Gotcha. A lazy, bull**** answer for a lazy, bull**** economic philosophy.
First of all, libertarianism is a political philosophy; not an economic philosophy. The vast majority of libertarians support the Free Market (Laissez-faire) kind of economy because the core tenets of both are the same.
You have suffered some major local trauma when it comes to roads. Not every system has to be inefficient when it comes to public roads. The one that traumatized you was a local incident when you look at it on a global scale.
Because everything handled by the government in the case is equal for either of you still.
Because Somalia is an example of what happens when the government losses it's power. The warlords are the ones who rise up and take power. Some people go to them for protection and some people are just forced to join.
LAWLS
You are also living in the 50s.
Mac lern2laff. You know its the truth, and its funny.
It is not a practical idea as history has shown here in the USA. Marking buildings as insured was a common practice in the colonies. There is a reason we went away from it.
I'm not certain what article you are talking about (perhaps you have me confused with someone else?) but I'm not entirely opposed to a public road system, provided the costs can be charged to the people who use it (i.e. toll roads). My main issue with most government programs is that they draw from a central bucket of money that people pay into regardless of whether or not they use the service in question. Roads are one such example.
Hence the "initial chaos" I referred to. Pretty soon, I think you would see road usage billing companies pop up that would provide administration and collection for a larger group of private road owners, so I, as a driver, would be billed from one company, but the money they receive from me would be parceled out.
1. Being able to hire better lawyers than the justice system will give you will only increase the chance of the guilty going free. Private police would drastically increase the chance of the innocent being imprisoned, killed, or otherwise oppressed.
So now we have maintenance costs, the owner of the roads collecting a profit and fees to cover his expenses and a 3rd party collection company that makes a profit and has expenses.
We had this debate another time and someone mentioned when some reporters checked up on how many pot holes government road workers fixed a day and the total came up to something like 7. Meanwhile the reporters could fill over a hundred of them in a day with ease and this was used as an example of how inefficient public roads where when it came to managing money. I then put forth the suggestion that the roads be keept public but that work on them is done by contracting private companies. We then spent 2-3 pages where the other person keept calling me on the fact that I was for public roads but then for private companies doing the repairs which apparantly made me a hypocrit.
The trouble with ANY philosophy dealing with rights is a situation where one person’s rights conflict directly with someone else’s rights. I defy you to name any sophisticated philosophy that handles such situations with ease.
No argument there. Rights come with responsibilities. Since animals (and certain human beings in certain situations) cannot understand or accept the responsibilities, they do not have rights.
Justification for a negative right over a positive right is a totally separate concept than distinguishing between them. Our philosophy is based on the non-coercion principle. Negative rights comply with this principle; positive rights do not. Case closed.
Yea, and I can fly to the moon and back just by flapping my arms. Of course, I just don’t feel like doing that at this time.
For once, I agree with you. What was I thinking when I thought you might actually back up one of your statements?
Really? So for example, the mentally handicapped, children and the unborn - none of these have any rights? For instance, the right to live?
You cannot justify the non-coersion principle, you believe in it because you want to.
Name a positive right.
This has been covered to death in earlier threads and you know it. I wasn’t talking about people losing all of their rights, I was referring to people losing some of the rights attributed to an adult of sound mind due to such examples as you mentioned above. People under a certain age and people with severe mental handicaps cannot understand the obligations and responsibilities that come with signing a contract; therefore, most societies hold any contracts signed by them to not be legally binding. Another example deals with criminals. Few libertarians consider keeping violent criminals in jail as a violation of the criminal’s negative rights. It is possible for a person to abrogate some of his rights by his actions.
Reading comprehension problems, Dondrei? You wrote that negative and positive rights are indistinguishable because advocates of either type of rights can’t justify their position. My answer focused on your use of the term “indistinguishableâ€, especially since you didn’t qualify it. Said differently, I answered that it is easy to differentiate between a negative right and a positive right. Justifying which, if any, is “better†is a totally different issue.
That’s a good one but, technically, Good Samaritan Laws in the States almost always are "hold from harm" types of laws. The law you’re referring to more can be more aptly described as a "duty to rescue" type of law.Yaboosh said:
Give KillerAim a baseball bat and 5 minutes alone with you and you will agree as well. (or not as he probably would not bother to beat sense in your head but I hope you get my point)
You do not have the right to refuse assistance to a person being robbed.
Complete tangent. You weren't referring to losing rights at all, you were talking about why some things have rights and some don't. You were saying that animals do not have rights because they cannot understand or accept responsibilities. You didn't qualify which rights - and that's a pretty big oversight.
They are not indistinguishable because of that fact, if anything it's the reverse, they are indistinguishable so therefore negative rights are no more justifiable than positive ones. My point was simply that if you believe positive rights are not justifiable then you cannot believe that negative rights are - because they are equivalent.
Please tell me that this is one of those times that you are attempting to be funny!
Only to a person that thinks that all you have to do to make a right Negative is to use the word “not” in its description. If my explanation wasn’t satisfactory, try one of these:
No, the tangent is your initial statement that libertarians limit their discussion of rights to the human species, as if this is a characteristic unique to them. Care to show me where other political philosophies such as socialism, oligarchies, dictatorships, true democracies, monarchies, etc., refer to animal rights? If not, then your initial comment was tangential. If you really want to discuss animal rights, start a new thread.
