libertarianism and economics
Andrew Victor Jablon
t): but what if someones economic policies violate that right? If a company is discrementating based upon socio-economic factors, i.e. where someone lives (the red lining that goes on with car insurance is a prime example) should they, according to libertarianism, be allowed to do so? doesnt that economic policy violate other peoples rights?
I hope y'all can understand my question, basicly:under a libertarian mindset, can the government interfer in individual companies economic policies if those policies violate someone's rights?
thanks,
hard to port, im coming about,
AvJ
Robert J. Kolker
> Having just listened to a speaker on libertarianism, one aspect still remains confusing. The libertarian(sp?) argues for a minamilist government, one which exists only to provide for the national defense, a "police force" of some sort, and a judiciary
; the last two to provide for cases in which someones "rights" are threatened. Now then, one right, according to this speaker, is the right of self determination (i.e. the right to move up and down the socio-economic ladder as you and your abilities see
fi
>t): but what if someones economic policies violate that right? If a company is discrementating based upon socio-economic factors, i.e. where someone lives (the red lining that goes on with car insurance is a prime example) should they, according to libe
rtarianism, be allowed to do so? doesnt that economic policy violate other peoples rights?
You are making a categorical error here. You assume that people
the *right* to be insured, employed, etc.. Nay, nay. These are things
that come about by entering into a contract with someone. If no one
wants to make such a contract with you (for instance), then tough
nuggies. You only unconditonal rights you posses are the right to
your life, your liberty and whatever property you have. Your right
to life does not entail your right to be fed, but your right to go
out and seek your livelihood. No one has any *uncondtional* claim
of life support on anyone else, except for helpless infants. The
parents who brought them into the world are obliged for this. BTW
no one is obliged to support any child other than his own. Then again
no one is forbidden to support a child that is not his own. In a free
land, charity is always permitted.
Another way of putting the matter is: If you have the right to
insurance (for instance) then someone else has the duty or obligation
to insure you. That in effect makes them your slave. Are you advocating
slavery?
>
>
> I hope y'all can understand my question, basicly:under a libertarian mindset, can the government interfer in individual companies economic policies if those policies violate someone's rights?
>thanks,
>hard to port, im coming about,
>AvJ
You are welcome,
Conan the Libertarian
--
"If you can't love the Constitution, then at least hate the Government"
Gordon Fitch
| > Having just listened to a speaker on libertarianism, one aspect still remains confusing. The libertarian(sp?) argues for a minamilist government, one which exists only to provide for the national defense, a "police force" of some sort, and a judiciary
| ; the last two to provide for cases in which someones "rights" are threatened. Now then, one right, according to this speaker, is the right of self determination (i.e. the right to move up and down the socio-economic ladder as you and your abilities see
| fi
| >t): but what if someones economic policies violate that right? If a company is discrementating based upon socio-economic factors, i.e. where someone lives (the red lining that goes on with car insurance is a prime example) should they, according to libe
| rtarianism, be allowed to do so? doesnt that economic policy violate other peoples rights?
r...@world.std.com (Robert J. Kolker) writes:
| You are making a categorical error here. You assume that people
| the *right* to be insured, employed, etc.. Nay, nay. These are things
| that come about by entering into a contract with someone. If no one
| wants to make such a contract with you (for instance), then tough
| nuggies. You only unconditonal rights you posses are the right to
| your life, your liberty and whatever property you have. ...
Okay, but you need a certain amount of property to live,
especially in an industrial society. A person who has
nothing is in deep trouble, because the original access
to Nature has been sequestered by the inventors of the
property system. She must either die -- or may find
work, but at such an extreme disadvantage that her job
may be virtual enslavement.
You need a certain amount of property to enjoy liberty,
too -- for instance, to go where you want, you have to
go on your own property, or with someone else's
permission, or use communal property (the public roads).
So where does this property come from? Or if it
doesn't, what good are the rights to life and liberty?
The original liberals, like Jefferson, were all pretty
well off, and didn't worry about these things. But
the many of the rest of us have to.
--
)*( Gordon Fitch )*( g...@panix.com )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta., NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Russ Nelson
Okay, but you need a certain amount of property to live,
especially in an industrial society. A person who has
nothing is in deep trouble, because the original access
to Nature has been sequestered by the inventors of the
property system. She must either die -- or may find
work, but at such an extreme disadvantage that her job
may be virtual enslavement.
Most people have jobs that are virtual enslavement. Most people, by
virtue of the way they choose to live their lives, own very little
capital.
The new frugality movement is pointing to the way out of this dilemma.
Read _Your Money or Your Life_, by Joe Dominguiez and Vicki Robin.
--
--russ <nel...@sun.soe.clarkson.edu> Businesses persuade; Governments force.
Gordon Fitch
| Okay, but you need a certain amount of property to live,
| especially in an industrial society. A person who has
| nothing is in deep trouble, because the original access
| to Nature has been sequestered by the inventors of the
| property system. She must either die -- or may find
| work, but at such an extreme disadvantage that her job
| may be virtual enslavement.
nel...@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) writes:
| Most people have jobs that are virtual enslavement. Most people, by
| virtue of the way they choose to live their lives, own very little
| capital.
|
| The new frugality movement is pointing to the way out of this dilemma.
| Read _Your Money or Your Life_, by Joe Dominguiez and Vicki Robin.
A person who can _choose_ frugality is already well off,
and has the intellectual equipment to become a bourgeois,
to fulfill the classical liberal ideal. We already know
about such people; they're the people for whom the system
works. The outstanding question is: What about the people
for whom it doesn't work? To say they're lazy or dumb
assigns them to a category but it doesn't answer the
question.
James A. Donald
> | The new frugality movement is pointing to the way out of this dilemma.
> | Read _Your Money or Your Life_, by Joe Dominguiez and Vicki Robin.
>
> A person who can _choose_ frugality is already well off,
> and has the intellectual equipment to become a bourgeois,
> to fulfill the classical liberal ideal. We already know
> about such people; they're the people for whom the system
> works. The outstanding question is: What about the people
> for whom it doesn't work? To say they're lazy or dumb
> assigns them to a category but it doesn't answer the
> question.
Sooner or later, evolution has to get back into action. Probably sooner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| We have the right to defend ourselves and our
James A. Donald | property, because of the kind of animals that we
| are. True law derives from this right, not from
jame...@infoserv.com | the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
Russ Nelson
No one ever said evolution was pretty (or fair).
The frugality movement gives people the power to better themselves. If
we can't force people to better themselves, and they won't choose it
themselves, what else *can* we do??
Don Pajerek
>In article <1u8ohl$d...@sun.Panix.Com> g...@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>
> Okay, but you need a certain amount of property to live,
> especially in an industrial society. A person who has
> nothing is in deep trouble, because the original access
> to Nature has been sequestered by the inventors of the
> property system. She must either die -- or may find
> work, but at such an extreme disadvantage that her job
> may be virtual enslavement.
>
>Most people have jobs that are virtual enslavement. Most people, by
>virtue of the way they choose to live their lives, own very little
>capital.
Is this really accurate? How much choice do people have in a situation
where the economy is built on technologies that, due to their size and
expense, are available only to large organizations, leaving the average
person with only their labor as a salable commodity?
This, BTW, is precisely the factor that is changing only recently, as
significant computing and communications resources are being made available
to the individual at a reasonable cost.
Don Pajerek
Standard disclaimers apply.