- but I was talking about
environmental damange, rather than all the busy bodies who are
communists to begin with who hate the fact that people actually cut down
trees and so they protest with their paper signs on wood sticks etc.
I also know that these so called "environmentalists" rarely have a basic
understanding of science (let alone advanced, or environmental science)
and advocate policies that do more harm than good to the environment, or
just say really stupid things: Like opposing cellphone towers that emit
1/10th the radiation of the previous generation.
> 2) Government sells the rights to log, sometimes clearcut, public
> land, to private companies. This land is always replanted, are least
> in Oregon, which is where I live.
So you conced that they do clearcut. Well, they don't always seem to
have to replant-- and the governmetn sells these rights at way less than
market rate.
BTW: you never attended the university of Houston did you? If you did,
we may know each other.
> 3) In any case, an environemtnalist will argue that clearcutting on
> public land is a result of living in a capitalist democracy, i.e.
> politicans in the pocket of big business. It no more points to
> libertarian solutions than anti-capitalist (e.g. socialist) ones.
Of course it does-- you get that land out of the government hands and
nobody can clear cut it-- except the owners.
You want to stop clearcutting-- buy land. Buy a lot of land. Some
environmental groups are doing this, and I applaud them. They are
taking the moral road.
IF you don't have the money to buy the land, you get no right to say
squat.
> > > Again, only intellectual property is created purely by human labor.
> > > The [garden] tomatoes came about due to a variety factors, some human
> > > generated, some not.
> >
> > No, if the seeds hadn't been planted the tomatos wouldn't have existed
> > at all.
>
> OK, you aren't even trying to think. Bye.
Yeah, I'm not thinking because I'm showing the silliness of your claim.
Sheesh.
Did you plonk me? If so, I take that as proof of which one of us isn't
thinking.
ActualGeek
Strabo <str...@flashnet.com> wrote:
> If you don't approve of gas engines then don't use them and
> educate others of the danger.
>
> If there is a consensus that they are dangerous then they will
> be discarded.
Funny how this is percieved as "less democratic" than having the
government force use to use politically correct technology. After all,
we "elected" all those regulation writers! (We didn't.)
Ben Sharvy
> This is absurd. OF course it is the topic. You, or whoever the
> original poster was, said that "all the rich people got that way by
> inheritance."
It is abusrd in the degree of your worthlessness. This is what the
original poster said:
"I don't think you need statistics to
tell you that babies born into squalor have a much more difficult time
realizing the American Dream than someone with wealthy parents. It
can be
done, for sure, but it's much harder."
> > Nobody said you have to inherit wealth to have wealth; we said it is
> > (obviously) easier to have wealth if you start with wealth.
>
> The person who started this thread did.
Wrong.
> > ...usually people are claiming that the only way to
> > > be wealthy is to inherit it-- that is a common myth and I have dispelled
> > > it.
> >
> > Nobody has claimed that here. I've never heard anybody claim it
> > anywhere.
>
> Of course they did, that's what started this thread. Exactly that claim.
Wrong.
Learn to read. It's the first step on your still considerably long
road to intelligence.
Ben Sharvy
> Ben Sharvy wrote:
> >
> > chri...@panola.com (William C Colley) wrote in message news:<38bdf9d7.02110...@posting.google.com>...>
> >
> > > Pollution of other people's property is a violation of individual
> > > rights.
> >
> > If that philsophy is taken seriously, and is libertarian, then in a
> > libertarian society you could be sued every time you drove a car.
>
> You could be but you won't because common sense prevails where
> 'big brother' government is absent.
That's naive, and unknowable.
Naive because there will always be people significantly different from
the norm, and if it is possible to sue someone for driving a car, it
will eventually happen. Here is a common libertarian fallacy. Somebody
points out an undesired possible consequence of libertarian society,
and libertarians assure us "that would never happen" because of how
people will *choose* to behave in a libertarian society. People in a
libertarian society are no more generic than in any other society;
they are as unpredictable as any other, and equally prone to act in
ways counter to the majority's interests and definitions of common
sense. Any libertarian society will have people who are not
libertarians, just as any capitalist society has socialists, etc.
Unknowable because there has never been a society where the "big
brother" type of government, in the libertarian definition, has been
absent.
> Libertarians come as close to a group of mature citizens as exists.
> They realize that risk exists in all endeavors and will not favor
> the whiners.
What this has to do with the ethics of air pollution caused by auto
exhaust, as rendered by a libertarian approach to ethics, remains
obscure.
If it is unethical, in the libertarian scheme, to pollute or damage
what isn't yours, then driving an automobile is unethical in a
libertarian scheme. It is simple and straightforward. Stop dodging.
The only way to justify auto pollution is with utilitarian ethics.
> If you don't approve of gas engines then don't use them and
> educate others of the danger.
The libertarian claim didn't concern "approval"; it isn't a personal
choice like abortion. It concerned pollution of the air which I
breathe. The claim to which I responded was about human rights
violations. Read it.
Lizard
> The person who started this thread did.
> Of course they did, that's what started this thread. Exactly that claim.
Actually I started this thread and I made no such claim. It started by me
asking some basic questions about Libertarianism.
--
*·.¸_¸.·'¨¨)
¸.·'
(_¸.·' Lizard
"ActualGeek" <Actua...@no.real.address> wrote in message
news:ActualGeek-BCF03...@corp.supernews.com...
ActualGeek
luvn...@www.com (Ben Sharvy) wrote:
Of course, that is not the statment I was responding to.
sheesh.
ActualGeek
luvn...@www.com (Ben Sharvy) wrote:
> Unknowable because there has never been a society where the "big
> brother" type of government, in the libertarian definition, has been
> absent.
The US from 1776 to approximately 1900 counts.
Apparently during part of Iceland's history they had a libertarian
minarchist system, but I don't know the details about that.
I'm sure there are other examples, but your ignoring that the country
was founded by libertarians is kinda silly.
Ben Sharvy
> I would
> rather see a polluter get a ticket for driving a vehicle that is
> polluting too much.
Is there an objective measure of "too much?"
> > Also, would the rich-poor divide be unfairly wide?
>
> I don't get this rich-poor gap thing. Why is that bad? Suppose all of
> country A's citizens each earn $100 a year. Country B's poor each earn
> $10,000 while B's rich make $1,000,000. Country A's rich-poor gap is
> zero (and they are all starving) and B's is $990,000. Does that make A
> a better country? Help me out here.
The ideal, according to liberals, is that there be no significant gap
AND a good quality of life. In other words, good quality of life
should be equally distributed. So they object to libertarian society
on the grounds that it lacks assurance of good quality of life for
all.
The objections in our current system are of a more practical nature.
If the gap were entirely the result of a hands-off government, some
liberals might not be too upset. But they perceive the gap as a result
of a system that is set up to reward greed, that allocates communal
resources so that some people have billions and others have nothing.
For example, consider the airwaves. The FCC could allocate that
natural, communal resource in such a way that many, lower power
broadcasters can use the bandwidth. Or it could allocate that resource
so that a few, high power broadcasters can use it. There is a choice
of how to do it, roughly characterized as promoting grassroots
activity or corporate activity. Guess how it is done. There are a
million examples like that....tax breaks for corporations with
offshore activities, etc. So the liberal objection to the gap isn't
necessarily an ideological statement about wealth distribution
(although sometimes it is), it can be an objection to how the curent
system treats people.
In addition, there is the problem of discrimination. In a libertarian
society, a racist white majority can make it difficult or impossible
for a colored minority to enjoy equal freedom, because of the power of
the economy over individual lives. (It doesn't require racist laws,
merely racist employers, landowners, etc.)
Ben Sharvy
> In article <7ae24ad2.02111...@posting.google.com>,
> luvn...@www.com (Ben Sharvy) wrote:
>
> > In any case, you can't sue people because you don't like the way they
> > look.
>
> Of course you can. You just won't get very far.
>
> You claimed that relying on a judicial system would produce a litigious
> society because everyone could sue whoever they want
That does not even remotely resemble what I claimed.
You repeatedly grossly mischaracterize what people have said. You did
it in the discussion regarding wealth, and you are doing it now.
> > It is the logical result of your premises. 1) Nature is not a product
> > of human labor. 2) All property is a product of human labor. It
> > follows that nature cannot be property, and it is nonsensical to argue
> > that a system of private property rights can protect nature. Try to be
> > logical.
> Premise number 2 above is false.
Premise number 2 is your idea. You wrote: "All property requires labor
to improve, mark, manage and map. Thus when you sell property you are
selling the product of human labor." In other words, "premise number
2."
> >I was arguing against the idea that making all land privately
> > owned will produce environmentalist results, i.e., protect wilderness.
> > In other words, I said exactly what I say in the text you cited above,
> > but then ignored.
>
> Then you changed your argument in midstream and insisted on talking
> about forests.
Some wilderness is forest. See how that works?
There is no point continuing this discussion with you, because you
aren't trying to think.
Sigvaldi Eggertsson
> In article <7ae24ad2.02111...@posting.google.com>,
> luvn...@www.com (Ben Sharvy) wrote:
>
> > Unknowable because there has never been a society where the "big
> > brother" type of government, in the libertarian definition, has been
> > absent.
>
> The US from 1776 to approximately 1900 counts.
>
> Apparently during part of Iceland's history they had a libertarian
> minarchist system, but I don't know the details about that.
