6 ms·

I'm genuinely curious, how do you go about executing this? Not everyone will consent, so how do you selectively apply those services? In the winter, I pay for s

by Forbo 10y ago

I'm genuinely curious, how do you go about executing this? Not everyone will consent, so how do you selectively apply those services? In the winter, I pay for snow plows and salting the roads, but my neighbor doesn't, so...? I am really having a difficult time seeing how to actually make this happen.

zo1 10y ago
Roads would be plowed by the companies that owe them. I.e. as a service to the people that are renting usage of the road. And yeah, we envision a society where all land can be owned, including roads. Of course, transitioning to such a system where currently all roads are owned by everyone else and simultaneously by no-one, would be a tricky thing to solve. Though it has been "solved" in certain parts. E.g. If you consider large gated communities. It's not a perfect example, but it does hint at the possibility of people coming together to solve a communal problem using communal funding, and individuals having the option to leave if they don't like it and don't want to consent. It took me the longest time to reconcile a bunch of these things when it came to Libertarianism (or further). Eventually I did "get it" when I started thinking about how I would solve these problems in the absence of a state and only having access to the concepts of "private property" and "contracts". Having a state there, ready and ever-present to fix all our problems is a cushion/crutch when it comes to solving the problems that a community would have to deal with.
- lostlogin 10y ago
  Who pays for those who can't support themselves? Orphans, elderly, infirm/sick? Who pays for those things that everyone benefits from but no one sees? International trade agreements, armed forces, border controls, research, pest control, safety regulation, building regulation, civil defence etc etc.
  - PhasmaFelis 10y ago
    > Who pays for those who can't support themselves? Orphans, elderly, infirm/sick? They die. This is considered a feature, not a bug. Beneath the smokescreen rhetoric of consent and personal freedom, the core ethos of libertarianism is "survival of the fittest."
    - bashinator 10y ago
      I'm really glad the pretty words and nice imagery are coming off this fact. I've seen a lot more acknowledgement lately that this is how libertarian societies work out for people lacking any ownership of their own resources.
    - zo1 10y ago
      Family and the community. But go ahead and label us evil because apparently our core Libertarian "ethos" is that we want the sick and infirm to "die". Meanwhile, on the state's watch: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunger_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunger_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_the_United_Sta... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_strikes_in_Pakistan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_strikes_in_Pakistan
      - PhasmaFelis 10y ago
        > Family and the community. But go ahead and label us evil because apparently our core Libertarian "ethos" is that we want the sick and infirm to "die". Then by all means prove me wrong. What, as a Libertarian, do you think should be done for sick and infirm people without their own financial support?
        FireBeyond 10y ago
        It's a circular argument. The response will be "their family and the community will look after them". But if there's no family, and even if there is, "community" will be some nebulous concept with no practical example, nor method for which to reliably and practically have any impact.
        zo1 10y ago
        The argument is loaded. Of course not everyone will be covered. Of course there will be people that fall between the cracks of family, community and charity. Really, you demand perfection of a hypothetical system, yet there are millions starving right now. Millions killed, forgotten and neglected due to negligence of the state, or by active effort. All while countless others are forced to pay a state to fix those very things, while the state doesn't do it or does it half-assed while funding gets sent to low-priority causes. And to answer your question. I don't know. I can hypothesize, and we could argue the merits. But really, you will fundamentally disagree with every single suggestion. Or you'll find some little flaw or hole that gets missed(just like you did above), and automatically you'll declare that it is a bad solution and we could never do it.
  - tertius 10y ago
    Charity.
    - jedberg 10y ago
      So yes, that is the standard Libertarian answer. But the problem is that it is in direct opposition to the philosophy of looking after oneself. How can you give charity if you're looking after yourself? Charity in fact would deny someone else the ability to look after themselves, which would be denying them rights. So charity doesn't really fit with the morality of Libertarianism. http://atlassociety.org/commentary/commentary-blog/4271-charity http://atlassociety.org/commentary/commentary-blog/4271-char...
