4 ms·

The courts will decide how the damages for the toxic waste dumping should be assessed. The government regulates the use of public and common goods, and it can a

The courts will decide how the damages for the toxic waste dumping should be assessed. The government regulates the use of public and common goods, and it can also file lawsuits. When you said: > The state works because they have a monopoly on violence and imprisonment. As long as they operate for general good and operate via a strict system of laws which prevents abuses and maintains rights, then that is a good thing. did you think that most libertarians would disagree? The status quo is that the state has a role in protecting human and property rights, and in regulating public and common goods. No pragmatic libertarian would suggest removing the state from these roles without finding a suitable replacement.

Eisenstein 4y ago
> did you think that most libertarians would disagree? If you believe that a state should exist and should protect human rights, even so far as to use their monopoly on violence to shut down a private property holder who is causing damage to property owners no where near them based on economic externalities such as providing markets for endangered species parts, then what is the difference between a 'statist' and a 'pragmatic libertarian'?
- commoner 4y ago
  The government with jurisdiction over the tigers would be filing the lawsuit against the poachers for misusing common goods (killing endangered species), not necessarily the purchaser. Because most libertarians are not anarchists, and because statism encompasses all sizes of governments, statism can be compatible with libertarianism. However, people who want to abolish government altogether cannot be statists, and people who support government expansion to an excessive and unnecessary extent cannot be libertarians.
  - Eisenstein 4y ago
    You haven't clarified anything except that you don't actually consider externalities. If buying endangered animal parts and thus creating a market for poaching animals is not an externality then I must not understand what an externality is. Let's try another one. I put kiddie pools full of stagnant water all around my property in order to breed mosquito larvae to feed my pets. These mosquitos end up causing a malaria epidemic for everyone around including you but I am not affected by malaria and don't care. Are you saying that you have to go to court to sue me and prove that it is my mosquitoes giving you malaria? Why not sue the person the mosquito bit who had malaria who then gave it to you? You say the government would do this, but I have trouble believing a libertarian state would allow them to act in such a way since it would involve having departments extremely similar to the EPA and CDC. The problems I have with libertarianism are around these issues and your handwaving of them, and this is compounded by the fact that you haven't defined what libertarianism actually is, besides that it is 'not anarchy'. Have you really thought about these things, or do you just find the idea of self-sufficiency and absolute personal freedom enticing?
    - commoner 4y ago
      Both the government and the individuals who caught malaria can sue the person who created the code-violating pools, especially since that person is aware of the resulting health effects. A lawsuit against someone who inadvertently caught malaria will obviously go nowhere, because courts consider intent. Since the status quo is that public lands are regulated by the state, the state will sue people who illegally poach endangered species within its jurisdiction. However, if another state allows the poaching of the same endangered species within its jurisdiction, a libertarian approach in the first state would allow for animal parts to be imported from the second state and sold within the first state. A comprehensive definition from Wikipedia: > Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and political freedom, and minimize the state's encroachment on and violations of individual liberties; emphasizing pluralism, cosmopolitanism, cooperation, civil and political rights, bodily autonomy, free association, free trade, freedom of expression, freedom of choice, freedom of movement, individualism and voluntary association. Libertarians are often skeptical of or opposed to authority, state power, warfare, militarism and nationalism, but some libertarians diverge on the scope of their opposition to existing economic and political systems. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism You seem to be painting all libertarians as a homogeneous extremist bloc, which is just as fallacious as ascribing minority hardline stances to "all liberals" or "all conservatives". The above describes general concepts that libertarians support, and absolutes such as "absolute personal freedom" are ideologies that pragmatists recognize as infeasible.
      - Eisenstein 4y ago
        > You seem to be painting all libertarians as a homogeneous extremist bloc, which is just as fallacious as ascribing minority hardline stances to "all liberals" or "all conservatives". The above describes general concepts that libertarians support, and absolutes such as "absolute personal freedom" are ideologies that pragmatists recognize as infeasible. No, libertarians are not like 'liberals' or 'conservatives', they are libertarians, and they believe in an absolutely minimal amount of state intervention. Have you talked to any before? It seems like you read a few books and have some notion of some kind of libertarianism which is not at all what is advocated for by real life 'libertarians'. There is a 'Libertarian' party in the USA and they have candidates and an agenda. You may believe one thing, and call other people's views 'fallacious' but those views are based very much on Libertarianism as represented by Libertarians. Here are some candidates for the Libertarian party. * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcllE7fx8-I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcllE7fx8-I

