It's a question I've pondered several times, but haven't felt like asking until now: How does libertarianism reconcile with enviromentalism? Some self proclaimed libertarians, notably those in the tea party, deny the scientific consensus on man made climate change, and to me that seems like a grave error if we want our species to continue. Of course I realize that not all libertarians are like that, and that others do acknowledge climate change, but it is still a worrying trend.
In a libertarian society with little to no regulations what's to stop me from taking a barrel of gasoline and burning it on my property, provided that I paid for the gasoline? I know no one would actually do that (I hope), but how about this: What's to stop me from burying toxic waste from my factory on my own property? What's to stop me from selling that property to another person/company and washing my hands of the responsibility? What's to stop me, or anyone else for that matter, from absolutely decimating the enviroment on their own property as long as it turns a profit (or it it's just their whim)?
I asked this very question in a Libertarian forum I visited. The answer I got was that in the event that something you do on your own property might adversely affect your neighbor, it would be better handled in a civil court after the fact than through governmental regulations imposed before the fact. Of course, there are problems with that, and the person who explained it recognized there were problems with it, although she did not identify specific problems or offer solutions. But she did recognize the weakness.
However, such an approach apparently fits the ideology in its pure form.
Quote from: SGOS on June 20, 2014, 07:53:54 PM
I asked this very question in a Libertarian forum I visited. The answer I got was that in the event that something you do on your own property might adversely affect your neighbor, it would be better handled in a civil court after the fact than through governmental regulations imposed before the fact. Of course, there are problems with that, and the person who explained it recognized there were problems with it, although she did not identify specific problems or offer solutions. But she did recognize the weakness.
However, such an approach apparently fits the ideology in its pure form.
Yeah, but what if it's never found out due to no one checking on the property, due to no regulations? In the example of buried toxic waste, no one could investigate because that would be trespassing, and no regulations would mean that whoever the property owner wanted out (like enviromental health agencies) would have to stay out and not be able to inspect the property. Then suppose that long after the property owner is dead the problem is found out, and it is found out that the burial of toxic waste did indeed affect the neighboring properties. Who's at fault? The original property owner, against whom no recourse can be taken because he/she is dead? Or is it the fault of the person who inherited/bought the property, even though they had no part in burial of toxic waste? To me it seems like it makes it too easy to fuck something up, hide it, and then wash your hands of the issue.
Also suppose there are no tangible, immediate effects on the enviroment. How could a case be brought against someone if the damage to property won't occur until 100 years later? Can it be argued that the current owner will suffer loss if s/he would be dead by the time his/her property is affected by the enviromental damage?
Quote from: The Skeletal Atheist on June 20, 2014, 08:16:15 PM
To me it seems like it makes it too easy to fuck something up, hide it, and then wash your hands of the issue.
It seems like that to me too. Your neighbor puts a septic system on the edge of his property 20 feet from your well and you get hepatitis or some other life long disease. Yeah, you can go to court, but it does little to prevent the problem. You can sue for money, and maybe you win, but you're still sick or dead.
Obviously, the ideology would have to be tweaked here and there from its pure form or there would be a lot of chaos. But then you're heading back into what Libertarianism attempts to avoid.
A much better argument to reject the libertarian drivel...
http://www.salon.com/2014/06/14/why_i_left_libertarianism_an_ethical_critique_of_a_limited_ideology/
I'll assume that aside from AllPurposeAtheist, this thread exists because people are genuinely curious and actually want to know the answer to the question. The one who isn't included in that group can take a vacation because I'm going to treat this thread as if it is serious.
The key to libertarian environmentalism or free market environmentalism (it goes by both names) is that you won't allow someone else to pollute your property. People can pollute their own property, but should ensure that none of the pollution spreads onto your property. At this point everyone says "but the second law of thermodynamics" as if that is a flaw in the proposal instead of being the key to the proposal.
It is the key because they can't stop it from spreading, so therefore can't pollute their own property either. If their pollution spreads to your property that is an infringement on you and is actionable.
QuotePeople can pollute their own property, but should ensure that none of the pollution spreads onto your property.
Yeah, that's no line of bullshit is it Jason?
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on June 20, 2014, 10:07:10 PM
Yeah, that's no line of bullshit is it Jason?
It makes sense for everyone interested in an actual discussion, especially since I added lots of context around that quote. Like I said, you can go on vacation, I want to treat this as a serious thread with actual content.
Come back if you want to act like a grown up.
I have to admit I've always seen environmental issues as being tough for libertarians, so I have a bit to add. First, wouldn't simply making a law forbidding the dumping of toxic waste be more economical than forcing people to bring about individual lawsuits? What if the entity doing the dumping was a wealthy business that could financially ram their neighbors into the ground? When you take into account the difficulty of putting a precise price tag on such things, as ecology isn't really an exact science, doesn't that sound like it could put regular people at an enormous disadvantage against a wealthy corporation? I think TSA also makes a valid point about long term consequences and dead owners, if you're willing to argue the that people who would inspect for these kinds of things can just be thrown off the property, though I'm not sure you would argue that point.
Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on June 20, 2014, 10:00:12 PM
I'll assume that aside from AllPurposeAtheist, this thread exists because people are genuinely curious and actually want to know the answer to the question. The one who isn't included in that group can take a vacation because I'm going to treat this thread as if it is serious.
The key to libertarian environmentalism or free market environmentalism (it goes by both names) is that you won't allow someone else to pollute your property. People can pollute their own property, but should ensure that none of the pollution spreads onto your property. At this point everyone says "but the second law of thermodynamics" as if that is a flaw in the proposal instead of being the key to the proposal.
It is the key because they can't stop it from spreading, so therefore can't pollute their own property either. If their pollution spreads to your property that is an infringement on you and is actionable.
Noted, and I appreciate your input, but what of my buried toxic waste example? Once again, such a thing would be hard to find out without either whistleblowers or inspections. Assuming there are no whistleblowers, and no inspections due to lax regulations, how is that suppose to be addressed when it only becomes apparent long after the original owner has left/died? Does the one who inherits the property have to deal with the civil fallout, even though he/she had no knowledge of the burial? Toxic waste burial can cause extreme problems over a long period of time, if you need an example just look up Love Canal. At the end, someone has to assume responsiblilty, but I would think that inspections would do better on cutting down on such a thing than civil suits after the fact.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on June 20, 2014, 09:27:20 PM
A much better argument to reject the libertarian drivel...
http://www.salon.com/2014/06/14/why_i_left_libertarianism_an_ethical_critique_of_a_limited_ideology/
This guy said he drifted away from libertarianism and became an anarchist because libertarianism wasn't pure enough (maybe). I did not following his logic or his meaning very well, however.