      - tertius 10y ago
        Objectivism isn't libertarianism. And no, giving charity does no deny another a right. They can choose to forego their rights. And I would suggest not giving to those who do so out of choice. Charity is a choice, not an obligation enforced through violence. As such it is the correct answer. Whether we live in such a society or not, charity exists and provides for those who cannot or cannot yet provide for themselves. It works pretty well. Is it in my interest to give to another? If I am free to make that choice then yes.
      - zo1 10y ago
        >"So yes, that is the standard Libertarian answer. But the problem is that it is in direct opposition to the philosophy of looking after oneself. How can you give charity if you're looking after yourself?" I'm not sure who or what has been creating a vilified image of the Libertarian for you. Libertarianism has nothing to do with "looking after oneself", and you're probably just dressing up the word "selfish" by stating that. It has everything to do with consent, and freedom from coercion. Now, what kind of world we choose to make after those principles dictates what kind of society we are in right now. Also, what the other person said. You're posting a link that is making commentary about Objectivism, not Libertarianism.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- usefulcat 10y ago
  "It's not a perfect example, but it does hint at the possibility of people coming together to solve a communal problem using communal funding, and individuals having the option to leave if they don't like it and don't want to consent." Not unlike the way that (for example) local road maintenance in a particular city is typically funded by citizens of that city, who always have the option to leave should they tire of paying the taxes the fund said maintenance.
  - zo1 10y ago
    >"Not unlike the way that (for example) local road maintenance in a particular city is typically funded by citizens of that city, who always have the option to leave should they tire of paying the taxes the fund said maintenance." The state is completely different in this regard. There is no meaningful piece of land on earth where you could settle and be free from a state. Even if it's arid desert and no one would contemplate living there, if you were to start a thriving community there and the residents start making money or break the outer-state's laws, they will impose on you. You really have no option when it comes to settling and making your own community. Or on other planets for that matter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty
    - usefulcat 10y ago
      True, but does it matter? Because in such a hypothetical stateless land, you also have no courts, and therefore no way to enforce agreements other than via direct threat of violence. So it would be difficult to have members of said hypothetical community agree to contribute to a (for example) road maintenance fund.
      - meanduck 10y ago
        > So it would be difficult to have members of said hypothetical community agree to contribute to a (for example) road maintenance fund. One reason why I want to give up part of my land and pay for road to be developed is that it will increase value of the land. That reason would suffice for 99% cases. Also its safe to assume that Humans are also cooperative and neighourly bunch.
- tangent128 10y ago
  How do you solve these problems? 1. I do not wish to consent to the contracts of your community. However, I was born here, and lack the resources to leave, or any goodwill that may assist me in doing so. Perhaps I am LGBT in the deep south. 2. Somebody is murdered. A person can be demonstrated to be the killer, but they do not consent to jailing or court. 3. Somebody is emitting carbon dioxide on their own property, as I suppose is their right. But the expanding sea is now trespassing on my island, flooding my property. 4. I buy up all the land surrounding your property, and erect a wall. I refuse to grant you passage onto my property (and thus, off of yours) unless you sign a contract agreeing to turn over to me a portion of all value you produce.
- dkersten 10y ago
  How are "taxes theft" but landownership is not? Why does someone get to claim exclusive ownership over some land and another person does not (just because the first persons ancestors reached the land first (in some cases, only if you conveniently ignore the native population))?
  - zo1 10y ago
    Well, one is where your labor and the benefit of it (earnings) get taken from you without consent. The other is land ownership, I'm not sure how else to digest that? Are you implying that land belongs to everyone and someone claiming exclusive ownership of it is somehow theft? The usual response about how land "becomes" owned: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_principle I really can't think of any fair way of distributing land other than the mechanism above which is essentially "first come first serve" along with a "use it or lose it" expiry mechanism.