Eisenstein 4y ago

> did you think that most libertarians would disagree? If you believe that a state should exist and should protect human rights, even so far as to use their monopoly on violence to shut down a private property holder who is causing damage to property owners no where near them based on economic externalities such as providing markets for endangered species parts, then what is the difference between a 'statist' and a 'pragmatic libertarian'?

commoner 4y ago
The government with jurisdiction over the tigers would be filing the lawsuit against the poachers for misusing common goods (killing endangered species), not necessarily the purchaser. Because most libertarians are not anarchists, and because statism encompasses all sizes of governments, statism can be compatible with libertarianism. However, people who want to abolish government altogether cannot be statists, and people who support government expansion to an excessive and unnecessary extent cannot be libertarians.
- Eisenstein 4y ago
  You haven't clarified anything except that you don't actually consider externalities. If buying endangered animal parts and thus creating a market for poaching animals is not an externality then I must not understand what an externality is. Let's try another one. I put kiddie pools full of stagnant water all around my property in order to breed mosquito larvae to feed my pets. These mosquitos end up causing a malaria epidemic for everyone around including you but I am not affected by malaria and don't care. Are you saying that you have to go to court to sue me and prove that it is my mosquitoes giving you malaria? Why not sue the person the mosquito bit who had malaria who then gave it to you? You say the government would do this, but I have trouble believing a libertarian state would allow them to act in such a way since it would involve having departments extremely similar to the EPA and CDC. The problems I have with libertarianism are around these issues and your handwaving of them, and this is compounded by the fact that you haven't defined what libertarianism actually is, besides that it is 'not anarchy'. Have you really thought about these things, or do you just find the idea of self-sufficiency and absolute personal freedom enticing?
  - commoner 4y ago
    Both the government and the individuals who caught malaria can sue the person who created the code-violating pools, especially since that person is aware of the resulting health effects. A lawsuit against someone who inadvertently caught malaria will obviously go nowhere, because courts consider intent. Since the status quo is that public lands are regulated by the state, the state will sue people who illegally poach endangered species within its jurisdiction. However, if another state allows the poaching of the same endangered species within its jurisdiction, a libertarian approach in the first state would allow for animal parts to be imported from the second state and sold within the first state. A comprehensive definition from Wikipedia: > Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and political freedom, and minimize the state's encroachment on and violations of individual liberties; emphasizing pluralism, cosmopolitanism, cooperation, civil and political rights, bodily autonomy, free association, free trade, freedom of expression, freedom of choice, freedom of movement, individualism and voluntary association. Libertarians are often skeptical of or opposed to authority, state power, warfare, militarism and nationalism, but some libertarians diverge on the scope of their opposition to existing economic and political systems. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism You seem to be painting all libertarians as a homogeneous extremist bloc, which is just as fallacious as ascribing minority hardline stances to "all liberals" or "all conservatives". The above describes general concepts that libertarians support, and absolutes such as "absolute personal freedom" are ideologies that pragmatists recognize as infeasible.
    - Eisenstein 4y ago
      > You seem to be painting all libertarians as a homogeneous extremist bloc, which is just as fallacious as ascribing minority hardline stances to "all liberals" or "all conservatives". The above describes general concepts that libertarians support, and absolutes such as "absolute personal freedom" are ideologies that pragmatists recognize as infeasible. No, libertarians are not like 'liberals' or 'conservatives', they are libertarians, and they believe in an absolutely minimal amount of state intervention. Have you talked to any before? It seems like you read a few books and have some notion of some kind of libertarianism which is not at all what is advocated for by real life 'libertarians'. There is a 'Libertarian' party in the USA and they have candidates and an agenda. You may believe one thing, and call other people's views 'fallacious' but those views are based very much on Libertarianism as represented by Libertarians. Here are some candidates for the Libertarian party. * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcllE7fx8-I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcllE7fx8-I