Myself, I like rules. I like it when you have to get a permit to put in a septic system, and a county official comes out to inspect the project before completion to make sure it's safe. I also like electrical inspectors that will reject a wiring job that is substandard. I like the idea of covenants on housing developments that allow home owners to enforce the standards set forth for that development. I like it when government officials inspect the meat I buy at the store.
Unfortunately, corruption and ideological thinking circumvent our rules, or new rules are created that provide for favoritism in our current system because men are greedy and self serving, but to create such a system intentionally doesn't appeal to me. I don't trust my fellow man to act in society's best interests. In fact, that mistrust is somewhat universal, which is why societies have invented government in the first place.
Quote from: _Xenu_ on June 20, 2014, 11:08:13 PM
I have to admit I've always seen environmental issues as being tough for libertarians, so I have a bit to add. First, wouldn't simply making a law forbidding the dumping of toxic waste be more economical than forcing people to bring about individual lawsuits? What if the entity doing the dumping was a wealthy business that could financially ram their neighbors into the ground? When you take into account the difficulty of putting a precise price tag on such things, as ecology isn't really an exact science, doesn't that sound like it could put regular people at an enormous disadvantage against a wealthy corporation? I think TSA also makes a valid point about long term consequences and dead owners, if you're willing to argue the that people who would inspect for these kinds of things can just be thrown off the property, though I'm not sure you would argue that point.
One of my big problems with the libertarian view on property rights is property owners can do so much more damage to the environment than they could ever possibly compensate others for. In such a case what good does it do to bring a civil suit if the damages are a hundred or a million times the total worth of the offender?
I am not curious at all. "Libertarianism" is a wolf in sheeps clothing. "Hey guys, fuck you you want, marry whom you want, smoke pot and make it legal, just ignore that we have the same "fuck you I got mine" "all taxes are robbry" policy the right wing supports.
Libertarians are simply gas on the fire. We tried "trickle down" for 30 years and we've lost jobs and wages have not kept up with the cost of living.
The myth is that business owners are the "job creators". The reality is and even BILLIONAIRE NICK HANOUR knows this, that the working class are the job creators. He has said that no business owner, and I agree, is going to hire one more person than they have to hire, only demand forces them to do that. The more people that come through the door and buy stuff is the only thing that creates that demand. The bulk of the buying public is not the business owner or the 1%. The bulk of the buying public is the working class and working poor. Nick has said "MORE MONEY IN WORKERS POCKETS IS A WIN WIN, FOR BOTH THE WORKER AND THE BUSINESS OWNER".
SO FUCK LIBERTARIANS, I am not distracted by social issues.
Quote from: Berati on April 27, 2014, 12:09:29 AM
In economics, pollution is an externality whose cost affects a party who did not choose to incur that cost. This cost therefore has to be accounted for outside of the normal market forces (hence the term externality).
In this case, regulations are not an interruption of the free market process. They attempt to address a market failure.
This topic has already come up so I just quoted myself.
Libertarianism is childishly naive and the market fundamentalist concept of spontaneous order is a proven failure. However, libertarians don't let empirical evidence get in the way of such a perfect ideology. Check out reason four in the video below and ask yourself if you've come across any libertarians like this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJwN-EwBOgM
Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on June 20, 2014, 10:00:12 PM
I'll assume that aside from AllPurposeAtheist, this thread exists because people are genuinely curious and actually want to know the answer to the question. The one who isn't included in that group can take a vacation because I'm going to treat this thread as if it is serious.
The key to libertarian environmentalism or free market environmentalism (it goes by both names) is that you won't allow someone else to pollute your property. People can pollute their own property, but should ensure that none of the pollution spreads onto your property. At this point everyone says "but the second law of thermodynamics" as if that is a flaw in the proposal instead of being the key to the proposal.
It is the key because they can't stop it from spreading, so therefore can't pollute their own property either. If their pollution spreads to your property that is an infringement on you and is actionable.
So there is nothing different about free market environmentalism. It's just a halfway-around-your-asshole-to-wind-your-watch way of justifying the regulations that are already in place or proposed by non-libertarians.
Quote from: Berati on June 21, 2014, 10:14:48 AM
This topic has already come up so I just quoted myself.
Somehow I knew that when I told APA to grow up or shut up that you'd come along to take his place. So, shall we be discussing libertarianism as understood by 99.99999% of the population (including those who disagree with it but at least know what it is they are disagreeing with) or as understood by Berati?
Quote from: _Xenu_ on June 20, 2014, 11:08:13 PM
I have to admit I've always seen environmental issues as being tough for libertarians, so I have a bit to add. First, wouldn't simply making a law forbidding the dumping of toxic waste be more economical than forcing people to bring about individual lawsuits? What if the entity doing the dumping was a wealthy business that could financially ram their neighbors into the ground? When you take into account the difficulty of putting a precise price tag on such things, as ecology isn't really an exact science, doesn't that sound like it could put regular people at an enormous disadvantage against a wealthy corporation? I think TSA also makes a valid point about long term consequences and dead owners, if you're willing to argue the that people who would inspect for these kinds of things can just be thrown off the property, though I'm not sure you would argue that point.
From my point of view that's not much different from our current setup. If the businessman pollutes now, he pays a fine. If he pollutes under my system, he pays restitution. The only real difference is who he pays, the property owner who was actually harmed or the government. Even if the one doing the dumping is wealthy.
Quote from: The Skeletal Atheist on June 20, 2014, 11:12:02 PM
Noted, and I appreciate your input, but what of my buried toxic waste example? Once again, such a thing would be hard to find out without either whistleblowers or inspections. Assuming there are no whistleblowers, and no inspections due to lax regulations, how is that suppose to be addressed when it only becomes apparent long after the original owner has left/died? Does the one who inherits the property have to deal with the civil fallout, even though he/she had no knowledge of the burial? Toxic waste burial can cause extreme problems over a long period of time, if you need an example just look up Love Canal. At the end, someone has to assume responsiblilty, but I would think that inspections would do better on cutting down on such a thing than civil suits after the fact.
