4 ms·

The government with jurisdiction over the tigers would be filing the lawsuit against the poachers for misusing common goods (killing endangered species), not ne

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
    - commoner 4y ago
      The U.S. Libertarian Party does a better job of representing libertarian values in general than the two major parties, but the Libertarian Party platform does not encompass all of libertarianism, just like how there are conservatives who disagree with parts of the Republican Party platform and liberals who disagree with parts of the Democratic Party platform. Since the first-past-the-post voting system used in most U.S. states makes it difficult for third parties to gain traction, most politicians who prioritize winning elections run under one of the two major parties. A libertarian candidate who focuses on reducing taxes is more likely to become elected on the Republican ticket than the Libertarian ticket. A libertarian candidate who prioritizes legalizing marijuana will stand a better chance on the Democratic ticket than the Libertarian ticket. The goal is to push for changes that would advance the libertarian agenda on specific issues while maintaining the status quo party line on other issues, since it is easier to enact targeted changes than to fight on all fronts. Political candidates who choose to be affiliated with the Libertarian Party need to be sufficiently radical to reject the two dominant platforms that are much more likely to win them elections. Voters know that third parties including the Libertarian Party are disadvantaged in U.S. elections, and in races that Libertarian Party candidates are certain to lose or do not participate in, many libertarian voters select the candidate from one of the two major parties that they believe would do the best job advancing or preserving the parts of the libertarian philosophy that they prioritize. This is the most effective short-term voting strategy when voter prefers one of the major party candidates more than the others. In the long term, libertarians in the U.S. support ranked choice voting and other reforms that would empower third parties like the Libertarian Party. If the Libertarian Party does manage to gain traction, its platform would adapt to become more moderate, mainstream, and pluralistic to accommodate its larger voter base and encompass more of the libertarian philosophy. There aren't many surveys that focus on libertarians, but this 2014 one from the Pew Research Center shows that self-described libertarians tend to be more diverse and less radical than you perceive them to be: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/08/25/in-search-of-libertarians/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/08/25/in-search-o...

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
  - commoner 4y ago
    The U.S. Libertarian Party does a better job of representing libertarian values in general than the two major parties, but the Libertarian Party platform does not encompass all of libertarianism, just like how there are conservatives who disagree with parts of the Republican Party platform and liberals who disagree with parts of the Democratic Party platform. Since the first-past-the-post voting system used in most U.S. states makes it difficult for third parties to gain traction, most politicians who prioritize winning elections run under one of the two major parties. A libertarian candidate who focuses on reducing taxes is more likely to become elected on the Republican ticket than the Libertarian ticket. A libertarian candidate who prioritizes legalizing marijuana will stand a better chance on the Democratic ticket than the Libertarian ticket. The goal is to push for changes that would advance the libertarian agenda on specific issues while maintaining the status quo party line on other issues, since it is easier to enact targeted changes than to fight on all fronts. Political candidates who choose to be affiliated with the Libertarian Party need to be sufficiently radical to reject the two dominant platforms that are much more likely to win them elections. Voters know that third parties including the Libertarian Party are disadvantaged in U.S. elections, and in races that Libertarian Party candidates are certain to lose or do not participate in, many libertarian voters select the candidate from one of the two major parties that they believe would do the best job advancing or preserving the parts of the libertarian philosophy that they prioritize. This is the most effective short-term voting strategy when voter prefers one of the major party candidates more than the others. In the long term, libertarians in the U.S. support ranked choice voting and other reforms that would empower third parties like the Libertarian Party. If the Libertarian Party does manage to gain traction, its platform would adapt to become more moderate, mainstream, and pluralistic to accommodate its larger voter base and encompass more of the libertarian philosophy. There aren't many surveys that focus on libertarians, but this 2014 one from the Pew Research Center shows that self-described libertarians tend to be more diverse and less radical than you perceive them to be: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/08/25/in-search-of-libertarians/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/08/25/in-search-o...