The period from 930 when the free state and the Alşingi were
established until 1262 when Iceland became part of the Norwegian realm
is the period people are referring to.
ActualGeek
> ActualGeek <Actua...@no.real.address> wrote in message
> news:<ActualGeek-14354...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > In article <7ae24ad2.02111...@posting.google.com>,
> > luvn...@www.com (Ben Sharvy) wrote:
> >
> > > In any case, you can't sue people because you don't like the way they
> > > look.
> >
> > Of course you can. You just won't get very far.
> >
> > You claimed that relying on a judicial system would produce a litigious
> > society because everyone could sue whoever they want
>
> That does not even remotely resemble what I claimed.
Maybe it wasn't you, but the person I was responding to said that the
society was already over litigous.
> > > It is the logical result of your premises. 1) Nature is not a product
> > > of human labor. 2) All property is a product of human labor. It
> > > follows that nature cannot be property, and it is nonsensical to argue
> > > that a system of private property rights can protect nature. Try to be
> > > logical.
>
> > Premise number 2 above is false.
>
> Premise number 2 is your idea.
No, it was yours. I went along with it to try and get you to see the
light, but I did not come up with it.
> You wrote: "All property requires labor
Contextual note: I was talking about REAL property here, not all
property.
> to improve, mark, manage and map. Thus when you sell property you are
> selling the product of human labor." In other words, "premise number
> 2."
Where exactly did I say "I follows that nature cannot be property"? I
did not say that.
> > >I was arguing against the idea that making all land privately
> > > owned will produce environmentalist results, i.e., protect wilderness.
> > > In other words, I said exactly what I say in the text you cited above,
> > > but then ignored.
> >
> > Then you changed your argument in midstream and insisted on talking
> > about forests.
>
> Some wilderness is forest. See how that works?
Yes, but that is irrelvant to cities.
> There is no point continuing this discussion with you, because you
> aren't trying to think.
And you are unwilling to abstain from telling lies.
CR
> > rather see a polluter get a ticket for driving a vehicle that is
> > polluting too much.
>
> Is there an objective measure of "too much?"
Nope. Of course this is a problem for any political system.
>
> > > Also, would the rich-poor divide be unfairly wide?
> >
> > I don't get this rich-poor gap thing. Why is that bad? Suppose all of
> > country A's citizens each earn $100 a year. Country B's poor each earn
> > $10,000 while B's rich make $1,000,000. Country A's rich-poor gap is
> > zero (and they are all starving) and B's is $990,000. Does that make A
> > a better country? Help me out here.
>
> The ideal, according to liberals, is that there be no significant gap
> AND a good quality of life. In other words, good quality of life
> should be equally distributed. So they object to libertarian society
> on the grounds that it lacks assurance of good quality of life for
> all.
Is there an objective measure of "good quality of life?". I still
don't see how the gap makes a difference. I can see how you might want
to compare the poorest of one country to another but not the gap.
> The objections in our current system are of a more practical nature.
> If the gap were entirely the result of a hands-off government, some
> liberals might not be too upset.
I seriously doubt that.
> But they perceive the gap as a result
> of a system that is set up to reward greed, that allocates communal
> resources so that some people have billions and others have nothing.
> For example, consider the airwaves. The FCC could allocate that
> natural, communal resource in such a way that many, lower power
> broadcasters can use the bandwidth. Or it could allocate that resource
> so that a few, high power broadcasters can use it. There is a choice
> of how to do it, roughly characterized as promoting grassroots
> activity or corporate activity. Guess how it is done. There are a
> million examples like that....tax breaks for corporations with
> offshore activities, etc. So the liberal objection to the gap isn't
> necessarily an ideological statement about wealth distribution
> (although sometimes it is), it can be an objection to how the curent
> system treats people.
> In addition, there is the problem of discrimination. In a libertarian
> society, a racist white majority can make it difficult or impossible
> for a colored minority to enjoy equal freedom, because of the power of
> the economy over individual lives. (It doesn't require racist laws,
> merely racist employers, landowners, etc.)
If the government is actually forcing poor people to give their money
to the rich than that is wrong.
William C Colley
Strabo <str...@flashnet.com> wrote in message news:<3DCC4A10...@flashnet.com>...
<snip here>
>
> It seems to me that the first step will be to make clear who really
> owns the property.
>
I would say ownership will be eventually established by control, as it
always is.
Whoever controls access to or use of property seems to pretty much
own it no matter what lable one uses.
>
> Just as government does not have rights it also can not 'own' property.
>
Very true. Much of the property that the Federal Government currently
"owns" would be better off sold to the private sector. The proceeds
from sale would go to pay off the National debt.
>
> Instead it manages trusts into which certain property is placed for
> various reasons. It remains the property of the people as a
> whole though unless put off by national security concerns, the individual
> has certain access to the land.
>
Most of it does not belong under the control of the Federal
government, at least not by any reading of the US Constitution that
makes sense to me.
>
> Of course the politicians and bureaucrats want the public to consider
> such property as 'owned' by government because it minimizes public
> interference but it is really public property.
>
It is really the property of the powerful politicians and bureaucrats
who can access the land anytime they choose, and decide how to use it.
That's not me, and I doubt it is you or anybody else who is reading
Usenet.
Though you never know....
William C Colley
Ben Sharvy
> In article <7ae24ad2.02111...@posting.google.com>,
> luvn...@www.com (Ben Sharvy) wrote:
>
> > Unknowable because there has never been a society where the "big
> > brother" type of government, in the libertarian definition, has been
> > absent.
>
> The US from 1776 to approximately 1900 counts.
Oh. The period of slavery. Very libertarian.
The period when women weren't allowed to vote. Very libertarian.
Do you suppose the railroads were built without government subsidies?
You don't know what you're talking about.
Ben Sharvy
> > > You claimed that relying on a judicial system would produce a litigious
> > > society because everyone could sue whoever they want
> >
> > That does not even remotely resemble what I claimed.
>
> Maybe it wasn't you, but the person I was responding to said that the
> society was already over litigous.
Nobody in this thread has said that. And I am the person you were
responding to, regard litigation.
> > > > It is the logical result of your premises. 1) Nature is not a product
> > > > of human labor. 2) All property is a product of human labor. It
> > > > follows that nature cannot be property, and it is nonsensical to argue
> > > > that a system of private property rights can protect nature. Try to be
> > > > logical.
>
> > > Premise number 2 above is false.
> >
> > Premise number 2 is your idea.
>
> No, it was yours.
You are lying. I didn't say that, and I don't think it.
> > You wrote: "All property requires labor
>
> Contextual note: I was talking about REAL property here, not all
> property.
That's why you wrote "all property," hm? In any case, the context was
wilderness, which is REAL propeerty.
> > to improve, mark, manage and map. Thus when you sell property you are
> > selling the product of human labor." In other words, "premise number
> > 2."
>
> Where exactly did I say "I follows that nature cannot be property"? I
> did not say that.
I didn't say you said it, fool.
> > > >I was arguing against the idea that making all land privately
> > > > owned will produce environmentalist results, i.e., protect wilderness.
> > > > In other words, I said exactly what I say in the text you cited above,
> > > > but then ignored.
> > >
> > > Then you changed your argument in midstream and insisted on talking
> > > about forests.
> >
> > Some wilderness is forest. See how that works?
>
> Yes, but that is irrelvant to cities.
Exactly. Which is what makes your reference to office buildings
irrlevant. Very good.
Goodbye.
ActualGeek
> ActualGeek <Actua...@no.real.address> wrote in message
> news:<ActualGeek-3261F...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > In article <7ae24ad2.02111...@posting.google.com>,
> > luvn...@www.com (Ben Sharvy) wrote:
> >
> > > Unknowable because there has never been a society where the "big
> > > brother" type of government, in the libertarian definition, has been
> > > absent.
> >
> > The US from 1776 to approximately 1900 counts.
>
> Oh. The period of slavery. Very libertarian.
>
> The period when women weren't allowed to vote. Very libertarian.
>
> Do you suppose the railroads were built without government subsidies?
>
> You don't know what you're talking about.
Oh, I do, you're just incapable of debate.
You should go to college. Be sure to take logic, history and political
science.
ActualGeek
luvn...@www.com (Ben Sharvy) wrote:
> > > to improve, mark, manage and map. Thus when you sell property you are
> > > selling the product of human labor." In other words, "premise number
> > > 2."
> >
> > Where exactly did I say "I follows that nature cannot be property"? I
> > did not say that.
>
> I didn't say you said it, fool.
You sure are stupid.
Ben Sharvy
> Is there an objective measure of "good quality of life?".
Enough food, shelter, medical care, education...the resources that
liberty and the pursuit of happiness require.
> > But they perceive the gap as a result
> > of a system that is set up to reward greed, that allocates communal
> > resources so that some people have billions and others have nothing.
> > For example, consider the airwaves. The FCC could allocate that
> > natural, communal resource in such a way that many, lower power
> > broadcasters can use the bandwidth. Or it could allocate that resource
> > so that a few, high power broadcasters can use it. There is a choice
> > of how to do it, roughly characterized as promoting grassroots
> > activity or corporate activity. Guess how it is done. There are a
> > million examples like that....tax breaks for corporations with
> > offshore activities, etc. So the liberal objection to the gap isn't
> > necessarily an ideological statement about wealth distribution
> > (although sometimes it is), it can be an objection to how the curent
> > system treats people.