In this event, there may be an advantage to my system. Under the regulatory system, outside regulators have to come on to your property to test for something a neighbor is doing. And if you don't want people strutting across your property, too bad. But under my system, where you actually have a financial incentive to have them on your property, you actually invite them in and tell them what it is you wish them to look for.
The legacy issue is a tougher nut to crack. You'll have to trace back the ownership chain until you find who the original offender is. Suppose you in good faith buy a car and then find out the car was stolen. The proper solution is that the thief refund you the price of the car while the car is returned to the original owner. It wasn't his to sell, and by selling it to you he is stealing from you as well.
Love Canal, now that's an interesting case. Yes, they did bury toxic waste on their own property, but there's a lot more to the story than that. The chemical company disposing the chemcials received notice one day. The local school board wanted to take the property and build a school on it. The chemical company refused to sell, because that was their dump site. The school board threatened to take it by eminent domain if the chemical company refused to sell. Seeing as how they were going to lose the property anyway, the chemical company signed a contract saying that they will sell the property for the price of $1 if the school board promised to not build anything there for 100 years. The school board signed the contract, paid the $1, and then promptly built a school right on top of the dump site. This is an instance of the flashy headline on page 1, and then months later the full story on page 15. Everyone remembers the dumping, nobody remembers the rest of the story.
Quote from: Berati on June 21, 2014, 10:14:48 AM
This topic has already come up so I just quoted myself.
Libertarianism is childishly naive and the market fundamentalist concept of spontaneous order is a proven failure. However, libertarians don't let empirical evidence get in the way of such a perfect ideology. Check out reason four in the video below and ask yourself if you've come across any libertarians like this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJwN-EwBOgM
THANK YOU! Regulations are not there to hold back progress anymore than having speed limits is anti car.
What is going on now is one class is being called out on it's abuse and they are simply being crybabies instead of working to improve conditions.
Quote from: Brian37 on June 21, 2014, 08:45:49 AM
I am not curious at all. "Libertarianism" is a wolf in sheeps clothing. "Hey guys, fuck you you want, marry whom you want, smoke pot and make it legal, just ignore that we have the same "fuck you I got mine" "all taxes are robbry" policy the right wing supports.
Will you please stop lumping us all under the conservative libertarian umbrella?
Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on June 21, 2014, 10:41:18 AM
Somehow I knew that when I told APA to grow up or shut up that you'd come along to take his place. So, shall we be discussing libertarianism as understood by 99.99999% of the population (including those who disagree with it but at least know what it is they are disagreeing with) or as understood by Berati?
And I knew that if a thread came up about your secular religion you would descend with your pompous arrogance and the ridiculous claims that those who critisize libertarianism just don't understand it.
Grow up Jason. It's time to look at real world solutions to real world problems and leave the fantasies behind.
Quote from: Berati on June 21, 2014, 12:41:45 PM
And I knew that if a thread came up about your secular religion you would descend with your pompous arrogance and the ridiculous claims that those who critisize libertarianism just don't understand it.
Grow up Jason. It's time to look at real world solutions to real world problems and leave the fantasies behind.
99.9999% of those who disagree with it know what it is. That doesn't include you.
OR
You are the only one in the world who understands it and everyone else, including libertarians, are wrong about the definition of the term.
This isn't even a question of if it is right or wrong, it is a question of what the fuck is the definition of the term. Is it defined by how everyone in the world except Berati uses it, or is it defined by how Berati uses it? So which is it?
Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on June 21, 2014, 12:47:50 PM
99.9999% of those who disagree with it know what it is. That doesn't include you.
OR
You are the only one in the world who understands it and everyone else, including libertarians, are wrong about the definition of the term.
This isn't even a question of if it is right or wrong, it is a question of what the fuck is the definition of the term. Is it defined by how everyone in the world except Berati uses it, or is it defined by how Berati uses it? So which is it?
You sound just like Casparov. Not a surprise as you both follow faith based ideologies.
So the truth is I define it the same as everyone else. It’s really a simpleton’s ideology so it’s not difficult to understand.
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/key-concepts-libertarianism
https://www.lp.org/platform
http://www.libertarianism.org/guide/what-is-libertarianism
Since you never bothered to define your version of libertarianism, just pick any of the above and every criticism I’ve made applies!
I give examples of stupid libertarian ideas and your only reply has been to point out some good ideas. Like they somehow cancel out. They don’t.
Your useless accusations that I’m not defining libertarianism correctly are not going to win you any points. None. You’re right back to the No True Scotsman fallacy which you seem incapable of understanding.
You're right Jason. I'm not interested in a discussion that tries to legitimise your bullshit notion of how magical ideology will magically fix everything. You want shortcuts? Fine. Take the path through the woods.
Quote from: Berati on June 21, 2014, 03:38:27 PMSo the truth is I define it the same as everyone else.
Ok, now you're saying the real world isn't a True Scotsman. Fascinating.
Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on June 21, 2014, 10:52:09 AM
From my point of view that's not much different from our current setup. If the businessman pollutes now, he pays a fine. If he pollutes under my system, he pays restitution. The only real difference is who he pays, the property owner who was actually harmed or the government. Even if the one doing the dumping is wealthy.
In this event, there may be an advantage to my system. Under the regulatory system, outside regulators have to come on to your property to test for something a neighbor is doing. And if you don't want people strutting across your property, too bad. But under my system, where you actually have a financial incentive to have them on your property, you actually invite them in and tell them what it is you wish them to look for.
The legacy issue is a tougher nut to crack. You'll have to trace back the ownership chain until you find who the original offender is. Suppose you in good faith buy a car and then find out the car was stolen. The proper solution is that the thief refund you the price of the car while the car is returned to the original owner. It wasn't his to sell, and by selling it to you he is stealing from you as well.