by Forbo 10y ago

zo1 10y ago

Roads would be plowed by the companies that owe them. I.e. as a service to the people that are renting usage of the road. And yeah, we envision a society where all land can be owned, including roads. Of course, transitioning to such a system where currently all roads are owned by everyone else and simultaneously by no-one, would be a tricky thing to solve. Though it has been "solved" in certain parts. E.g. If you consider large gated communities. It's not a perfect example, but it does hint at the possibility of people coming together to solve a communal problem using communal funding, and individuals having the option to leave if they don't like it and don't want to consent. It took me the longest time to reconcile a bunch of these things when it came to Libertarianism (or further). Eventually I did "get it" when I started thinking about how I would solve these problems in the absence of a state and only having access to the concepts of "private property" and "contracts". Having a state there, ready and ever-present to fix all our problems is a cushion/crutch when it comes to solving the problems that a community would have to deal with.

lostlogin 10y ago
Who pays for those who can't support themselves? Orphans, elderly, infirm/sick? Who pays for those things that everyone benefits from but no one sees? International trade agreements, armed forces, border controls, research, pest control, safety regulation, building regulation, civil defence etc etc.
- PhasmaFelis 10y ago
  > Who pays for those who can't support themselves? Orphans, elderly, infirm/sick? They die. This is considered a feature, not a bug. Beneath the smokescreen rhetoric of consent and personal freedom, the core ethos of libertarianism is "survival of the fittest."
  - bashinator 10y ago
    I'm really glad the pretty words and nice imagery are coming off this fact. I've seen a lot more acknowledgement lately that this is how libertarian societies work out for people lacking any ownership of their own resources.
  - zo1 10y ago
    Family and the community. But go ahead and label us evil because apparently our core Libertarian "ethos" is that we want the sick and infirm to "die". Meanwhile, on the state's watch: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunger_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunger_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_the_United_Sta... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_strikes_in_Pakistan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_strikes_in_Pakistan
    - PhasmaFelis 10y ago
      > Family and the community. But go ahead and label us evil because apparently our core Libertarian "ethos" is that we want the sick and infirm to "die". Then by all means prove me wrong. What, as a Libertarian, do you think should be done for sick and infirm people without their own financial support?
      - FireBeyond 10y ago
        It's a circular argument. The response will be "their family and the community will look after them". But if there's no family, and even if there is, "community" will be some nebulous concept with no practical example, nor method for which to reliably and practically have any impact.
      - zo1 10y ago
        The argument is loaded. Of course not everyone will be covered. Of course there will be people that fall between the cracks of family, community and charity. Really, you demand perfection of a hypothetical system, yet there are millions starving right now. Millions killed, forgotten and neglected due to negligence of the state, or by active effort. All while countless others are forced to pay a state to fix those very things, while the state doesn't do it or does it half-assed while funding gets sent to low-priority causes. And to answer your question. I don't know. I can hypothesize, and we could argue the merits. But really, you will fundamentally disagree with every single suggestion. Or you'll find some little flaw or hole that gets missed(just like you did above), and automatically you'll declare that it is a bad solution and we could never do it.
- tertius 10y ago
  Charity.
  - jedberg 10y ago
    So yes, that is the standard Libertarian answer. But the problem is that it is in direct opposition to the philosophy of looking after oneself. How can you give charity if you're looking after yourself? Charity in fact would deny someone else the ability to look after themselves, which would be denying them rights. So charity doesn't really fit with the morality of Libertarianism. http://atlassociety.org/commentary/commentary-blog/4271-charity http://atlassociety.org/commentary/commentary-blog/4271-char...
    - tertius 10y ago
      Objectivism isn't libertarianism. And no, giving charity does no deny another a right. They can choose to forego their rights. And I would suggest not giving to those who do so out of choice. Charity is a choice, not an obligation enforced through violence. As such it is the correct answer. Whether we live in such a society or not, charity exists and provides for those who cannot or cannot yet provide for themselves. It works pretty well. Is it in my interest to give to another? If I am free to make that choice then yes.
    - zo1 10y ago
      >"So yes, that is the standard Libertarian answer. But the problem is that it is in direct opposition to the philosophy of looking after oneself. How can you give charity if you're looking after yourself?" I'm not sure who or what has been creating a vilified image of the Libertarian for you. Libertarianism has nothing to do with "looking after oneself", and you're probably just dressing up the word "selfish" by stating that. It has everything to do with consent, and freedom from coercion. Now, what kind of world we choose to make after those principles dictates what kind of society we are in right now. Also, what the other person said. You're posting a link that is making commentary about Objectivism, not Libertarianism.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
usefulcat 10y ago
"It's not a perfect example, but it does hint at the possibility of people coming together to solve a communal problem using communal funding, and individuals having the option to leave if they don't like it and don't want to consent." Not unlike the way that (for example) local road maintenance in a particular city is typically funded by citizens of that city, who always have the option to leave should they tire of paying the taxes the fund said maintenance.
- zo1 10y ago
  >"Not unlike the way that (for example) local road maintenance in a particular city is typically funded by citizens of that city, who always have the option to leave should they tire of paying the taxes the fund said maintenance." The state is completely different in this regard. There is no meaningful piece of land on earth where you could settle and be free from a state. Even if it's arid desert and no one would contemplate living there, if you were to start a thriving community there and the residents start making money or break the outer-state's laws, they will impose on you. You really have no option when it comes to settling and making your own community. Or on other planets for that matter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty
  - usefulcat 10y ago
    True, but does it matter? Because in such a hypothetical stateless land, you also have no courts, and therefore no way to enforce agreements other than via direct threat of violence. So it would be difficult to have members of said hypothetical community agree to contribute to a (for example) road maintenance fund.
    - meanduck 10y ago
      > So it would be difficult to have members of said hypothetical community agree to contribute to a (for example) road maintenance fund. One reason why I want to give up part of my land and pay for road to be developed is that it will increase value of the land. That reason would suffice for 99% cases. Also its safe to assume that Humans are also cooperative and neighourly bunch.
tangent128 10y ago
How do you solve these problems? 1. I do not wish to consent to the contracts of your community. However, I was born here, and lack the resources to leave, or any goodwill that may assist me in doing so. Perhaps I am LGBT in the deep south. 2. Somebody is murdered. A person can be demonstrated to be the killer, but they do not consent to jailing or court. 3. Somebody is emitting carbon dioxide on their own property, as I suppose is their right. But the expanding sea is now trespassing on my island, flooding my property. 4. I buy up all the land surrounding your property, and erect a wall. I refuse to grant you passage onto my property (and thus, off of yours) unless you sign a contract agreeing to turn over to me a portion of all value you produce.
dkersten 10y ago
How are "taxes theft" but landownership is not? Why does someone get to claim exclusive ownership over some land and another person does not (just because the first persons ancestors reached the land first (in some cases, only if you conveniently ignore the native population))?
- zo1 10y ago
  Well, one is where your labor and the benefit of it (earnings) get taken from you without consent. The other is land ownership, I'm not sure how else to digest that? Are you implying that land belongs to everyone and someone claiming exclusive ownership of it is somehow theft? The usual response about how land "becomes" owned: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_principle I really can't think of any fair way of distributing land other than the mechanism above which is essentially "first come first serve" along with a "use it or lose it" expiry mechanism.