5 ms·
That's a strawman - at least, in the case of minarchist-Libertarians. We explicitly advocate for restricted right to contract. Some examples of proscribed con
by duncan_bayne 11y ago
That's a strawman - at least, in the case of minarchist-Libertarians. We explicitly advocate for restricted right to contract.
Some examples of proscribed contracts include those involving minors, or slavery (see 'unalienable rights').
- ThomPete 11y agoWho is going to uphold that?
- nsxwolf 11y agoAre you confusing libertarians with anarchists?
- duncan_bayne 11y agoYeah, I think he may be, which is why I posted in the first place.
- ThomPete 11y agoNo I am aware of the difference, just would love to hear how something like that was going to be managed.
- duncan_bayne 11y ago(See also, in part, my reply above to maxxxxx). I guess the bulk of it it would be much the same as what we have now: courts, police, Government departments tasked with protecting the rights of the population. There would be laws against murder, assault, rape, fraudulent advertising, running two-stroke cars[1], etc. etc. The main change would be that whole classes of crimes (drug crimes, obscenity, blasphemy, private discrimination[2], etc.) would simply disappear. And - if this were the USA - a lot of powers currently improperly usurped by the Federal Government would be instead claimed by the States, assuming their constitutions allowed. [1] In other words, collective problems justify collective legislation. If smoky two-stroke cars cause human harm by polluting the air, it may be reasonable to ban them by legislation. [2] By law, the State would be prohibited from discriminating on the grounds of race, religion, sex, marital status, etc. But individuals would be free to discriminate in whatever rational or irrational manner they chose.
- maxxxxx 11y agoI want to reply back but can't either :-(. I hope this is not considered a flame war.
- duncan_bayne 11y agoDitto. I think this is a valuable conversation, esp. for bystanders who haven't been exposed to Libertarianism before (or have been misled into equating it with Anarchism).
- duncan_bayne 11y agoThe justice system, administered by the State. (I think you may be confusing market-anarchism with minarchist-Libertarianism).
- maxxxxx 11y agoThat's something I have been wondering about for a long time. Wouldn't pure libertarianism require a huge justice system and give a lot of power to courts? In absence of regulation every dispute would have to go to court.
- duncan_bayne 11y agoFirstly, minarchist-Libertarianism doesn't preclude legislation. We only support legislation that is rights-respecting (e.g. no forcing people to do business with customers they don't want), reality-based (e.g. no environmental legislation without provable harm), and consistently administered (e.g. no free passes for particularly rich criminals). Secondly, even in an hypothetical absence of regulation, mediation would be preferable to court action in a lot of cases. That's true even now; private mediation is frequently used to resolve disputes before they ever see a courtroom. Edited to add: Also, in a rights-respecting State, the list of criminal acts would be a lot, lot smaller than it is now. No censorship (obscenity, blasphemy, etc.), no war on drugs, etc. etc. It's likely that justice system workloads would drop significantly.
- maxxxxx 11y agoI really would like to see a set of laws and government regulations that libertarians would support. Has anybody ever created such a thing? Would there be regulations on cigarettes, selling alcohol to 10 year olds or lead paint? Who would prove the harm if there is no EPA? Who has the money to go against big corporations and their paid experts? It took forever to get a shared understanding that smoking is really harmful. I don't want to be dismissive but most libertarians I talk to seem to live in a dream world and avoid real-world scenarios.
- 11y ago