Love Canal, now that's an interesting case. Yes, they did bury toxic waste on their own property, but there's a lot more to the story than that. The chemical company disposing the chemcials received notice one day. The local school board wanted to take the property and build a school on it. The chemical company refused to sell, because that was their dump site. The school board threatened to take it by eminent domain if the chemical company refused to sell. Seeing as how they were going to lose the property anyway, the chemical company signed a contract saying that they will sell the property for the price of $1 if the school board promised to not build anything there for 100 years. The school board signed the contract, paid the $1, and then promptly built a school right on top of the dump site. This is an instance of the flashy headline on page 1, and then months later the full story on page 15. Everyone remembers the dumping, nobody remembers the rest of the story.
I'll post a lengthier response later, but I do have another question as to the issue of civil restitution: What if the person who's property poluted by his neighbor doesn't have enough money to hire a lawyer, and no one will take the case pro-bono? Is he fucked then, or are there other means?
I knew a little bit of that about Love Canal, but not the full story, so that was interesting. My point in referencing it was more that toxic waste can be stable for a lot of years then suddenly fuck things up when it is buried. So yeah, the legacy issue is a tough one for me. You can't assume that the original owner will be found every time, or even alive.
Oh come now.. Let's all become libertarian and when your house catches on fire you call your private fire department. When someone breaks in and kills your family call your private cops and when a foreign power invades you call your private army and ask your private congress and private president to declare a private war.
Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on June 21, 2014, 03:57:54 PM
Ok, now you're saying the real world isn't a True Scotsman. Fascinating.
Wrong again!
If you hadn't blinded yourself with brainless devotion to a childish ideology you would have understood what was said instead of dodging the issues raised. Dodging the issues is all you have done.
Quote from: Berati on June 22, 2014, 09:13:02 AM
Wrong again!
If you hadn't blinded yourself with brainless devotion to a childish ideology you would have understood what was said instead of dodging the issues raised. Dodging the issues is all you have done.
He hasn't dodged anything except your straw man of what a libertarian is.
Sent from Monster Island. Titty sprinkles.
I'm sorry everyone else. I'm not very good at ignoring trolls. It's one of my weaknesses.
APA, Berati, you win. There shall be no discussion of anything libertarian in a forum devoted to free thought. It shall not be allowed. Free thinkers aren't allowed to discuss this with you here to disrupt and my difficulty ignoring trolls. You have decreed that free thought means never discussing anything libertarian.
Quote from: The Skeletal Atheist on June 21, 2014, 07:21:08 PMI'll post a lengthier response later, but I do have another question as to the issue of civil restitution: What if the person who's property poluted by his neighbor doesn't have enough money to hire a lawyer, and no one will take the case pro-bono? Is he fucked then, or are there other means?
There are lawyers who work on contingency. Plus with pollution on the scale being discussed it does seem likely that said individual may have the ability to say to his neighbors "May I join in on your lawsuit?" If it is small scale pollution, such as Joe dumping his trash in Mike's backyard, small claims court is not expensive. On the other hand, if Big-N-Large Corporation is dumping into the ground water, Joe and Mike will both be impacted by this activity.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on June 22, 2014, 09:30:21 AM
He hasn't dodged anything except your straw man of what a libertarian is.
Sent from Monster Island. Titty sprinkles.
And what straw man is that? I've put up three links from libertarians themselves.
Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on June 22, 2014, 10:45:35 AM
I'm sorry everyone else. I'm not very good at ignoring trolls. It's one of my weaknesses.
APA, Berati, you win. There shall be no discussion of anything libertarian in a forum devoted to free thought. It shall not be allowed. Free thinkers aren't allowed to discuss this with you here to disrupt and my difficulty ignoring trolls. You have decreed that free thought means never discussing anything libertarian.
You have decreed that there shall be no criticism of libertarianism. If there is, just claim that we're not referring to "true libertarianism".
With every criticism and every example of a libertarian policy failure you're one and only reply is to make libertarianism so pure that it becomes unfalsifiable.
Go look up the no true Scotsman fallacy. You're picture will be there.
Oh, and one more thing. YOU are the one who has constantly followed me to everyone of these discussions. Every post I've started with were directed at other people and you trolled in. This can be verified by anyone...troll.
You're weakness is not trolls, you are the troll. Your real weakness is a strict adherence to ideology. That always makes people stupid.
Quote from: Berati on June 22, 2014, 05:26:09 PMAnd what straw man is that? I've put up three links from libertarians themselves.
Anyone can use Google to find a link to a party platform. Watch, I'll do it to you now. (http://www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_home/) And here's one of your think tanks. (http://www.heritage.org/) But just because you could find a link doesn't mean you've read anything on the other side of that link, or in the unlikely even you glanced at the written material, understood anything that was written there.
Quote from: Berati on June 22, 2014, 05:40:19 PMYou have decreed that there shall be no criticism of libertarianism.
That is not true. I don't mind it if people criticize it, as long as they do so intelligently. Trolls need not apply.
Quote from: Berati on June 22, 2014, 05:40:19 PMOh, and one more thing. YOU are the one who has constantly followed me to everyone of these discussions.
YOU started this thread? I thought The Skeletal Atheist started this thread.
Quote from: Berati on June 22, 2014, 05:26:09 PM
And what straw man is that? I've put up three links from libertarians themselves.
And you think this means they speak for all libertarians? Do the Democrats speak for all liberals, or the Republicans for all conservatives? Whatever the Libertarian Party has to say has fuck all to do with whether it is a libertarian issue. You are thinking purely in terms of left and right, forgetting that the political spectrum also has an up and a down. Absolutely pathetic.
Liberal vs Conservative speaks to what civil rights people should have. Libertarian vs Authoritarian speaks to how much power the government should have. These four directions are not fixed points, they are slide rules. You clearly do not understand this basic aspect of political theory, and you need to shut the fuck up and do some research before opening that smart mouth of yours again.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on June 22, 2014, 06:04:53 PM
And you think this means they speak for all libertarians? Do the Democrats speak for all liberals, or the Republicans for all conservatives? Whatever the Libertarian Party has to say has fuck all to do with whether it is a libertarian issue. You are thinking purely in terms of left and right, forgetting that the political spectrum also has an up and a down. Absolutely pathetic.
Liberal vs Conservative speaks to what civil rights people should have. Libertarian vs Authoritarian speaks to how much power the government should have. These four directions are not fixed points, they are slide rules. You clearly do not understand this basic aspect of political theory, and you need to shut the fuck up and do some research before opening that smart mouth of yours again.
