E-conservatives and libertarianism

[WildBerry]

Re: E-conservatives and libertarianism

WildBerry:

I’m assuming that what you’re asking me is how could requiring that a person who creates a dangerous situation must remedy any harm caused by the situation be anything but a moral stance?

You did very well clairify the position and the sensiiblity (while I do not agree with the responsibilities laid out in the example - partially because our laws slightly differ). But my whole point is that as far as I can see, neither the law concerning these cases nor the libertarian belief are amoral stances. They are firmly based on moral takes on the world.

This, in turn, seems to clash with the idea of your ideal of legislation without personal morals behind them. I do, indeed, think that such a concept is inherently in conflict, and would like to know where you draw the border of moral.

 

[Johnny]

Re: E-conservatives and libertarianism

All this legal talk is reminding me of This thread

Probably my favourite poster of all time because she wasn't careful with anything she said. On internet forums people usually get very reserved to not say something they could be called on later, not her. She just blurred everything out regardless of how little sense it made and her short stay on these forums where just a big gang bang of the entire community refuting everything she brought up.

Oh Ellie, you came and you gave without taking, but they sent you away oh Ellie, You kis... okay the lyrics end there.

 

[phool]

Re: E-conservatives and libertarianism

In the US, court cases are public record - no copyright. Don't know what the UK gov't has said about their records, though.

Copyright wasn't the right word to use; Lexisnexis is a private sector subscriber online resource, I'm not sure what their terms are. While cases are public record most cases aren't freely accessible online, it should be an easy conversion nowadays so I'm not sure why. All legislation is, as well as law commission reports (these present a very readable review, analysis and recommendations).

 

[KillerAim]

Re: E-conservatives and libertarianism

WildBerry:

But my whole point is that as far as I can see, neither the law concerning these cases nor the libertarian belief are amoral stances. They are firmly based on moral takes on the world.

This, in turn, seems to clash with the idea of your ideal of legislation without personal morals behind them. I do, indeed, think that such a concept is inherently in conflict, and would like to know where you draw the border of moral.

I disagree. I believe the negative statement of the Golden Rule, "don't do anything to others that you would not want done to you", can be derived logically. How can I expect someone to respect my life and property if I do not respect his or her life and property? As soon as I decide that I have the right to interfere with your control over your life and property, whether my decision is based on need, the good of society, or just the belief that 'might makes right', aren't I implicitly accepting the fact that you have a right to take similar actions against me for any of the same reasons?

It's true that many times what is acceptable or non-acceptable in the libertarian philosophy is also acceptable or non-acceptable in moral systems. After all, isn't some version of the Golden Rule found in most cultures' ethic codes? I just believe that the Golden Rule is the fundamental rule that governs interactions in any society that has lasted any length of time. Put differently, I believe that many codes of ethics incorporate rules that are 'moral-free'; they are there because they are necessary to make sure that the society functions in the first place.

 

[Garbad_the_Weak]

Re: E-conservatives and libertarianism

I don't expect people to respect me because of some silly moral law. I expect them to fear my steel toed boots. And that's reality.

 

[lAmebAdger]

Re: E-conservatives and libertarianism

it's people with your attitude that lower the chances for moral to actually work...

from a specific point of wealth on you'll suddenly find people who think with their heart, not with their fists.

i'm sure you can find plenty of people who would spare someone's life even though that someone hates you and was occasionally shown to want to kill you in the past.

you might say that's one of the faults of christianity, but i say it's one of the virtues...

 

[BobCox2]

Re: E-conservatives and libertarianism

I don't expect people to respect me because of some silly moral law. I expect them to fear my steel toed boots. And that's reality.

Do you really think your such a bad-*** you can walk a mile and kick everyones ***?
I got news for you, in less than 1/2 a mile people will start teaming up on you, then the rest of us will pick out a few strong people that are smart enough to know that 1 person can't beat everyone and hire them to enforce the collective will, it's called a society and both it and Governments will evolve in one way or another out of Anarchy
It's Common Sense, sooner or later you get Governments which are a necessary IE lesser evil and so it's preferred to limit them.

 

[SaroDarksbane]

Re: E-conservatives and libertarianism

I don't expect people to respect me because of some silly moral law. I expect them to fear my steel toed boots. And that's reality.

Don't be surprised when someone with a bigger steel toed boot shows you "reality". Fear works well enough in the short term, but true respect is worth much more in the end.

 

[phool]

Re: E-conservatives and libertarianism

So, according to wikipedia I found out yesterday I'm probably more 'classical liberal' than 'libertarian', probably some others who identify as pretty libertarian too. This means I have no beef with stuff like roads being public sector, I'd just rather indiscriminate taxes are replaced with tolls.

