3 ms·

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 th

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

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.