4 ms·
"The NAP makes it really easy to see the morality of various actions." I beg to differ. To take one example, we know for a fact that the pollution from coal fi
by jshen 15y ago
"The NAP makes it really easy to see the morality of various actions."
I beg to differ. To take one example, we know for a fact that the pollution from coal fired power plants causes serious illness for thousands to millions of people a year. I've never met a libertarian who could explain to me how this situation is resolved via the NAP.
Second, I've never met a libertarian who really followed the NAP. How does the NAP deal with a serial killer?
Third, isn't the NAP a faith based belief? Why adhere to the NAP? Isn't it possible that we could measure the effect of some use of government force, and through that force it does good for the society at large? Why would we not use force in that way other than a faith based belief in the NAP?
- dantheman 15y agoNAP allows for defensive violence; i.e. if someone is violating your rights you can defend yourself. Stopping a serial killer & pollution are both cases where someone's rights have been violated.
- jshen 15y agoHow would a libertarian society deal with pollution from coal fired plants?
- lhnn 15y agoHow is this hard to understand: If the coal plants are proven to be harming the populace, they are aggressors. However, I don't think coal-fired plants necessarily kill the planet (or people).
- jshen 15y agoIt certainly harms people (http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/c02c.html http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/c02c.html) But you didn't really answer the question. How would a libertarian society deal with them? Would such a society ban all coal fired plants, and if so how would it be enforced? Would someone weigh the pros and cons, if so who and how? Would such a society every establish a regulatory body to actively monitor plants and limit their pollution?
- lhnn 15y agoI'm not a politician or a philosopher. My guess, however, is that pollution of air and flowing waters can be controlled through Libertarians' concept of property rights, since the pollution thereof has an effect on other peoples' private properties. Therefore, regulation seems likely and moral, though it isn't necessarily the only option.
- jshen 15y agoIsn't regulation the government using forces to collect taxes which it then uses to use force to have inspections? My problem with libertarianism is that it always turns into a lot of hand waving from the libertarian. They start off saying that government force is a great evil, then I bring up something like pollution and suddenly the argument is much more nuanced, "well of course we'd have to use force". Exactly, of course you have to use force. Once we admit this, what does libertarianism mean? How is it different from what we have today?
- lhnn 15y agoWell, libertarians I speak to tend to acknowledge the need for some government. You're setting up a false dichotomy.
- jshen 15y agoNo I'm not, the problem is that libertarians talk in circles. "It's never acceptable to use force!!!". What about xyz. "Well of course you use some force". Ok, so what does libertarianism mean? "taxation is violence!!!". Um, but don't you need taxes to pay for that government you said we needed a minute ago. "Well of course :confused look:". So what does libertarianism mean again?
- dantheman 15y agoMany people think that voluntary arrangements can be made to provide police actions. That way the police defend the people and treat them well, since that's who pays their salary. It would quickly lead to end of all victimless crimes, as no one would pay for that type of enforcement & those being targeted would be able to hire their own protection forces. Am advocating something like this for the entire united states - of course, not. But I'd be very interested in seeing these ideas tried voluntarily by willing participants.
- zachrose 15y agoBruno Latour writes about this sort of thing as a paradox of modernism, in which nature is purified from society (Boyle) and society is purified from nature (Hobbes), the net result being that political philosophies and matters of nature don't fit together very well.
- rbranson 15y agoHow does NAP deal with property rights? Pretty much all the property in the entire world was gained through aggression.
- olalonde 15y agoThere seems to be a lot of hard data that supports the NAP and limited government. Think of communist vs capitalist countries, economic freedom vs standard of living, regulated vs non-regulated industries, etc.
- jshen 15y agoHm, I think if you made a list of all the countries that are a decent place to live that the vast majority of them would have large central governments. All of which use force to collect taxes for things like universal healthcare, social security, public schools. I'm pretty sure NAP says that the government can't force you to pay taxes for public schools.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- olalonde 15y agoThey do but the larger governments tend to do worse. I suggest ypu take a look at the economic freedom index.
- jshen 15y ago"They do but the larger governments tend to do worse." Larger compared to what? I think places with the smallest most ineffectual governments are all hell holes. Every decent society has a large central government. The "economic freedom index" is a bit of a misnomer. They define freedom as a government large enough to protect rights. So right out the gate freedom is redefined as a large government that uses force to impose civil society. Let me pick one example. Your freedom index lists Switzerland as "Free". Switzerland has government imposed universal healthcare. That sounds like a lot of government to me, how about you! One last thing, none of the countries listed as "FREE" are anything close to a libertarian society based on the NAP.