> > In addition, there is the problem of discrimination. In a libertarian
> > society, a racist white majority can make it difficult or impossible
> > for a colored minority to enjoy equal freedom, because of the power of
> > the economy over individual lives. (It doesn't require racist laws,
> > merely racist employers, landowners, etc.)
>
> If the government is actually forcing poor people to give their money
> to the rich than that is wrong.
None of the examples I mention consistitute that. But, many people
believe they are all examples of injustice. The closest any of these
examples comes to "force" is tax breaks for the rich. But, is that
forcing anybody to give their money to the rich? Not really. Is it
unjust....?
CR
> > Is there an objective measure of "good quality of life?".
>
> Enough food, shelter, medical care, education...the resources that
> liberty and the pursuit of happiness require.
In other words ... no. :)
> > If the government is actually forcing poor people to give their money
> > to the rich than that is wrong.
>
> None of the examples I mention consistitute that. But, many people
> believe they are all examples of injustice. The closest any of these
> examples comes to "force" is tax breaks for the rich. But, is that
> forcing anybody to give their money to the rich? Not really. Is it
> unjust....?
Tax breaks for the rich. I hate that phrase! In the US the rich pay
practically all the taxes so when there's any tax break obviously the
rich will get it. And they deserve it. Look around you. Who developed
that computer your using? What about the car you drive? How about the
air conditioning system at home? That's right,it was the evil "rich".
Why do we want to punish them? You want really fair taxation? Everyone
should pay the same dollar amount. Say $2000 a year. When you go to
buy a movie ticket should the rich pay more than the poor for the same
ticket? So "fair" in a logical sense is paying the same amount for the
same service. Now I'll admit this isn't very practical so let's
consider a flat tax. If you make ten times another person you will pay
TEN times the tax for the same service under a flat tax. Not really
fair but a good compromise. But what we have is a progressive tax that
is so remotely removed from a logical definition of fair it just makes
me sick. And then when someone suggests a slight decrease in the top
rate we hear the dreaded, idiotic phrase, "tax breaks for the rich".
AAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!! OK, I'm done. I feel better now. :)
Anyway we can argue theory all day long but the bottom line is in the
real world socialism doesn't work.
idlemuse
> I understand the basics of the political philosphy and I like it. I've read
> one of Harry Browne's books and liked what he had to say..
>
> But I need to address two concerns:
>
> It seems prima facia that the environment would suffer under this political
> system. How does environmentalism fit into the free market system?
>
>
Much of the innovative thinking on the environment has been done by
libertarians.
Aside regarding my views: Please note that I will use the little 'l'
version, as I am philosophically a classical liberal, but I'm not
tuned into the Libertarian Party position. I am also not an
anarcho-capitalist, which means that I hold it to be an unfortunate
necessity to have a government for some functions. Specifically, the
government is needed to enforce laws that protect liberties and to
resolve property and contract disputes, as well as the whole national
defense bit. Other libertarians may disagree with me on these points,
just so you know.
Back to the environment: The problem of environmental pollution is a
problem of poor property definitions. Consider that it is inevitably
pollution of public spaces that is at issue. If you own a company and
have some tasty toxic waste you want to dispose of, why not just drive
up to my house and drop it on my front lawn? Clearly, because you
will have violated a defined property right of mine, and I can seek
damages from you on those grounds. So pollution of private property is
not the issue. Pollution of a public space is an issue because it is
unclear to what extent The People are harmed by pollution in a public
space. Air pollution is the most, well, etherial problem for this
reason. There is no difference between your air and my air.
Generally, the first libertarian response is to utilize property
rights wherever possible. This means that many public spaces should
become private spaces. Once private, accountability is cleared up.
You can't dump into the creek because it is MY creek and I will sue
YOU.
Clearly, this will not work everywhere, but it can work in far more
arenas than might at first be obvious. If a given arena simply can
not be privatized, as many would argue is the case for air, the next
solution is to determine a level of pollution that is harmful. One of
the more absurd assumptions of the green movement is that it is
possible to have no pollution. All production creates byproducts.
The key is that the dose makes the poison. There should be no
regulation on the depositing of pollutants into a public space until a
demonstrable harm has been documented. What happens these days in
environmental policy (mostly abroad, thankfully) is that due to the
'precautionary principle', uncertain, potential harms to public spaces
are granted infinite weight when measured against quantifiable and
substantial benefits. Finally, we must ensure that the people who
pollute pay for the clean up of their pollution and the people who
don't don't. While this seems obvious, it is very rarely the case in
policy recommendation.
As a final thought, the ultimate premise of libertarian
environmentalism is that only wealthy societies can afford to be
clean. Investment in technology that comes along with growing
economies is the greatest friend of the environment. It is a fallacy
of the left that economic growth equals global ecological disaster.
The opposite is true.
As to your second point, the libertarian would observe that it doesn't
matter how wide the gap between the rich and the poor gets, because
the rich do not become rich at the expense of the poor. Wealth
distribution is not a zero sum game when the economy grows. In the
free economy, the poor improve their lot, compared to their lot in the
previous year, over and over again. My level of poverty can not be
determined by the car that my neighbor drives.
Ben Sharvy
> >
> > Enough food, shelter, medical care, education...the resources that
> > liberty and the pursuit of happiness require.
>
> In other words ... no. :)
Hm, not sure how you got that. Famine is not subjective.
> Anyway we can argue theory all day long but the bottom line is in the
> real world socialism doesn't work.
Well, that remark is very indicative of an open mind.
Lizard
> > > > You claimed that relying on a judicial system would produce a
litigious
> > > > society because everyone could sue whoever they want
> > >
> > > That does not even remotely resemble what I claimed.
> >
> > Maybe it wasn't you, but the person I was responding to said that the
> > society was already over litigous.
>
> Nobody in this thread has said that. And I am the person you were
> responding to, regard litigation.
Yeah, I said that.
--
*·.¸_¸.·'¨¨)
¸.·'
(_¸.·' Lizard
"Ben Sharvy" <luvn...@www.com> wrote in message
news:7ae24ad2.0211...@posting.google.com...
Lizard
You two fighting has actually taught me a lot.
--
*·.¸_¸.·'¨¨)
¸.·'
(_¸.·' Lizard
"ActualGeek" <Actua...@no.real.address> wrote in message
news:ActualGeek-DA95A...@corp.supernews.com...
ActualGeek
chuck...@tbe.com (CR) wrote:
> >
> > > Is there an objective measure of "good quality of life?".
> >
> > Enough food, shelter, medical care, education...the resources that
> > liberty and the pursuit of happiness require.
>
> In other words ... no. :)
>
> > > If the government is actually forcing poor people to give their money
> > > to the rich than that is wrong.
> >
> > None of the examples I mention consistitute that. But, many people
> > believe they are all examples of injustice. The closest any of these
> > examples comes to "force" is tax breaks for the rich. But, is that
> > forcing anybody to give their money to the rich? Not really. Is it
> > unjust....?
>
> Tax breaks for the rich. I hate that phrase! In the US the rich pay
> practically all the taxes so when there's any tax break obviously the
> rich will get it.
Well, bush proposed cutting taxes for the poor by %33 and for the rich
by something like %5.
Democrats never can do math, so here's a handy guide to help them
understand the "tax cut for the rich"
http://www.davehitt.com/feb01/democrats.html
> should pay the same dollar amount. Say $2000 a year.
I'd be in favor of that.
> is so remotely removed from a logical definition of fair it just makes
> me sick.
Its whole puprose is to punish the rich. Its socialism in action.
> Anyway we can argue theory all day long but the bottom line is in the
> real world socialism doesn't work.
Thats why they call it by different names now!
ActualGeek
"Lizard" <jat...@adelphia.net> wrote:
> Actually I would like to see you address that accusation.
>
> You two fighting has actually taught me a lot.
>
Lizard- your time would be better spent reading some books.
The probability Broach is a good one, as it describes a libertarian
society and how it answers many of the questions brought up on this
newsgroup, but for which the answers are never understood by the
opponents. (You describe somethign a couple times and its just not
worth trying to teach a marxist why marxism doesn't help the poor.)
The Machinery of Freedom by David Friedman is widely recommended, but
I've just started reading it. If the rest of it is as good as waht I've
read so far, I highly recommend it.
But I'd rather answer questions from potential libertarins than debate
with marxists.
CR
> understand the "tax cut for the rich"
>
> http://www.davehitt.com/feb01/democrats.html
That's a great article!
>
> > Anyway we can argue theory all day long but the bottom line is in the
> > real world socialism doesn't work.
>
> Thats why they call it by different names now!
That is so true. It seems obvious to me that socialism, communism,
facism, etc are all just different versions of the same system (where
the state controls everything). I like the term statism. And since
it's common knowledge that these systems don't work they have to keep
renaming them to things like "Keynsian Economics". I reminds me of car
names. You notice that Toyota and Honda still use the same names for
it's cars like Corolla and Civic. But Ford and Chevy keep coming up
with new names every year to replace their crappy cars like the Pinto
and the Probe.
Ben Sharvy
> Much of the innovative thinking on the environment has been done by
> libertarians.
> Back to the environment: The problem of environmental pollution is a
> problem of poor property definitions.