Actually he did get the links right. The problem is, his criticisms have nothing to do with the information on the other side of those links. His criticisms have started and ended with
"Republicans are bad in the following ways ........ and there, I just criticized libertarianism." If you point out that he just committed a colossal Strawman of equating conservatives and libertarians, he accuses you of committing a No True Scotsman.
Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on June 22, 2014, 06:14:07 PM
Actually he did get the links right. The problem is, his criticisms have nothing to do with the information on the other side of those links. His criticisms have started and ended with "Republicans are bad in the following ways ........ and there, I just criticized libertarianism." If you point out that he just committed a colossal Strawman of equating conservatives and libertarians, he accuses you of committing a No True Scotsman.
Exactly, which is why I went ahead and explained to him what the terms he's using mean. Whether or not he reads and comprehends that explanation is another question.
Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on June 20, 2014, 10:00:12 PM
It is the key because they can't stop it from spreading, so therefore can't pollute their own property either. If their pollution spreads to your property that is an infringement on you and is actionable.
With air and water pollution, this becomes
everyone downwind and downstream of you, which will eventually include the entire population of the Earth. But in doing so, the pollutants become more dilute, so as the pollution disperses, proving liability will be difficult. There are too many damn people affected to be realistically handled in any country's court system (except by class actions), and many of those who are affected are difficult to assess in the specific, but appreciable in the cumulative effects. This means that an individual polluter can continue to win individual suits against
his pollution events against individual victims, but all the polluters over all of their pollution are causing significant harm to everyone.
Also, this runs into grief when assessing pollution that then goes into and over the no man's land that is the ocean. Who has responsibility then?
No, I'm not seeing any sort of advantage over traditional environmental regulation, which regards pollution as
everyone's problem... because it
is everyone's problem.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on June 22, 2014, 06:04:53 PM
And you think this means they speak for all libertarians? Do the Democrats speak for all liberals, or the Republicans for all conservatives? Whatever the Libertarian Party has to say has fuck all to do with whether it is a libertarian issue. You are thinking purely in terms of left and right, forgetting that the political spectrum also has an up and a down. Absolutely pathetic.
Liberal vs Conservative speaks to what civil rights people should have. Libertarian vs Authoritarian speaks to how much power the government should have. These four directions are not fixed points, they are slide rules. You clearly do not understand this basic aspect of political theory, and you need to shut the fuck up and do some research before opening that smart mouth of yours again.
I'm criticizing libertarianism using the definitions libertarians themselves use, therefore no strawman.
*mod* enough, if you can't handle the discussion then go to the fucking outhouse and leave this one alone-aitm
Quote from: Berati on June 23, 2014, 01:06:35 PM
Your reply makes no sense dumb ass.
I'm criticizing libertarianism using the definitions libertarians themselves use, therefore no strawman.
If you can't grasp that simple concept then you should shut your striking pie hole.
You didn't even read what I wrote.
Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on June 22, 2014, 06:14:07 PM
Actually he did get the links right. The problem is, his criticisms have nothing to do with the information on the other side of those links. His criticisms have started and ended with "Republicans are bad in the following ways ........ and there, I just criticized libertarianism." If you point out that he just committed a colossal Strawman of equating conservatives and libertarians, he accuses you of committing a No True Scotsman.
Still got it wrong Jason. I've said that conservatives have followed libertarian ideology in making stupid mistakes. You say it doesn't count as libertarian ideology because the conservatives have implemented it. Are you capable of grasping the difference?
This is exactly where the no true Scotsman argument lies. No matter how libertarian policies fail you will always claim they aren't "true" libertarian policies.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on June 23, 2014, 01:08:00 PM
You didn't even read what I wrote.
I did. Read it again.
If you want to have a real discussion then act like a grown up and leave the foul mouthed insults for the children.
Quote from: Berati on June 23, 2014, 01:13:51 PM
I did. Read it again.
If you want to have a real discussion then act like a grown up and leave the foul mouthed insults for the children.
The guy who doesn't understand basic political terms and thinks libertarianism exists in a vacuum wants me to "act lkike a grown up." Dude, get off your fucking high horse. You haven't addressed libertarianism
once in this entire thread. You go to sources of conservative libertarians, take their conservative views, and try to pass that off as libertarianism. Only someone who is ignorant or just a fucking dipshit would ever confuse the two, as they are two totally different issues in the political spectrum.
When you are ready to actually address
libertarianism, and not just the conservative views of
particular libertarians, we can begin having a real discussion.
Quote from: Berati on June 23, 2014, 01:11:28 PMI've said that conservatives have followed libertarian ideology in making stupid mistakes.
And I've shown that what they followed is very inconsistent with anything libertarian. Unless you judge just by words and not by deeds, which you almost admitted to but backed off at the last second.
Quote from: Berati on June 23, 2014, 01:11:28 PMYou say it doesn't count as libertarian ideology because the conservatives have implemented it.
Now you're lying to cover your tracks, since I said it doesn't count because what they actually did is inconsistent with libertarianism.
Are you capable of grasping the difference?
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on June 22, 2014, 07:14:19 PM
With air and water pollution, this becomes everyone downwind and downstream of you, which will eventually include the entire population of the Earth. But in doing so, the pollutants become more dilute, so as the pollution disperses, proving liability will be difficult. There are too many damn people affected to be realistically handled in any country's court system (except by class actions), and many of those who are affected are difficult to assess in the specific, but appreciable in the cumulative effects. This means that an individual polluter can continue to win individual suits against his pollution events against individual victims, but all the polluters over all of their pollution are causing significant harm to everyone.
Also, this runs into grief when assessing pollution that then goes into and over the no man's land that is the ocean. Who has responsibility then?
No, I'm not seeing any sort of advantage over traditional environmental regulation, which regards pollution as everyone's problem... because it is everyone's problem.
Forget what those who came here to debate the finer points of libertarianism has to say, I hear what they have to say in every other thread about libertarianism and I'm looking for specifics, not some overreaching critique of the entire libertarian ideology. I'm looking for more of an answer to something like this. I admit my toxic waste burial example was a bit off the mark. You can easily find out who was dumping toxic waste because the waste is usually on their property. Air pollution, however, is much harder to tack down. Also much harder to tack down is who exactly has a claim. Of course the people directly downwind have a claim, but this sort of thing affects everybody. At the same time, who has jurisdiction when it is dumped in the middle of the ocean? This isn't just a libertarian problem, we're dealing with this sort of thing at the very moment and it's hard to find the answers, I'm just looking for a libertarian opinion on it and other environmental issues.
