3 ms·

Frankly, freedom, absent anything else, is pretty useless. You're free to move to Antarctica, where I suspect you could build private infrastructure, etc. As a

Frankly, freedom, absent anything else, is pretty useless. You're free to move to Antarctica, where I suspect you could build private infrastructure, etc. As a thought experiment, still on the headlights: there is no state. I strike a man with my car and kill him. Then I continue on without telling anyone. What discourages me from this? Clearly he has no recourse. Another: I make my money extracting rare earth metals. The byproducts are toxic and radioactive, so I pay someone to drive them 100 miles away ( on a road I built) and dump them near a town. What prevents me from doing this? Edit: as I was writing this, I realized in the first example there would probably be a market for professional avengers. Sort of like insurance, the rich could pay a small force monthly so that, should they die, their paramilitary outfit would investigate and murder the perpetrator. It sounds like it would make an awesome anti-randian story about the absurdity of following capitalism to a logical conclusion

mindcrime 14y ago
As a thought experiment, still on the headlights: there is no state. I strike a man with my car and kill him. Then I continue on without telling anyone. What discourages me from this? Clearly he has no recourse. The presence or absence of a state makes absolutely zero difference in the situation you are describing. Dead men have no recourse in any scenario. * It sounds like it would make an awesome anti-randian story about the absurdity of following capitalism to a logical conclusion* It sounds like you're so blinded by ideology that you refuse to consider that there are alternative ways that things could be done. Of course, the present system is working so well that one wonders why he should even bother to consider alternatives...
- alanctgardner2 14y ago
  But what disincentivizes me from hitting him? In fact, with no state I should go back and make sure he's dead so he doesn't track me down. The problem isn't that I'm blinded by ideology. Is there any actual way we cold take action on your ideology? I posed two scenarios where a libertarian view doesn't introduce any penalty for externalities, and so he world goes to shit. Rather than telling people they should build their own roads and let companies store toxic waste wherever, why not try to take a less absolute stance? I'm socialist, but I'm not calling for the government to seize all private businesses. You can create meaningful, effective change by advocating for positions which are well thought through and have a definite impact, rather than idolizing some abstract concept - "freedom! Yay! No roads, but no oppressive IRS". To get back to the topic at hand, you oppose black boxes in cars because you think it infringes on civil liberties. I think that's a perfectly valid viewpoint, and getting all in a lather abut why roads are bad just confuses the issue.
  - mindcrime 14y ago
    I posed two scenarios where a libertarian view doesn't introduce any penalty for externalities, and so he world goes to shit. The point I'm trying to make, is that the current system has pathologies where it doesn't impose any penalty for externalities either. So pointing out that the libertarian position is less than perfect is hardly an explosive revelation. I don't believe any political system is perfect, but I think more people will achieve more happiness, overall, under the libertarian model. But, again, I'm somebody considers freedom (in the "freedom from force & agression" sense) to be it's own end, which is sufficient apart from any arguments related to economics, punishment for crime, etc. It also happens that I do believe that the libertarian model can address those issues as well as, or better than, other models, but that's actually a secondary point to me. I think that's a perfectly valid viewpoint, and getting all in a lather abut why roads are bad just confuses the issue. I never said roads were bad. I'm all for honest, sincere debate and reasonable discussion, but I'd ask you to please not put words in my mouth. Just because there's a weak stereotype that some people try to play up that "libertarians are against (roads|feeding the poor|fire protection|etc)" doesn't make it true.

mindcrime 14y ago

As a thought experiment, still on the headlights: there is no state. I strike a man with my car and kill him. Then I continue on without telling anyone. What discourages me from this? Clearly he has no recourse. The presence or absence of a state makes absolutely zero difference in the situation you are describing. Dead men have no recourse in any scenario. * It sounds like it would make an awesome anti-randian story about the absurdity of following capitalism to a logical conclusion* It sounds like you're so blinded by ideology that you refuse to consider that there are alternative ways that things could be done. Of course, the present system is working so well that one wonders why he should even bother to consider alternatives...

alanctgardner2 14y ago
But what disincentivizes me from hitting him? In fact, with no state I should go back and make sure he's dead so he doesn't track me down. The problem isn't that I'm blinded by ideology. Is there any actual way we cold take action on your ideology? I posed two scenarios where a libertarian view doesn't introduce any penalty for externalities, and so he world goes to shit. Rather than telling people they should build their own roads and let companies store toxic waste wherever, why not try to take a less absolute stance? I'm socialist, but I'm not calling for the government to seize all private businesses. You can create meaningful, effective change by advocating for positions which are well thought through and have a definite impact, rather than idolizing some abstract concept - "freedom! Yay! No roads, but no oppressive IRS". To get back to the topic at hand, you oppose black boxes in cars because you think it infringes on civil liberties. I think that's a perfectly valid viewpoint, and getting all in a lather abut why roads are bad just confuses the issue.
- mindcrime 14y ago
  I posed two scenarios where a libertarian view doesn't introduce any penalty for externalities, and so he world goes to shit. The point I'm trying to make, is that the current system has pathologies where it doesn't impose any penalty for externalities either. So pointing out that the libertarian position is less than perfect is hardly an explosive revelation. I don't believe any political system is perfect, but I think more people will achieve more happiness, overall, under the libertarian model. But, again, I'm somebody considers freedom (in the "freedom from force & agression" sense) to be it's own end, which is sufficient apart from any arguments related to economics, punishment for crime, etc. It also happens that I do believe that the libertarian model can address those issues as well as, or better than, other models, but that's actually a secondary point to me. I think that's a perfectly valid viewpoint, and getting all in a lather abut why roads are bad just confuses the issue. I never said roads were bad. I'm all for honest, sincere debate and reasonable discussion, but I'd ask you to please not put words in my mouth. Just because there's a weak stereotype that some people try to play up that "libertarians are against (roads|feeding the poor|fire protection|etc)" doesn't make it true.