Libertarians tend to assume that pollution is the only environmental
issue. It isn't (unless you define pollution very broadly). For
instance, a typical libertarian remark is that if timber companies own
timberland, they will have incentive not to ruin it, take care of it,
not pollute it, etc. But, the incentive timber companies will have is
to log and replant, not to preserve wilderness. Libertarians tend to
neglect that difference. Clearcutting followed by replanting is not
environmental protection. Additionally, it neglects the effect of
logging on, say, streams and salmon. The timber companies don't care
about the salmon. Ocean fishermen do, but what rights do ocean
fishermen have regarding forest streams, in a libertarian scheme of
private property?
Finally, the really clueless thing about libertarian thought on the
environment is that they don't get the basic moral issue. The issue is
whether anybody has a right to destroy wilderness, not whether anybody
would choose to do so if they had that right (and libertarian schemes
would grant that right).
It is easy to find examples from history of privately owned natural
resources being destroyed. I previously gave the white pine forests of
Michigan and wisonconsin as a famous example from history. All it
takes is people being stupidly greedy, which despite naive libertarian
assumptions to the contrary, is a common occurence in human history.
> Consider that it is inevitably
> pollution of public spaces that is at issue.
Not merely spaces. Get the concept of an ecosystem, of nature. If own
the prime habitat of an endangered species, you may hold its future as
a species in your hands.
> Pollution of a public space is an issue because it is
> unclear to what extent The People are harmed by pollution in a public
> space.
You are harmed, by definition. Pollution is degredation.
> Air pollution is the most, well, etherial problem for this
> reason. There is no difference between your air and my air.
True.
> Generally, the first libertarian response is to utilize property
> rights wherever possible. This means that many public spaces should
> become private spaces. Once private, accountability is cleared up.
> You can't dump into the creek because it is MY creek and I will sue
> YOU.
Big leap. How do public spaces "become" private spaces?
It is very difficult to own a creek. Do you mean the water running
through your propery is your property until it crosses a property
bounday, and then it becomes the neighbor's water? If so, you should
be able to dump uranium in it while it is on your propery, since at
that time it is your private property.
Again, you are neglecting the basic claim. Wilderness is not public
property because some members of society think that's a nice policy,
an effect privilege for society to grant its members. It is public
property because that is the ethical requirement. Everybody has right
to hike the earth, the experience mountains and deserts and forests
and beaches. Privatizing everything has the potential to make it
impossible for a person to go to the beach or the mountaintop.
> If a given arena simply can
> not be privatized, as many would argue is the case for air, the next
> solution is to determine a level of pollution that is harmful.
The same principle that applies to air applies to all of nature. The
problem with privatizing air is not that it is impractical, but that
it is wrong.
> One of
> the more absurd assumptions of the green movement is that it is
> possible to have no pollution.
1) That is not an assumption of the green movement.
2) It is possible to make the people who create the pollution, eat it.
> All production creates byproducts.
> The key is that the dose makes the poison.
No. If you dump something beneficial on my property, I still have the
right to make you remove it. It is my property. I don't have to show
harm.
> There should be no
> regulation on the depositing of pollutants into a public space until a
> demonstrable harm has been documented.
Yeah, people should be dying of cancer at an above-average rate first.
Sean P. Burke
luvn...@www.com (Ben Sharvy) writes:
> chuck...@tbe.com (CR) wrote in message news:<79e1ad3d.02111...@posting.google.com>...
> > >
> > > > Is there an objective measure of "good quality of life?".
> > >
> > > Enough food, shelter, medical care, education...the resources that
> > > liberty and the pursuit of happiness require.
You've got the cart before the horse.
You should have said:
Enough food, shelter, medical care, education...the resources that
liberty and the pursuit of happiness _provide_.
-SEan
--
"A man is never so innocently employed
as when he is making money." - Dr. Johnson
CR
> > Anyway we can argue theory all day long but the bottom line is in the
> > real world socialism doesn't work.
>
> Well, that remark is very indicative of an open mind.
I'm assuming you're a socialist, or perhaps you call your belief
something else?
Anyway since you can probably twist the meaning of socialism how about
"economically unfree" countries don't work. When I say "don't work" I
mean people don't want to live there. Here is a list created by the
Heritage Foundation that ranks countries according to economic
freedom. It quantifies what should be obvious, that a free market
economy is better that a centralized, state run economy (socialism).
Now look at the list and open YOUR mind to the obvious.
Hong Kong
Singapore
Luxembourg
New Zealand
Ireland
Denmark
Estonia
United States
Australia
United Kingdom
Finland
Iceland
The Netherlands
Sweden
Switzerland
Bahrain
Chile
Canada
Austria
Belgium
Germany
The Bahamas
Cyprus
Barbados
United Arab Emirates
El Salvador
Norway
Taiwan (China, Republic of)
Italy
Lithuania
Spain
Portugal
Israel
Latvia
Botswana
Cambodia
Czech Republic
Japan
Uruguay
France
Kuwait
Thailand
Trinidad and Tobago
Armenia
Bolivia
Costa Rica
Hungary
Madagascar
Panama
Qatar
South Africa
Korea, Republic of
(South Korea)
Malta
Namibia
Belize
Greece
Guatemala
Jamaica
Mexico
Oman
Peru
Jordan
The Philippines
Slovenia
Uganda
Poland
Slovak Republic
Argentina
Morocco
Saudi Arabia
Tunisia
Brazil
Colombia
Malaysia
Mali
Mauritius
Mongolia
Nicaragua
Swaziland
Central African Republic
Honduras
Ivory Coast
Senegal
Sri Lanka
Dominican Republic
Guinea
Kenya
Mauritania
Cape Verde
Croatia
Gabon
Guyana
Moldova
Algeria
Burkina Faso
Lebanon
Macedonia
Mozambique
Djibouti
Gambia, The
Indonesia
Pakistan
Paraguay
Albania
Azerbaijan
Benin
Bulgaria
Cameroon
Egypt
Kyrgyz Republic
Lesotho
Tanzania
Chad
Fiji
Georgia
Ghana
Niger
Ecuador
Bangladesh
Ethiopia
India
Kazakhstan
Nepal
Turkey
Venezuela
Zambia
China, People's Republic of
Equatorial Guinea
Haiti
Togo
Malawi
Rwanda
Ukraine
Yemen
Congo, Republic of
Russia
Vietnam
Romania
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Nigeria
Sierra Leone
Guinea-Bissau
Suriname
Syria
Tajikistan
Iran
Turkmenistan
Burma
Uzbekistan
Yugoslavia, Federal Republic of (Serbia-Montenegro)
Belarus
Libya
Laos
Zimbabwe
Cuba
Korea, Democratic People's Republic of
(North Korea)
Angola
Burundi
Congo, Democratic Republic of
(formerly Zaire)
Iraq
Sudan
Ben Sharvy
> luvn...@www.com (Ben Sharvy) writes:
>
> > chuck...@tbe.com (CR) wrote in message news:<79e1ad3d.02111...@posting.google.com>...
> > > >
> > > > > Is there an objective measure of "good quality of life?".
> > > >
> > > > Enough food, shelter, medical care, education...the resources that
> > > > liberty and the pursuit of happiness require.
>
> You've got the cart before the horse.
> You should have said:
>
> Enough food, shelter, medical care, education...the resources that
> liberty and the pursuit of happiness _provide_.
Liberty and the pursuit of happiness are rights. Everybody is entitled
to them, you don't have to earn them. If they provide food, shelter,
etc., then everybody is entitled to food, shelter etc. Nobody would
have to earn those things, just as nobody has to earn a right to be
free. Which is wrong.
Ben Sharvy
> > > Anyway we can argue theory all day long but the bottom line is in the
> > > real world socialism doesn't work.
> >
> > Thats why they call it by different names now!
>
> That is so true. It seems obvious to me that socialism, communism,
> facism, etc are all just different versions of the same system (where
> the state controls everything). I like the term statism.
The amount of ignorance in this group is impressive.
Socialism means the people control means of production. It is the
exact opposite of, say, the USSR, in which the state controlled the
means of production.
Bert Hyman
(Ben Sharvy) wrote:
> chuck...@tbe.com (CR) wrote in message
> news:<79e1ad3d.02111...@posting.google.com>...
>
>> > > Anyway we can argue theory all day long but the bottom line is in
>> > > the real world socialism doesn't work.
>> >
>> > Thats why they call it by different names now!
>>
>> That is so true. It seems obvious to me that socialism, communism,
>> facism, etc are all just different versions of the same system (where
>> the state controls everything). I like the term statism.
>
> The amount of ignorance in this group is impressive.
Much of it willful.
> Socialism means the people control means of production.
Which in practice means that The State controls the means of production.
> It is the exact opposite of, say, the USSR, in which the state
> controlled the means of production.
See?
You can save a lot of trouble trying to nuance the differences between
socialism, communism, fascism, etc. by simply calling them what they are:
totalitarianism. Or collectivism, if you like.
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@visi.com
ActualGeek
>You notice that Toyota and Honda still use the same names for
> it's cars like Corolla and Civic. But Ford and Chevy keep coming up
> with new names every year to replace their crappy cars like the Pinto
> and the Probe.
That's a good point.
And where are the liberals telling us we have to drive american cars
because its "good for the community".
That has died down now-- but they all realize why people drive japanese
cars.
Yet they think the governemnt - which has never even had the pressure to
be competant that the big three did even in their most protected days-
is the best solution for all problems?
Uh hu.
They're authoritarian and some of them don't even realize it! The
stupid ones think the government does a good job, the smart ones think
they are going to be part of the dictators good side and be living large
when the "revolution" comes.