Hell, let's throw poaching into the mix. Unless you're the sort who agrees that endangered species need to be protected by law, what's to stop me from shooting a rhino and harvesting it's horn for big bucks on the market? What stops me from capturing endangered parrots and selling them on the market? I do realize that poaching is currently a large problem even with government intervention, but I'm not seeing how the alternative could be better.
Edit: The reason I'm using poaching is because I'm assuming, as a natural resource, that the rhino isn't anyone's property, so no one would have a claim to it. On the other hand, what if someone owned the entire area where rhinos live, and decided to kill them all because he wants to sell the horn, he hates rhinos, or any other reason. They're animals on his own property. They may be endangered, but as a property owner wouldn't he have the right to kill whatever animal is on his property endangered or not?
The problem with libertarian free market environmentalism is markets generally do not take external factors into account when determining the selling price of goods and services. We are seeing that right now with anthropogenic climate change.
The evidence says humans are causing the climate to change through the release of greenhouse gasses and land use. Some people are going to be negatively affected even if the climate change ends up being a net positive. Property in low lying coastal areas is threatened by inundation. Currently productive farmlands will become arid. Libertarians should be up in arms about this situation because the property rights of people are being negatively affected, but no one has a plan to compensate these people when their property loses value.
Using this example it is actually pretty easy to make a libertarian case for a carbon tax the proceeds from which would be used to compensate the future negative impacts on people’s property rights. This is just about the only way anyone has come up with to ensure that the negative property rights cost of the external to the market effects of anthropogenic climate change are included in the cost of goods and services sold.
Libertarianism will not properly address the issues involving pollution.
I’ll illustrate using the example of drunk driving. (bear with me)
The libertarian approach is to rely on enforcement of property rights after the fact. As Jason put it, it relies on restitution. (This is the libertarians own words)
So it’s perfectly legal to drive while drunk as there are no rules against it. If you make it home safe… no harm no foul.
If the drunk driver causes damage like killing someone… then you can sue him. If he speeds and weaves right by a police car or your children, he can’t be stopped until after he kills someone. The he can be sued. The theory is that others will see these lawsuits and therefore stop drinking and driving… problem solved!
However, in the real world…
Even today, with serious penalties and fines up front AS WELL AS LAWSUITS, people still drink and drive. People far too often think they can handle it and that they’re OK to drive. If we relied on a system of restitution only, and stopped removing drunk drivers from the road until after an accident, the number of drunken driving fatalities would skyrocket. That’s how the real world works.
This is a clear example of how libertarianism is rotten at the core. It runs counter to human nature.
The clear and obvious solution is to make drunk driving illegal, and pull offenders off the road as soon as they are discovered not sue them after the fact.
So now, apply this non proactive, restitution only system to pollution and it fails for exactly the same reason... among others. You could see someone dumping his old tires off a bridge and nothing can be done until the tires wash up on someone’s property. That aggrieved party would then have to try and find the identity the offender, bring them to court, and prove the damage to their property. If successful in all that then they recover the cost of those damages ONLY.
Anyone who would propose a restitution only system that relies on the courts has no real world experience with the courts and has probably never sued or been sued. It is a very slow, very expensive system. And you would recover what for tires that wash up on your property. A couple of hundred bucks?
To get around this problem libertarians propose an even dumber solution… privatize rivers, lakes, oceans and even the atmosphere.
NO, this is not a strawman, it comes directly from the Von Misses Institute. Unless of course, they are not “true libertarians†either.
The clear and obvious solution is to make dumping pollution illegal. If you’re spotted, you are fined immediately and ordered to remove the garbage. This is far from perfect but it is at least a workable plan... unlike libertarianism.
Libertarianism doesn't just fail on pollution, it fails in every aspect.
I would not normally waste my time on other people’s fairy tales, but because conservatives have swallowed much of this nonsense, they are doing real harm in implementing libertarian nonsense.
As atheists I’m sure most of you know that other peoples fantasies can and do cause real world harm and so it does with this fantasy. I've listed just some of these problems in a reply in this thread. http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=4957.15 (See reply #28)
All I’ve got back is the no true Scotsman fallacy.
This is a very good article exposing another failure of libertarianism. It’s a good read.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/29/1049619/-Why-Libertarianism-Doesn-t-Work
Quote from: Berati on June 23, 2014, 07:39:49 PM
Libertarianism will not properly address the issues involving pollution.
I’ll illustrate using the example of drunk driving. (bear with me)
The libertarian approach is to rely on enforcement of property rights after the fact. As Jason put it, it relies on restitution. (This is the libertarians own words)
So it’s perfectly legal to drive while drunk as there are no rules against it. If you make it home safe… no harm no foul.
If the drunk driver causes damage like killing someone… then you can sue him. If he speeds and weaves right by a police car or your children, he can’t be stopped until after he kills someone. The he can be sued. The theory is that others will see these lawsuits and therefore stop drinking and driving… problem solved!
A few questions about your "example":
Who owns the roads that this individual is driving on?
Does the owner get to set the rules for the usage of said roads?
What you have is government roads without the government creating those roads, and then people getting hurt because the government cannot set the rules for the government roads. A very strange setup to use as an "example" of a failure of libertarianism. Strange indeed.
One might guess that you actually don't know anything about the subject you are criticizing.
Berati's analogy is just that, an analogy. You are still faced with the problem that the libertarian approach to pollution gives you nothing over the traditional regulation approach.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on July 15, 2014, 07:06:59 PMBerati's analogy is just that, an analogy. You are still faced with the problem that the libertarian approach to pollution gives you nothing over the traditional regulation approach.
I don't see how I'm faced with that problem, but that is because the same people who believe that there will be mysteriously provided roads without the road owners building them also believe businesses are incapable of thinking ahead.
Berati, in his infinite wisdom, believes that recourse to the courts will only influence behavior after the fact, that the property rights approach will only work when someone sues about pollution that has already occurred. That makes as much sense as saying that the regulatory approach of levying fines only works when a fine is levied about pollution that has already occurred.
