4 ms·

>>A life "unmolested by laws and regulations" is the most naive kind of fantasy imaginable. Not really, the fundemntal foundation of a libertarian law would b

by syshum 6y ago

>>A life "unmolested by laws and regulations" is the most naive kind of fantasy imaginable. Not really, the fundemntal foundation of a libertarian law would be best highlighted from Frederic Bastiat's The Law "The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all. " The problem with modern society today is the law goes far far far beyond what individuals have the ethical right to do, namely self defense. Today the law has been perverted by the influence of two entirely different causes: stupid greed and false philanthropy. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense.

JohnBooty 6y ago
Your post is thoughtful and well-written. I upvoted your post even though I disagree. I dislike the HN tradition of "dislike = downvote." We need more posts like yours, not less. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; Progressives/liberals/etc wouldn't disagree much with this premise, but we'd differ mightily on what this premise means in practical terms. - The FDA is far from perfect, but it generally does a good job of protecting my person from snake oil medicine and adulterated foods. - A federal healthcare mandate/provider protects my person against dying of curable diseases because if I have no job/insurance at the moment - Taxpayer-funded education gives me the liberty to become literate and obtain a basic level of education so that I may become employable and so forth even if my parents are unwilling or unable to educate me And so on. There are a lot of ways for your person, properties, and liberties to be threatened, most of which are indirect. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder Sounds like unfettered capitalism to me. I would strongly argue history tells us this is precisely what happens when government has too little influence and corporations therefore become centers of power. We would agree, at least, that equally bad things happen when governments have too much power. We would disagree on what "too much" means, obviously.
- syshum 6y ago
  >>Sounds like unfettered capitalism to me. I would strongly argue history tells us this is precisely what happens when government has too little influence and corporations therefore become centers of power. My argument is not about the intensity of the influence but rather about the type of influence, and what influence the government is allowed. I agree with most "progressives" on the nature of the problems we face as society, where I differ is on what should or can be done to solve them. History as shown that leaning on Authoritarian government regulations do not work out very well either, and leads to all kinds of unintended consequences. As the libertarian saying goes "Government: If you think you have problems now, what until you see our solutions" The ironic thing as well is when people paint "unfettered capitalism" with "corporations" A Corporation is a government created liability shield that does not exist in a "unfettered capitalist" system or rather a true free market. Corporations are part of the government regulatory apparatus system. One of the key problems we have is the regulatory capture, because we have allowed government to create corporations, which in turn become powerful and desire to capture the regulations that created them so they can make themselves more powerful, vicious circle >>We would disagree on what "too much" means, obviously. I dont know that we would disagree with "too much power", currently it is not how powerful the government is that I have the most problem with, it is the centralization of power that more concerning. The US for all its flaws did get one thing right. Power is best when it distributed. Power wants to consolidate, and centralize, it is up the the people to resist this and we the people have been very poor at that, especially since the Great Depression. We now look to the Federal government to solve all of our problems this is not how our system was to be.
  - JohnBooty 6y ago
    A Corporation is a government created liability shield that does not exist in a "unfettered capitalist" system or rather a true free market. Corporations are part of the government regulatory apparatus system. I'm intrigued. (That's not sarcasm) What's the libertarian alternative? What are examples of situations where removing the liability shields would encourage more beneficial behaviors from corporations? It seems to me that corporations, minus the liability shield, would still be nearly as potentially dangerous. They are more or less sociopathic entities by necessity; ceasing to exist if they cease to turn profits, a thing they can only do if they compete successfully against their equally sociopathic rivals. Corporations can of course behave responsibly and generously, but this is always going to be at odds with their fundamental mission. (While all of this sounds anti-corporation, I'm not. Private enterprise is and should be the backbone of society. It's just that it's awfully destructive, unchecked.)

by syshum 6y ago

JohnBooty 6y ago

Your post is thoughtful and well-written. I upvoted your post even though I disagree. I dislike the HN tradition of "dislike = downvote." We need more posts like yours, not less. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; Progressives/liberals/etc wouldn't disagree much with this premise, but we'd differ mightily on what this premise means in practical terms. - The FDA is far from perfect, but it generally does a good job of protecting my person from snake oil medicine and adulterated foods. - A federal healthcare mandate/provider protects my person against dying of curable diseases because if I have no job/insurance at the moment - Taxpayer-funded education gives me the liberty to become literate and obtain a basic level of education so that I may become employable and so forth even if my parents are unwilling or unable to educate me And so on. There are a lot of ways for your person, properties, and liberties to be threatened, most of which are indirect. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder Sounds like unfettered capitalism to me. I would strongly argue history tells us this is precisely what happens when government has too little influence and corporations therefore become centers of power. We would agree, at least, that equally bad things happen when governments have too much power. We would disagree on what "too much" means, obviously.

syshum 6y ago
>>Sounds like unfettered capitalism to me. I would strongly argue history tells us this is precisely what happens when government has too little influence and corporations therefore become centers of power. My argument is not about the intensity of the influence but rather about the type of influence, and what influence the government is allowed. I agree with most "progressives" on the nature of the problems we face as society, where I differ is on what should or can be done to solve them. History as shown that leaning on Authoritarian government regulations do not work out very well either, and leads to all kinds of unintended consequences. As the libertarian saying goes "Government: If you think you have problems now, what until you see our solutions" The ironic thing as well is when people paint "unfettered capitalism" with "corporations" A Corporation is a government created liability shield that does not exist in a "unfettered capitalist" system or rather a true free market. Corporations are part of the government regulatory apparatus system. One of the key problems we have is the regulatory capture, because we have allowed government to create corporations, which in turn become powerful and desire to capture the regulations that created them so they can make themselves more powerful, vicious circle >>We would disagree on what "too much" means, obviously. I dont know that we would disagree with "too much power", currently it is not how powerful the government is that I have the most problem with, it is the centralization of power that more concerning. The US for all its flaws did get one thing right. Power is best when it distributed. Power wants to consolidate, and centralize, it is up the the people to resist this and we the people have been very poor at that, especially since the Great Depression. We now look to the Federal government to solve all of our problems this is not how our system was to be.
- JohnBooty 6y ago
  A Corporation is a government created liability shield that does not exist in a "unfettered capitalist" system or rather a true free market. Corporations are part of the government regulatory apparatus system. I'm intrigued. (That's not sarcasm) What's the libertarian alternative? What are examples of situations where removing the liability shields would encourage more beneficial behaviors from corporations? It seems to me that corporations, minus the liability shield, would still be nearly as potentially dangerous. They are more or less sociopathic entities by necessity; ceasing to exist if they cease to turn profits, a thing they can only do if they compete successfully against their equally sociopathic rivals. Corporations can of course behave responsibly and generously, but this is always going to be at odds with their fundamental mission. (While all of this sounds anti-corporation, I'm not. Private enterprise is and should be the backbone of society. It's just that it's awfully destructive, unchecked.)