ActualGeek
> instance, a typical libertarian remark is that if timber companies own
> timberland, they will have incentive not to ruin it, take care of it,
> not pollute it, etc. But, the incentive timber companies will have is
> to log and replant, not to preserve wilderness.
Logging and replanting it IS preserving wilderness, taking care of the
land, etc.
If you want land that is kept preserved and untouched by human hands,
feel free to buy the land and keep it that way.
But if you don't want to buy it and take care of it yourself, you want
something for nothing.
> about the salmon. Ocean fishermen do, but what rights do ocean
> fishermen have regarding forest streams, in a libertarian scheme of
> private property?
Oh, that's easy-- they work out a deal with the people who own the land
to take care of the streams. Its clearly in both parties economic
interests. Where we have the problem now is government property, not
private property-- the government has no economic interest in protecting
salmon, and so they sell the wood cheap and the salmon habitats are
destroyed.
> Finally, the really clueless thing about libertarian thought on the
> environment is that they don't get the basic moral issue.
Actually, you don't get the basic moral issue.
>The issue is
> whether anybody has a right to destroy wilderness, not whether anybody
> would choose to do so if they had that right (and libertarian schemes
> would grant that right).
Of course they do. Please provide a rational definition of universal
morality that takes away this right.
So far, all environmentalists have been able to provide is unsupported
quasi-religious claims, and no science.
If any of the so-called environmentalists in this country really
beleived what they claimed they'd argue for the US selling off the land
it has to groups to conserve it.
But like the island in the pacific I heard about -- palmeda?-- that the
nature conservancy took over and then destroyed the environment of-- the
environmentalist movement doesn't really seem to care about doing
anything about the environment. They just want something.
> You are harmed, by definition. Pollution is degredation.
This is why you guys get no respect. If you don't provide rational, or
scientific arguments, or even evidence, then everything you say gets
lumped in with the crystal types.
> Big leap. How do public spaces "become" private spaces?
By settling the social security debt as harry browne suggested-- that
would be a good way.
> It is very difficult to own a creek. Do you mean the water running
> through your propery is your property until it crosses a property
> bounday, and then it becomes the neighbor's water? If so, you should
> be able to dump uranium in it while it is on your propery, since at
> that time it is your private property.
You will get nowhere until you respond to libertarians seriously.
Saying such idiotic things doesn't garner you much respect. Dumping
uranium in anothers property would clearly violate their property
rights, and in fact, should get you shot.
> an effect privilege for society to grant its members. It is public
> property because that is the ethical requirement.
You need to provide reasoning for this-- you can't just claim it and
expect us to believe it-- especially with the silly examples like the
one above.
> and beaches. Privatizing everything has the potential to make it
> impossible for a person to go to the beach or the mountaintop.
No, it just means you'll pay a fee-- like you do now! The ironic thing
is, after paying $50,000 in taxes I still have to pay $10 to go to
"public" wilderness or national parks.
Paying a property owner $10 would actually be much cheaper cause all the
tax money I paid I wouldn't have had to pay.
I've visited privately owned natural phenomena in this country -- the
area was kept preserved, I paid the owner a reasonable fee.
Somehow you think these people won't want to sell access to these
things, and you incorrectly assume that such access will be more
expensive.
> 1) That is not an assumption of the green movement.
> 2) It is possible to make the people who create the pollution, eat it.
How are you going to eat your own farts?
> > There should be no
> > regulation on the depositing of pollutants into a public space until a
> > demonstrable harm has been documented.
>
> Yeah, people should be dying of cancer at an above-average rate first.
Well, at least we agree on something.
David Friedman
> Socialism means the people control means of production. It is the
> exact opposite of, say, the USSR, in which the state controlled the
> means of production.
Oddly enough, while a few socialists held that opinion in the early
years of the USSR, the number increased substantially when it became
obvious that the USSR was working very badly, and substantially again
when the USSR collapsed.
If you want a picture of how the left regarded the Soviet Union, I
recommend Orwell's letters and essays. Into at least the late forties
(doubtless longer, but he died then) the usual position was that one
ought not to criticize the USSR, because they were on the right side,
even if they might occasionally do things they shouldn't, such as
murdering large numbers of people.
Ben Sharvy
> > > real world socialism doesn't work.
> >
> > Well, that remark is very indicative of an open mind.
>
> I'm assuming you're a socialist,
Wrong.
> Anyway since you can probably twist the meaning of socialism how about
> "economically unfree" countries don't work. When I say "don't work" I
> mean people don't want to live there. Here is a list created by the
> Heritage Foundation that ranks countries according to economic
> freedom. It quantifies what should be obvious,that a free market
> economy is better that a centralized, state run economy (socialism).
I didn't notice the appointment of the Heritage Foundation to God
status. Must have had my nose in the sports section.
The first two items are 1) cities not countries, 2) located in the
largest communist country in the world.
ActualGeek
No, it is capitalism where the people control the means of production.
In fact, for convenience, you can buy the means of production
conveniently on the NYSE and NASDAQ.
Socialism, like communism, is where the GOVERNMENT controls the means of
production.
CR
> > I'm assuming you're a socialist,
>
> Wrong.
>
> > Anyway since you can probably twist the meaning of socialism how about
> > "economically unfree" countries don't work. When I say "don't work" I
> > mean people don't want to live there. Here is a list created by the
> > Heritage Foundation that ranks countries according to economic
> > freedom. It quantifies what should be obvious,that a free market
> > economy is better that a centralized, state run economy (socialism).
>
> I didn't notice the appointment of the Heritage Foundation to God
> status. Must have had my nose in the sports section.
>
You may not be a socialist but you sure are using liberal evasiveness.
If you're not a socialist, what are you? If the economic freedom index
done by the heritage foundation is wrong or not good enough, explain
why. Or tell me of a better study. Its easy to criticise libertarians
who lay their philosophies on the line, out in the open. Why don't you
tell us your great philosophy? Don't be a chicken!
P.S. Now that Hong Kong is controlled by China, their days at number
one aren't going to last much longer.
CR
> They're authoritarian and some of them don't even realize it! The
> stupid ones think the government does a good job, the smart ones think
> they are going to be part of the dictators good side and be living large
> when the "revolution" comes.
I always wondered what percent of people who vote for democrats do it
to protect their government handouts. I'm sure there are idealists who
actually pay out more than they get, but how many are voting
democratic just to get free stuff?
Sean P. Burke
chuck...@tbe.com (CR) writes:
I often wonder how many are simply consumed by envy of the
wealthy, and would vote for anyone who promised to "soak
the rich".
brian turner
Probably many. You might also ask how many contribute money to
Republicans (which helps them get elected) to get free stuff (e.g.
military projects the military doesn't even want, agribusiness
subsidies, tax loopholes, pollution rights, R&D grants, "export
promotion" subsidies, a pass on lawbreaking, etc.). The 2 parties are
both looking to give handouts to their respective bases, and they both
are happy to use other people's money to do so. Socialize cost,
privatize (or otherwise capture) the benefits, that's how it often
works. Sometimes libertarians are under the illusion that the Rep
party leaders do this less than the Democrat party leaders (rank and
file might be a different story).
CR
> > to protect their government handouts. I'm sure there are idealists who
> > actually pay out more than they get, but how many are voting
> > democratic just to get free stuff?
>
> Probably many. You might also ask how many contribute money to
> Republicans (which helps them get elected) to get free stuff (e.g.
> military projects the military doesn't even want, agribusiness
> subsidies, tax loopholes, pollution rights, R&D grants, "export
> promotion" subsidies, a pass on lawbreaking, etc.). The 2 parties are
> both looking to give handouts to their respective bases, and they both
> are happy to use other people's money to do so. Socialize cost,
> privatize (or otherwise capture) the benefits, that's how it often
> works. Sometimes libertarians are under the illusion that the Rep
> party leaders do this less than the Democrat party leaders (rank and
> file might be a different story).
You're might be right, although I still think democrats are a little
worse. I usually vote libertarian if available then republican. This
election I just voted libertarian. The republican ads were turning my
stomach. This is a little off topic but I saw this woman running for
the Louisiana Senate (I think) yesterday. She was a republican. She
said she would try to get Bush to lower the steel tariffs because they
are hurting Louisiana. Then in the next sentence she said she would
also try to get Bush to protect Louisiana from mexican sugar imports.
What a hypocrite!
idlemuse
> jasl...@msn.com (idlemuse) wrote in message news:<82463628.0211...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > Much of the innovative thinking on the environment has been done by
> > libertarians.
>
> > Back to the environment: The problem of environmental pollution is a
> > problem of poor property definitions.
>
> Libertarians tend to assume that pollution is the only environmental
> issue. It isn't (unless you define pollution very broadly). For
> instance, a typical libertarian remark is that if timber companies own
> timberland, they will have incentive not to ruin it, take care of it,
> not pollute it, etc. But, the incentive timber companies will have is
> to log and replant, not to preserve wilderness. Libertarians tend to
> neglect that difference. Clearcutting followed by replanting is not
> environmental protection. Additionally, it neglects the effect of
> logging on, say, streams and salmon. The timber companies don't care
> about the salmon. Ocean fishermen do, but what rights do ocean
> fishermen have regarding forest streams, in a libertarian scheme of
> private property?