Berati and his ilk are willing to say that the threat of a fine will influence the behavior of a business. So would the threat of a lawsuit influence the behavior of a business? In the same way these mysterious roads appear out of nowhere, apparently not.
*Mod* My apologies, I don't often follow these and i stupidly responded to a post a page back, so I will do so now. Berati, if you can't discuss this civilly then go to the fucking outhouse and shit there- aitm
Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on July 15, 2014, 07:16:32 PM
I don't see how I'm faced with that problem, but that is because the same people who believe that there will be mysteriously provided roads without the road owners building them also believe businesses are incapable of thinking ahead.
And, pray tell, where were these business owners when all that pollution was put out into the air, water and land? You know, those ones who are capable of thinking ahead?
Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on July 15, 2014, 07:16:32 PM
Berati, in his infinite wisdom, believes that recourse to the courts will only influence behavior after the fact, that the property rights approach will only work when someone sues about pollution that has already occurred. That makes as much sense as saying that the regulatory approach of levying fines only works when a fine is levied about pollution that has already occurred.
I'm still not hearing how being sued is superior to ordinary regulation.
Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on July 15, 2014, 07:16:32 PM
Berati and his ilk are willing to say that the threat of a fine will influence the behavior of a business. So would the threat of a lawsuit influence the behavior of a business? In the same way these mysterious roads appear out of nowhere, apparently not.
You do know that a mere levy is not the only action a government can take against an offending company, right? It can actually
forbid operations from taking place. It can go in and say, "Sorry, chums, you have to shut that factory down since you've failed to comply with environmental regulations." That can be done without putting the company out of business entirely, which you would have to do to accomplish the same goals with fines.
Levies are effective because they can serve as a warning for more drastic measures, making it hurt, while sending the message that worse can happen than just a mere fine.
I can only surmise that in the libertarian utopia, there are no public roads or lands, or am I missing something?
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-s_Fjb4623kg/Uf-q5Aki7YI/AAAAAAAA6XI/tayFqZHXUP4/s1600/Libertarianism+vs+Socialism.jpg)
Hey, get rid of those silly regulations prohibiting murder. If someone kills you you just take them to court and sue to come back to life.
Quote from: Jmpty on July 16, 2014, 12:13:55 AM
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-s_Fjb4623kg/Uf-q5Aki7YI/AAAAAAAA6XI/tayFqZHXUP4/s1600/Libertarianism+vs+Socialism.jpg)
Some would argue that the TNG Federation is communist, not socialist.
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Trek-Marxism.html
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on July 16, 2014, 12:51:04 AM
Some would argue that the TNG Federation is communist, not socialist.
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Trek-Marxism.html
It's making a broad assumption Star Trek's creators advocated communism because there was never enough to go on. In the show they didn't deal a lot in economics other than indicate they figured out how to make their system work and there were very few episodes of life outside of the military. You can guess how it worked and project modern economics into the future, but the show was several centuries into the future. The author assumes that everything is just like now except discounts possible advances in nearly all aspects of life in the future.
Example: If technology advances to the point where hunger no longer exist and most health issues gone and everyone provided a wonderful job, wonderful home, near perfect health (except galactic war) the need to play the dog eat dog might actually vanish as a thing of the past.. Hey, it's science fiction. A bunch of stuff from the show is now commonplace, but hardly all of it. We've gone way beyond the communicator with cell phones and computers are in every city of any size.. On the flip side we still can't access massive databases like they could by merely talking and can't just conjure up a ham sandwich or go to the holideck..
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on July 16, 2014, 12:51:04 AM
Some would argue that the TNG Federation is communist, not socialist.
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Trek-Marxism.html
Even better ;)
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on July 15, 2014, 11:57:51 PMYou do know that a mere levy is not the only action a government can take against an offending company, right? It can actually forbid operations from taking place. It can go in and say, "Sorry, chums, you have to shut that factory down since you've failed to comply with environmental regulations." That can be done without putting the company out of business entirely, which you would have to do to accomplish the same goals with fines.
Levies are effective because they can serve as a warning for more drastic measures, making it hurt, while sending the message that worse can happen than just a mere fine.
And when a business goes ahead and does something that is
prohibited then a fine is levied against the business. Yes,
prohibited is a really nice and scary word, and it really is something that will make people sit up and take notice.
So far all I've done is establish equality between the two systems. On the one hand, if pollution occurs a fine is paid. On the other hand, if pollution occurs restitution is paid. On the one hand the threat of paying a fine is enough to change behavior. On the other hand the threat of paying restitution is enough to change behavior. Unless you're Berati and think that businesses will shrink in horror from fines and not care about court settlements at all, which makes no sense, I've pretty much laid out an equivalency.
Now here's where restitution works better. Fines are paid to the government, which may or may not clean up the mess. Restitution is paid to the people whose property is damaged. The former enriches the government. The latter makes amends to the people.
So now it comes down to a very simple choice - which is more important, the people or the government? Who deserves the money more, the people or the government? Who was actually hurt, the people or the government? Berati would have us remember to tithe to the holy government, but I believe in the people.
The Atol of Kiribati has got 103.000 people. Their islands are disappearing because of global warming.
Do I understand correctly that under this system at least 103.000 x 6 billion (global population, corporate and other legal entities not counted) lawsuits would have to be filed?
Quote from: Bibliofagus on July 16, 2014, 03:58:40 AM
The Atol of Kiribati has got 103.000 people. Their islands are disappearing because of global warming.
Do I understand correctly that under this system at least 103.000 x 6 billion (global population, corporate and other legal entities not counted) lawsuits would have to be filed?
Fines are the way laws are currently enforced. Under libertarianism, there would be no laws (regulations), hence no fines. Instead, on a case by case basis, the courts would decide if personal harm had been caused. Yes, that's a lot of court cases, but they will only be filed by those who have the means to seek civil compensation. Those without the means don't get to participate, because lawyers and judges will not be expected to work for free. It's a bit unfair to the accused to hold him responsible if he has broken no laws. He may have caused personal harm, but his defense will always be that it was not his intention to cause harm. It lacks the clarity provided by laws.
I don't know. Maybe in an intuitive thought experiment it might seem like an improvement, but my guess is that in the end, it would be replacing one fucked up system with another fucked up system. Those with means win. Citizens of Kiribati get fucked, because they are an insignificant minority facing a world of "I've got mine, and I don't care about yours."