 

[jmervyn]

Re: E-conservatives and libertarianism

{/Looks askance at phool's self-definition and goes to seat near Saro on the Libertarian bus}

 

[Garbad_the_Weak]

Re: E-conservatives and libertarianism

Don't be surprised when someone with a bigger steel toed boot shows you "reality". Fear works well enough in the short term, but true respect is worth much more in the end.

Which is why I have my gang, of course. And nukes. The bottom line still remains that the only morality that really matters in the long run is the power to compel.

 

[lAmebAdger]

Re: E-conservatives and libertarianism

Which is why I have my gang, of course. And nukes. The bottom line still remains that the only morality that really matters in the long run is the power to compel.

that's not morality. if anything, it creates morality(/immorality)...

ofc what you should compel with stands to reason here too

 

[KillerAim]

Re: E-conservatives and libertarianism

Garbad_the_Weak:

The bottom line still remains that the only morality that really matters in the long run is the power to compel.

I think that you missed Saro’s point. If you live in a Society where ‘might makes right’ is the philosophy both within the Society as well as outside of the Society, then you will constantly have to be on the guard against attacks from all sources. Not only will you have to allocate a large amount of resources to protect from external threats, you also have to allocate a large amount to protect yourself from your own people.

Now, both Saro-Land and KA-Land will spend a lot less on defending ourselves from our own people. In addition, while you will have to worry about everyone, we can form an alliance between ourselves and any other like-minded country for our mutual protection. Two things are certain: (1) spending less on protection allows our people to live better lives than your people; (2) we would definitely have the wherewithal to handle a punka** country like yours under any foreseeable scenario.

 

[Garbad_the_Weak]

Re: E-conservatives and libertarianism

Garbad_the_Weak:

I think that you missed Saro’s point. If you live in a Society where ‘might makes right’ is the philosophy both within the Society as well as outside of the Society, then you will constantly have to be on the guard against attacks from all sources. Not only will you have to allocate a large amount of resources to protect from external threats, you also have to allocate a large amount to protect yourself from your own people.

Now, both Saro-Land and KA-Land will spend a lot less on defending ourselves from our own people. In addition, while you will have to worry about everyone, we can form an alliance between ourselves and any other like-minded country for our mutual protection. Two things are certain: (1) spending less on protection allows our people to live better lives than your people; (2) we would definitely have the wherewithal to handle a punka** country like yours under any foreseeable scenario.

And you missed the larger point. Morality other than the power to compel is illusory.

 

[lAmebAdger]

Re: E-conservatives and libertarianism

and you need to learn to express yourself more accurately.

power can never be morality, it could create it, though

 

[phool]

Re: E-conservatives and libertarianism

{/Looks askance at phool's self-definition and goes to seat near Saro on the Libertarian bus}

Funny, I had you pegged as a run-of-the-mill conservative.

I'll continue to describe myself as libertarian if pushed to attach myself to a political persuasion, 'classical liberal' is just going to confuse people.

 

[KillerAim]

Re: E-conservatives and libertarianism

phool:

So, according to wikipedia I found out yesterday I'm probably more 'classical liberal' than 'libertarian', probably some others who identify as pretty libertarian too. This means I have no beef with stuff like roads being public sector, I'd just rather indiscriminate taxes are replaced with tolls.

I believe that most libertarians in the United States fall under the 'minarchist libertarian' label which is pretty much synonymous with the term 'classic liberal'. Use taxes, such as tolls, are always preferred since they they attribute the cost of resource to the actual people who use them rather than spreading the cost across all people in a society. The trouble is that if you can accurately assigned costs based on usage, then government involvement is almost always not needed at all.

The classic argument for government involvement in the Market is the generation of economic public goods, since the Market is incapable of producing them. While what defines a public good in theory is specifically defined, this definition is sometimes hard to apply to the real world. Where there is no argument is with the following: if a service or good is available in the private sector it is definitely NOT a public good.

 

[BobCox2]

Re: E-conservatives and libertarianism

The part above after the : reads as sarcasm to me

 

[PFSS]

Re: E-conservatives and libertarianism

The classic argument for government involvement in the Market is the generation of economic public goods, since the Market is incapable of producing them. While what defines a public good in theory is specifically defined, this definition is sometimes hard to apply to the real world. Where there is no argument is with the following: if a service or good is available in the private sector it is definitely NOT a public good.

Can you give an example of a service or good that is not available in the private sector?

 

[KillerAim]

Re: E-conservatives and libertarianism

PFSS:

Can you give an example of a service or good that is not available in the private sector?

Well, the classic examples are National Defense and lighthouses. A more modern example is commercial-free, over-the-air television. Another example is a street light.