You are using an inappropriate libertarian argument. It is true that
the trees owned by private interests would be better protected, it is
not necessarily true, as you indicate that all aspects of the
wilderness would be maintained as you would like. I would note that
fishermen already reach agreements with each other to prevent
overfishing of their waters, these same types of agreements could be
reached with the owner of a section of creek. Further, if you dump on
your land and the waste migrates to my land, you have dumped on my
private property. Ergo, the guy up stream can't just dump at will.
In any event, if you are looking at total ecosystem preservation, you
should not be considering land owned by loggers, but land owned by
environmentalists. Private parks.
> Finally, the really clueless thing about libertarian thought on the
> environment is that they don't get the basic moral issue. The issue is
> whether anybody has a right to destroy wilderness, not whether anybody
> would choose to do so if they had that right (and libertarian schemes
> would grant that right).
What does 'destroy wilderness' mean? No cities? No houses? No
farmland?
> It is easy to find examples from history of privately owned natural
> resources being destroyed. I previously gave the white pine forests of
> Michigan and wisonconsin as a famous example from history. All it
> takes is people being stupidly greedy, which despite naive libertarian
> assumptions to the contrary, is a common occurence in human history.
A common tactic of libertarian critics is to act as though libertarian
claims are utopian. No one has said that there will be no instances
of poorly managed land. Mistakes can be made by private owners just
as easily as they can be made by the government. In your vision of
private land ownership, you assume that the worst polluter owns all
the land, which is fairly absurd. Some land will be better managed
than other land, because there will be many different types of owners
- some just like yourself.
> > Consider that it is inevitably
> > pollution of public spaces that is at issue.
>
> Not merely spaces. Get the concept of an ecosystem, of nature. If own
> the prime habitat of an endangered species, you may hold its future as
> a species in your hands.
If the last colony of North American Flying Dungbeetles moves onto
your front lawn, what do you do? Like a good green fellow, I'm
absolutely confident that you'd turn your land over to the park
service for free.
> > Pollution of a public space is an issue because it is
> > unclear to what extent The People are harmed by pollution in a public
> > space.
>
> You are harmed, by definition. Pollution is degredation.
CO2 is a pollutant. You should stop exhaling. I'm being harmed by the
1E-90 increase in greenhouse gasses you emit. I certainly hope you
aren't going to argue that a certain level of impact is too low to
consider.
> > Generally, the first libertarian response is to utilize property
> > rights wherever possible. This means that many public spaces should
> > become private spaces. Once private, accountability is cleared up.
> > You can't dump into the creek because it is MY creek and I will sue
> > YOU.
>
> Big leap. How do public spaces "become" private spaces?
>
> It is very difficult to own a creek. Do you mean the water running
> through your propery is your property until it crosses a property
> bounday, and then it becomes the neighbor's water? If so, you should
> be able to dump uranium in it while it is on your propery, since at
> that time it is your private property.
See above, if you dump on your land, you have an obligation to ensure
that the harm stays on your land. If the harm crosses to my land, I'm
going to seek damages.
> Again, you are neglecting the basic claim. Wilderness is not public
> property because some members of society think that's a nice policy,
> an effect privilege for society to grant its members. It is public
> property because that is the ethical requirement. Everybody has right
> to hike the earth, the experience mountains and deserts and forests
> and beaches. Privatizing everything has the potential to make it
> impossible for a person to go to the beach or the mountaintop.
Does this reasoning just apply to actual mountains? I mean, I think
your house might be a bit above sea level. Surely you don't have the
right to prevent me from enjoying your hill. I'll be over for dinner.
I've been to Nepal. You can't go to the top of most mountains in the
Nepalese Himilayas due to government restrictions. If you want to
take a stab at Everest, they charge you about $15,000 for a permit. Is
that ethical?
Public property is an artificial construct, because you are
artificially collectivizing responsibility for the land in question,
just as you artificially isolate responsibility for the land with
private property. If it belongs to everyone, no one is responsible for
it. This is the tragedy of the commons.
> > If a given arena simply can
> > not be privatized, as many would argue is the case for air, the next
> > solution is to determine a level of pollution that is harmful.
>
> The same principle that applies to air applies to all of nature. The
> problem with privatizing air is not that it is impractical, but that
> it is wrong.
It is no more wrong than the privitization of the land your house is
on.
> > One of
> > the more absurd assumptions of the green movement is that it is
> > possible to have no pollution.
>
> 1) That is not an assumption of the green movement.
Then stop arguing as though that were the case. In the green position,
unknown and undetectable pollutants are given infinite weight when
compared to known benefits of production. A good case in point is
PVC. I haven't met the green yet who would be willing to forego blood
bags and medicl tubing when they have surgery, yet they spend enormous
amounts of time trying to shut down the technology that makes these
things possible.
> 2) It is possible to make the people who create the pollution, eat it.
>
> > All production creates byproducts.
> > The key is that the dose makes the poison.
>
> No. If you dump something beneficial on my property, I still have the
> right to make you remove it. It is my property. I don't have to show
> harm.
And there is the issue. It isn't just your property. It is mine,
too. Why should your ridiculous sensitivity to pollutants I can't even
detect trump my right to use of the land?
> > There should be no
> > regulation on the depositing of pollutants into a public space until a
> > demonstrable harm has been documented.
>
> Yeah, people should be dying of cancer at an above-average rate first.
Absolutely correct. If they are not, you are asking for the power to
shut down anything you don't like with literally no reason whatsoever.
The Precautionary Principle, as applied by the green movement, is
utterly asinine. Applied historically, we would have no cities, no
medicine, no fluoride in drinking water, we'd be starving because
pests ate all the crops, and so on. You must consider the costs of the
'remedy' you employ.
Bert Hyman
> But, the incentive timber companies will have is
> to log and replant, not to preserve wilderness.
Fine. You want to preserve wilderness, you buy it.
Ben Sharvy
CR
> But like the island in the pacific I heard about -- palmeda?-- that the
> nature conservancy took over and then destroyed the environment of-- the
> environmentalist movement doesn't really seem to care about doing
> anything about the environment. They just want something.
It's Palmyra. I'm a libertarian and I agree with almost everything you
have been saying, however I think the basic idea of The Nature
Conservancy is to protect land by buying it. Isn't that the
libertarian way? Also they only bought it a year or two ago, how did
they wreck it so fast? Someone please tell me if I am wrong about them
since I donate money!
brian turner
> I saw this woman running for
> the Louisiana Senate (I think) yesterday. She was a republican. She
> said she would try to get Bush to lower the steel tariffs because they
> are hurting Louisiana. Then in the next sentence she said she would
> also try to get Bush to protect Louisiana from mexican sugar imports.
> What a hypocrite!
This is no aberration. This is the Republican Party (at least the
leadership). Free markets when it's convenient, massive state aid and
protectionism when convenient. Want another example? How did George
Bush get rich? He bought a $500,000 share of the Texas Rangers, then
got the taxpayers to build them a 200 million dollar stadium, after
which the value of his share shot up to $15 million (I think), after
which he cashed out.
I don't say this as a libertarian/anarcho-capitalist, I support state
intervention in the economy. I admire you libertarians though,
because you aren't like the Republicans. You want free market
discipline for others, but you'll accept it yourself too. I don't
like the Democrats either, because I would like the state intervention
to be in the general public interest--in cases where it's not possible
to ID this, no intervention--not in the interests of lawyers, unions,
corporate pork recipients, those who dug themselves in holes via
anti-social behavior, etc. as is the Democrat way.
Right now, we have a choice between 2 corrupt state interventionist
parties. Wouldn't it be better to have a choice and debate between a
true free market party and a non-corrupt interventionist party?
Ben Sharvy
> luvn...@www.com (Ben Sharvy) wrote in
> news:7ae24ad2.02111...@posting.google.com:
>
> > But, the incentive timber companies will have is
> > to log and replant, not to preserve wilderness.
>
> Fine. You want to preserve wilderness, you buy it.
This is the real libertarian philosophy regarding the environment. It
doesn't answer any of the environmentalists' concerns about
libertarian philosophy, since it asserts that rich people should
control the fate of wilderness, with no assurance that rich people
will care about wilderness preservation. So libertarians should stop
trying to pretend that their philosophy is consistent with the values
of wilderness preservation, and start saying it like it is. When an
inquisitive environmentalist comes along, a honest libertarian should
say: "Fuck you and what you care about." This may have the undesirable
consequence of reducing the libertarian vote from 4% to 1%, a tragedy
so vast libertarians may never recover, which explains the volume of
libertarian backpedalling bullshit on the environment.
The really interesting thing is that the mainstream libertarian
position on wilderness is not consistent with fundamental libertarian
principles. The basic libertarian philsophy is that you can destroy it
if you made it or obtained it through a series of consensual exchanges
from someone who made it--i.e., if it is your private property. Since
no person made wilderness, it cannot be private property, and
therefore nobody can be entitled to destroy it. The real libertarian
retort, in this discussion, is: "Fine. You want to destroy wilderness,
you go make some wilderness." But that wouldn't justify childish greed
so widely and accurately attributed to libertarians, and guess what,
libertarians don't recognize it. Rather, they fondly recall the days
of the mythological libertarian Golden Age, the US in the first
hundred years, when the society was based on slavery, extermination of
Indians (they didn't have a system of private property, therefore, the
land wasn't theirs), and denial of any political power to women. By an
amazing coincidence, the typical libertarian is a fat white
male--probably the only factor preventing their share of the vote from
being 0.1%.
If you fatso honkies are content with 4% of the vote, keep saying what
you say and thinking what you think. If you want anybody to actually
pay attention, consider growing up.