Quote from: SGOS on July 16, 2014, 05:56:54 AM
Fines are the way laws are currently enforced. Under libertarianism, there would be no laws (regulations), hence no fines. Instead, on a case by case basis, the courts would decide if personal harm had been caused. Yes, that's a lot of court cases, but they will only be filed by those who have the means to seek civil compensation. Those without the means don't get to participate, because lawyers and judges will not be expected to work for free.
I hear ya. What I'm getting at is that there would not be any lawsuits at all.
1. Proving and quantifying stuff like this is highly complicated in civil lawsuits. I live near several industrial areas, chemical stuff and oil, as well as manufacturing etc. Let's say we abandon law and they all start emitting more unhealthy stuff. The result for me would be a statistical higher chance of dying early. And until the day I die I can't prove I'm actually one of the people dying early. Furthermore: What's a reasonable compensation for 10 years of life?
For the sake of point 2: Let's say 10 million dollars is suitable.
2. There's 10.000 companies emitting harmfull stuff at me from their private properties. And that's just within a 20 mile radius. To get my 10 million I'd have to sue each and every one of them for their respective portion of said 10 million dollars. That's 1000 dollars a piece, and that's less than it would actually cost to get a lawyer for anything as complicated as this. Not to mention every one of them would oppose at least their share in my damages.
Also: I don't know where Libertarianism proposes to get independent judges to preside over all these lawsuits, or if it is even deemed necessary to have them. But if they are deemed necessary I'm curious about who pays for them.
Quote from: Bibliofagus on July 16, 2014, 06:45:29 AM
I hear ya. What I'm getting at is that there would not be any lawsuits at all.
I get it. I'm not disagreeing. I was just trying to follow the ideology to one possible outcome.
Quote from: SGOS on July 16, 2014, 06:52:51 AM
I get it. I'm not disagreeing. I was just trying to follow the ideology to one possible outcome.
I know and me too :) Your response inspired me to go into it in a little more detail.
Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on July 16, 2014, 01:37:59 AM
And when a business goes ahead and does something that is prohibited then a fine is levied against the business. Yes, prohibited is a really nice and scary word, and it really is something that will make people sit up and take notice.
Did you ignore the part that individual plants and companies can be
forcibly shut down if they fail to comply? Yes. Yes, you did. Monopoly on the use of force, Jason. The government can roll in and destroy factories outright, arrest offenders, and disincorporate an offending corporation, destroying the legal protections for the individuals making them up. That's the iron fist inside the velvet glove that gives government regulation its punch.
You don't hear about it, because everyone knows that the government can do this given enough provocation, so people back down long before it comes to this, but that's the background threat.
Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on July 16, 2014, 01:37:59 AM
So far all I've done is establish equality between the two systems. On the one hand, if pollution occurs a fine is paid. On the other hand, if pollution occurs restitution is paid. On the one hand the threat of paying a fine is enough to change behavior. On the other hand the threat of paying restitution is enough to change behavior. Unless you're Berati and think that businesses will shrink in horror from fines and not care about court settlements at all, which makes no sense, I've pretty much laid out an equivalency.
Now here's where restitution works better. Fines are paid to the government, which may or may not clean up the mess. Restitution is paid to the people whose property is damaged.
And health. Which is much more difficult to asses, and harder to repair with money.
Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on July 16, 2014, 01:37:59 AM
So now it comes down to a very simple choice - which is more important, the people or the government? Who deserves the money more, the people or the government? Who was actually hurt, the people or the government? Berati would have us remember to tithe to the holy government, but I believe in the people.
And paying resitution suddenly makes everything hunky dory, does it? Oh, wait, no it doesn't.
The pollution is still there. The damage to the people is still done. Also, it's not just one polluter â€" for any given pollutant, there are dozens, hundreds, and even tens of thousands of individual polluters. The individual liability for each polluter is limited, and hard to prove that they are liable for your particular damage, but the culmative effect is very real.
Also, here's why I don't believe that restitution can ever solve this issue: it has not in the past. You are able to sue companies
now for any putative reason, including pollution of your own property and damage to your own health because of said pollution. So, Jason, if suing for damages is so superior to traditional regulation, why hasn't this occured yet to put a stop to the problem of pollution? Which pollutant has been stopped in this manner?
Asking 'who deserves it better' and saying 'I believe in the people' is worthless if the approach
doesn't work. It's just talk.
Sounds like someone went full libertarian. Never go full libertarian. That's like going full liberal or full conservative or full any-other-political-ideology. All that lies down that route is sadness and stupidity.
Everything in moderation, yo.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on July 16, 2014, 12:51:04 AM
Some would argue that the TNG Federation is communist, not socialist.
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Trek-Marxism.html
I would argue that because Star Trek happens in a post scarcity society it doesn't really matter what economy they have. When you can poof food into existence, the price of everything is low.
Quote from: The Skeletal Atheist on July 16, 2014, 12:07:12 PM
I would argue that because Star Trek happens in a post scarcity society it doesn't really matter what economy they have. When you can poof food into existence, the price of everything is low.
Most of that essay has to do with transportation and communication.
Quote from: aitm on July 15, 2014, 08:15:06 PM
*Mod* My apologies, I don't often follow these and i stupidly responded to a post a page back, so I will do so now. Berati, if you can't discuss this civilly then go to the fucking outhouse and shit there- aitm
You better explain yourself.
I behave with more civility than I'm shown, and your post here is totally lacking in civility.
Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on July 15, 2014, 12:10:25 PM
A few questions about your "example":
Who owns the roads that this individual is driving on?
Does the owner get to set the rules for the usage of said roads?
Since it's my example, the roads are owned by me and as a good libertarian I have no rules. I will let the enforcement of property rights be my only guide.
Oh... except for gays. I don't want any gays driving on my roads. Or swimming in my lakes. (Since it's still my example, I own the lakes as well)
Quote
One might guess that you actually don't know anything about the subject you are criticizing.
Really? The best you can come up with is the tried a true theist argument that "You just don't understand my catechism?"
There is no doubt that libertarianism works perfectly fine in your imagination. It's the real world we are trying to look at and since libertarianism does not actually exist anywhere in the real world, these examples will have to suffice.