Bert Hyman
> This is the real libertarian philosophy regarding the environment. It
> doesn't answer any of the environmentalists' concerns about
> libertarian philosophy, since it asserts that rich people should
> control the fate of wilderness,
And yours is the real totalitarian position on property ownership: If The
State doesn't like what you're doing with your property, they'll just take
it from you.
Join the Nature Conservancy or some such organization. They collect
millions from folks who feel as you do and lock up land safe from the
contaminating touch of man.
ActualGeek
I think all of them-- all of them either get handouts, expect to get
handouts, or have relatives and friends who get handouts, or they are
employees of the government and get handouts to make their living.
And this is a self-fulfilling situation- the more they vote democrat,
the more of them there are next time around.
Not sure why people vote republican, since the republicans never seem to
try to reverse this trend.
Sean P. Burke
luvn...@www.com (Ben Sharvy) writes:
> Bert Hyman <be...@visi.com> wrote in message news:<Xns92CA708B965...@news.visi.com>...
> > luvn...@www.com (Ben Sharvy) wrote in
> > news:7ae24ad2.02111...@posting.google.com:
> >
> > > But, the incentive timber companies will have is
> > > to log and replant, not to preserve wilderness.
> >
> > Fine. You want to preserve wilderness, you buy it.
>
> This is the real libertarian philosophy regarding the environment. It
> doesn't answer any of the environmentalists' concerns about
> libertarian philosophy, since it asserts that rich people should
> control the fate of wilderness, with no assurance that rich people
> will care about wilderness preservation. So libertarians should stop
> trying to pretend that their philosophy is consistent with the values
> of wilderness preservation, and start saying it like it is.
Libertarians may care about wilderness, and still not
be willing to put a gun to some wealthy person's head,
to force them to finance our agenda.
There - I said it like it is.
> When an
> inquisitive environmentalist comes along, a honest libertarian should
> say: "Fuck you and what you care about." This may have the undesirable
> consequence of reducing the libertarian vote from 4% to 1%, a tragedy
> so vast libertarians may never recover, which explains the volume of
> libertarian backpedalling bullshit on the environment.
Oh, quit whining and put your own money where your mouth is.
> The really interesting thing is that the mainstream libertarian
> position on wilderness is not consistent with fundamental libertarian
> principles. The basic libertarian philsophy is that you can destroy it
> if you made it or obtained it through a series of consensual exchanges
> from someone who made it--i.e., if it is your private property. Since
> no person made wilderness, it cannot be private property, and
> therefore nobody can be entitled to destroy it. The real libertarian
> retort, in this discussion, is: "Fine. You want to destroy wilderness,
> you go make some wilderness." But that wouldn't justify childish greed
> so widely and accurately attributed to libertarians, and guess what,
> libertarians don't recognize it. Rather, they fondly recall the days
> of the mythological libertarian Golden Age, the US in the first
> hundred years, when the society was based on slavery, extermination of
> Indians (they didn't have a system of private property, therefore, the
> land wasn't theirs), and denial of any political power to women. By an
> amazing coincidence, the typical libertarian is a fat white
> male--probably the only factor preventing their share of the vote from
> being 0.1%.
>
> If you fatso honkies are content with 4% of the vote, keep saying what
> you say and thinking what you think. If you want anybody to actually
> pay attention, consider growing up.
What fools we've been, to ignore the balanced, reasonable,
and cool-headed views of sage environmentalists like yourself.
ActualGeek
> >
> > But like the island in the pacific I heard about -- palmeda?-- that the
> > nature conservancy took over and then destroyed the environment of-- the
> > environmentalist movement doesn't really seem to care about doing
> > anything about the environment. They just want something.
>
> It's Palmyra.
Thanks for the correction- that's exactly the island I'm talking about.
>I'm a libertarian and I agree with almost everything you
> have been saying, however I think the basic idea of The Nature
> Conservancy is to protect land by buying it. Isn't that the
> libertarian way?
Yep, its the libertarian way. Unfortunately, the Nature conservancy is
more socialist than libertarin. Thus, they have banned the cruising
sailors who have been visiting that island for decades from anchoring
there (Despite the fact that these people at their worst have little
impact on the island, and at their majority, work to help the previous
caretaker to clean the island and clean up from stoms.)
Meanwhile, they have been flying planes in and out and disrupting the
habitats of the turtles (Which are apparently rare, or endangered).
It doesn't surprise me to discover that a bunch of environmentalists are
not taking good care of the place.
>Also they only bought it a year or two ago, how did
> they wreck it so fast? Someone please tell me if I am wrong about them
> since I donate money!
I don't think they wrecked it, I should have said, they destroyed the
environemnt of part of it, not the hwole thing. You should write them
and ask them how they answer the charges made about their treatment of
Palmyra.
My information comes from a letter in Lattitudes and Attitudes magazine,
not first hand experience. But the sailors who go there are unhappy
with the way the island is being treated. (Nevermind that an airstrip
has more impact than a sailboat.)
ITs possible I'm wrong- I've never been there, but that was what the
report from the field I read claimed.
ActualGeek
> Bert Hyman <be...@visi.com> wrote in message
> news:<Xns92CA708B965...@news.visi.com>...
> > luvn...@www.com (Ben Sharvy) wrote in
> > news:7ae24ad2.02111...@posting.google.com:
> >
> > > But, the incentive timber companies will have is
> > > to log and replant, not to preserve wilderness.
> >
> > Fine. You want to preserve wilderness, you buy it.
>
> This is the real libertarian philosophy regarding the environment. It
> doesn't answer any of the environmentalists' concerns
Actually it does. The only people who have shown themselves to be
competant at managing wilderness are private owners. The government
does a very poor job of it.
> libertarian philosophy, since it asserts that rich people should
> control the fate of wilderness,
Who said anything about rich people? Thats your paranoia. Look at the
Nature conservancy- they are a collection of not-rich people. I think
they could do a better job, but they buy a lot of land.
> inquisitive environmentalist comes along, a honest libertarian should
Actually, I can't imagine an environmentalist who wasn't libertarian.
Most of the self described environmentalists I've known have been
actually anti-science, anti-environment, and more concerned about making
everyone eat "natural" than about protecting the environment-- why else
would they oppose replacing cellphone towers with ones that put out
1/10th as much energy as the previous generation?
> say: "Fuck you and what you care about." This may have the undesirable
> consequence of reducing the libertarian vote from 4% to 1%, a tragedy
> so vast libertarians may never recover, which explains the volume of
> libertarian backpedalling bullshit on the environment.
Uh, so you think %75 of libertarians are environmentalists? Ok, but I
haven't seen any backpeddling.
Most of land destruction that occurs in this country is accomplished by
federal or other government actions.
> principles. The basic libertarian philsophy is that you can destroy it
> if you made it or obtained it through a series of consensual exchanges
> from someone who made it--i.e., if it is your private property. Since
> no person made wilderness, it cannot be private property,
No, if nobody is using it or claims ownership, then you can go there and
it becomes yours. Unclaimed territory is just that- unclaimed. you
can claim it and use it.
> If you fatso honkies are content with 4% of the vote, keep saying what
> you say and thinking what you think. If you want anybody to actually
> pay attention, consider growing up.
Actually, I suspect those who want something for nothing are the ones
who are not fully matured yet. TANSTAAFL.
Strabo
And the people control the means of production by what means?
Think hard...
Ben Sharvy
> > Socialism means the people control means of production. It is the
> > exact opposite of, say, the USSR, in which the state controlled the
> > means of production.
>
> And the people control the means of production by what means?
The stock answer is by collective ownership. In any case, the
discussion here merely conerned the meaning of a word. It is a matter
of getting out your dictionary, a feat too challenging for the clowns
around here.
CR
> more socialist than libertarin. Thus, they have banned the cruising
> sailors who have been visiting that island for decades from anchoring
> there (Despite the fact that these people at their worst have little
> impact on the island, and at their majority, work to help the previous
> caretaker to clean the island and clean up from stoms.)
I agree that it's stupid to ban boats but isn't that their right? How
is that socialist?
> Meanwhile, they have been flying planes in and out and disrupting the
> habitats of the turtles (Which are apparently rare, or endangered).
Also stupid, also their right.
Actually I heard a story about the Conservancy that IS bad. I was
hiking on a trail created by the Conservancy near where I live a few
weeks ago. I ran into another hiker who told me the way they got the
land was by having the government condemn it because it contained an
endangered flower. Then they were able to buy the land cheap from the
owner. I still think the Conservancy is a good idea in theory but they
may be getting taken over by socialists!
Let me try to explain why I argued with you on this point. We
libertarians often make the case that if you don't like something, for
example the way a business is run, start your own business. Or don't
shop there. Or start a boycott. In other words we offer free market
alternatives. I've often heard conservatives commentators say things
like, "Your group is bad because you support affirmative action laws
and boycotts." But affirmative action laws are a socialist solution
and boycotts are a free market one. I hate to see them lumped
together. I think because of your dislike of environmentalists you are
labeling all their actions as socialist. I'm just trying to
distinguish between them.
CR
> Right now, we have a choice between 2 corrupt state interventionist
> parties. Wouldn't it be better to have a choice and debate between a
> true free market party and a non-corrupt interventionist party?
Of course. I think the best hope is to break out of the 2 party
system. They've got a real racket going!
idlemuse
> doesn't answer any of the environmentalists' concerns about
> libertarian philosophy, since it asserts that rich people should
> control the fate of wilderness, with no assurance that rich people
> will care about wilderness preservation. So libertarians should stop
> trying to pretend that their philosophy is consistent with the values
> of wilderness preservation, and start saying it like it is. When an
> inquisitive environmentalist comes along, a honest libertarian should
> say: "Fuck you and what you care about." This may have the undesirable
> consequence of reducing the libertarian vote from 4% to 1%, a tragedy
> so vast libertarians may never recover, which explains the volume of
> libertarian backpedalling bullshit on the environment.
Any time an environmentalist comes along, he should preamble all
conversation with the disclaimer that he doesn't understand costs and
benefits at all, and that any unmeasurable 'improvement' to the
environment is worth any amount of costs. Perhaps also included in
the preamble should be the notion that only the government can succeed
in important matters like environmental protection. The
environmentalist could then go on to list other enterprises where the
government is more effective than the private sector: government
housing, social security, medicare, and public schools are all models
of efficiency and effectiveness, especially when compared to their
private counterparts.
With regard to the vote, please note that most ideological
libertarians are Republicans, not Libertarians. You might want to take
a look at the election results again with that in mind.
> The really interesting thing is that the mainstream libertarian
> position on wilderness is not consistent with fundamental libertarian
> principles. The basic libertarian philsophy is that you can destroy it
> if you made it or obtained it through a series of consensual exchanges
> from someone who made it--i.e., if it is your private property. Since
> no person made wilderness, it cannot be private property, and
> therefore nobody can be entitled to destroy it.
Hello? Your house used to be wilderness. Did this argument make sense
in your head?
The real libertarian
> retort, in this discussion, is: "Fine. You want to destroy wilderness,
> you go make some wilderness." But that wouldn't justify childish greed
> so widely and accurately attributed to libertarians, and guess what,
> libertarians don't recognize it.
Greed is an inappropriate term. Your implication is that libertarians
want all of the goodies for themselves at the expense of everyone
else. Some may, but none will employ force to get stuff they want.
Now, if you want to talk about greed, consider the agenda driven
organization that demands everyone pay for their agenda. Is the guy
who wants to be left alone greedy or is the guy who is demanding tax
dollars go to his cause greedy?
Rather, they fondly recall the days
> of the mythological libertarian Golden Age, the US in the first
> hundred years, when the society was based on slavery, extermination of
> Indians (they didn't have a system of private property, therefore, the
> land wasn't theirs), and denial of any political power to women. By an
> amazing coincidence, the typical libertarian is a fat white
> male--probably the only factor preventing their share of the vote from
> being 0.1%.
It is common practice in most circles to have an understanding of the
position you are criticizing. You can in no way reconcile slavery
with libertarianism, nor the extermination of a race, nor the driving
of people from their lands, nor the denial of political powers to a
minority voice. No one is ideologically more opposed to these
practices than libertarians.
When libertarians talk about the founding of the country, we are
generally talking about the PRINCIPLES involved: federalism,
codification of individual rights, property independent of State whim,
and so on. The tragedy for libertarians is that these ideals were not
employed as broadly as they should have been. The principles are not
wrong, the selective application of them was wrong.
Bert Hyman
news:82463628.02111...@posting.google.com:
> With regard to the vote, please note that most ideological
> libertarians are Republicans, not Libertarians. You might want to take
> a look at the election results again with that in mind.
Yikes! Republicans are NOT libertarian.
CR
I looked through your web site but I'm totally confused by this theory
of eco-libertarianism. Here's one paragraph. For anyone who has not
read the web site the class in this example is the equivalent of the
world.
"Suppose it is a class that operates on an ongoing basis, so that
students are continually dropping out and new students entering
(community education classes are often like this; it is obviously how
the world is). Suppose that a few students ("capitalists") have
managed to control 100% of the class resources, in accordance with the
rules for doing so. And now a new student enters. Are the capitalists
still entitled to 100% of the class's resources? No. The new student
is entitled to a standardized, initial (i.e., "fundamental") share of
class resources--teacher time, etc."
Does this mean that a new student (wouldn't this be known as a baby?)
would have access to my yard? Who would determine what a "fundamental
share of resources" is?
Are you allowed to "own" property under eco-libertarianism? Can I
build a barbed-wire fence around my yard and shoot someone who forces
their way in?
CR
> http://www.efn.org/~bsharvy/ecolibparty.html
Sorry to double post but I've been thinking about your theory. I think
I know what you're driving at. Here's another example similar to the
classroom example:
Suppose the world consists of 100 acres and there are 100 capitalists
in the world. Each capitalist has legally purchased 1 acre. Suddenly a
"new" person enters the world. Uh Oh. There's no land left for this
person. Its not fair. They should be entitled to a "fair share" of
land. Is this about right?
Here's how I think this would be resolved in a libertarian world.
First off this "new" person would be someone's baby, correct? The
parent of the baby would be responsible for the baby until adulthood.
When the baby reaches adulthood he has a number of options. He can
convince his parents to sell or rent some of their land to him. He can
try to rent from another owner until he saves up enough money to buy a
small piece of property. All of his options consist of trying to
voluntarily obtain property from others.
Here is my guess at how it might be resolved in your eco-libertarian
world. The baby would still live with his parents until adulthood. At
that time a government panel would determine how much land this "new"
person should receive and which capitalists would have their land
confiscated to give to the "new" person.
ActualGeek
> > Yep, its the libertarian way. Unfortunately, the Nature conservancy is
> > more socialist than libertarin. Thus, they have banned the cruising
> > sailors who have been visiting that island for decades from anchoring
> > there (Despite the fact that these people at their worst have little
> > impact on the island, and at their majority, work to help the previous
> > caretaker to clean the island and clean up from stoms.)
>
> I agree that it's stupid to ban boats but isn't that their right? How
> is that socialist?
Its typical collectivist thinking-- we'll take over the island and only
let the "proletariat" use it-- and not let those evil rich yachties
(Which, btw is a lifestyle in which the average participant is clearly
middle class, and lower after they bought the boat.)
Meanwhile have you gotten any invitations to go to Palmyra? I guess
not, but their "party bigwigs" fly in there for their vacations and fly
out.
>
> > Meanwhile, they have been flying planes in and out and disrupting the
> > habitats of the turtles (Which are apparently rare, or endangered).
>
> Also stupid, also their right.
I was pointing out that it was stupid, not that it isn't their right.
This is not what the nature conservancy claims to support, and a prior
incident like this caused me to drop my membership in the early 90s.
> Actually I heard a story about the Conservancy that IS bad. I was
> hiking on a trail created by the Conservancy near where I live a few
> weeks ago. I ran into another hiker who told me the way they got the
> land was by having the government condemn it because it contained an
> endangered flower. Then they were able to buy the land cheap from the
> owner. I still think the Conservancy is a good idea in theory but they
> may be getting taken over by socialists!
We need a libertarian nature conservancy. One that will exploit some of
the land profitably, while taking good care of it, as well run national
parks do, and use that money to buy more land.
> Let me try to explain why I argued with you on this point. We
> libertarians often make the case that if you don't like something, for
> example the way a business is run, start your own business. Or don't
> shop there. Or start a boycott. In other words we offer free market
> alternatives.
I agree with this.
> I think because of your dislike of environmentalists you are
> labeling all their actions as socialist. I'm just trying to
> distinguish between them.
Now, I don't deny painting with a broad brush, but I have met very few
environmentalists who weren't socialists. You and I see pretty much eye
to eye, but do you think the nature conservancy is run by rational
people?
I don't. And I regret the loss of palmyra, as it is a place I wanted to
go in the future.
Its bad economics too- they could pay the budget of keeping palmyra in
good shape by simply charging cruisers a reasonable fee.
Instead they banned them all-- not because they were doing damage, but
because they are "Rich yachties" -- which is a total prejudice, and not
even true!
ActualGeek
>> Meanwhile, they have been flying planes in and out and disrupting the
> > habitats of the turtles (Which are apparently rare, or endangered).
>
> Also stupid, also their right.
Another point is that this is a strategic location for stopping between
hawaii and other south pacific locations. In other words, by banning
all boats they are putting people in potentially needless danger.
They are forcing them to go elsewhere, when weather and safety may not
make that wise.
ActualGeek
> > I'm a libertarian. See:
> > http://www.efn.org/~bsharvy/ecolibparty.html
>
> Sorry to double post but I've been thinking about your theory. I think
> I know what you're driving at. Here's another example similar to the
> classroom example:
>
> Suppose the world consists of 100 acres and there are 100 capitalists
> in the world.
Despite the fact that this is a hypothetical, I want to point out that
many people assume there is only X land in the world. This is not true-
effectively, there is infinite land in the world because property gets
subdivided into smaller pieces and built up to create new property-- eg,
a 10 acre lot is only ten acres, but a 50 story building on that lot, is
maby 400 acres. You can buy property that is part of that 10 acre lot
by buying a condo in the building. There is "land" enough for everyone
to live.
Also, coastlines change, and countries extend themselves, even if you
ignore building, people are creating new land more and more. The new
tokyo (or was that hong kong?) airport is an artificial island.
> Here is my guess at how it might be resolved in your eco-libertarian
> world. The baby would still live with his parents until adulthood. At
> that time a government panel would determine how much land this "new"
> person should receive and which capitalists would have their land
> confiscated to give to the "new" person.
Which means I think its dishonest for him to call it libertarian.