Comments on: Libertarianism; The New Black

By: Club Troppo » Missing Link Daily

Club Troppo » Missing Link Daily — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:37:31 +0000

[...] and Busted: Taxes. New Hotness: Libertarianism. 99. gilmae: Their mum says they’re cool. [↩]JF Beck is feeling a little cocksure and, as [...]

By: nicholas gray

nicholas gray — Thu, 29 May 2008 02:40:55 +0000

MaxT- nice idea, but how will we publicise it? And I don’t know if we should let the government get away with calling things ‘services’ when they force you to pay for them whether you use them or not! There is a small slither of morality to the Lands Department, where I work, because people pay for the service that they want done- we are not financed by taxes. In a liberated economy, i still think that something like the Lands Office would be useful, to validate claims to land, and size of lands- Insurance companies would want such information, as one example.

By: maximum thrust

maximum thrust — Wed, 28 May 2008 17:14:10 +0000

People don’t want governments to provide services, they want somebody to provide services, anybody, it doesn’t matter who. The idea that needs to be spread around is that not only are governments the wrong people to provide services, they actually get in the way of the right people.

By: nicholas gray

nicholas gray — Mon, 26 May 2008 00:15:00 +0000

But the use of one’s property is a right, and the collective right of share-owners to dictate the conditions of use of their property is one I would respect. I also think that licences are a right that any owner can insist on, so I don’t object to licenses for road-safety reasons.
As for owning your own body, I agree with that. I also think that land-owners should be allowed to decide what to do with their lands, including my right to allow or expel people or things from my property, and to put conditions on what they do. I extend this right to collective entities, like companies that own lands, i.e. roads.
I see no ownership clashes here. (What do you do on someone else’s property, DavidL? Do you go to parties determined to do your own thing, regardless of the wishes of the hosts?)
In the case of the nude photos, if the photos are kept in a private studio, and the kids, or their guardians, gave their consent, then there is no cause to call the cops. I would not visit it because of my values, but I wouldn’t have the right to impose my values over someone else’s property.

By: Mark Hill

Mark Hill — Mon, 26 May 2008 00:09:07 +0000

Except I can make you leave and make you take your bong with you, flower child.

By: DavidLeyonhjelm

DavidLeyonhjelm — Sun, 25 May 2008 23:18:27 +0000

It’s none of the road owner’s business whether I wear a seatbelt or not on his/her road. So long as nobody else is coerced as a result, it’s entirely my affair.

There is nothing about a private property right that places it on a higher level than owning your own body.

By: nicholas gray

nicholas gray — Sun, 25 May 2008 10:02:03 +0000

As a libertarian of the Co-Monarchist strain, I think that things like seat belts are the right of the owners of roads to decide. Ideally, local counties would decide this, and users of public property should respect the owners, called the public.
On your own land, live as unsafely as you like!

By: DavidLeyonhjelm

DavidLeyonhjelm — Sun, 25 May 2008 02:58:57 +0000

i do think libertarian parties need to be aware more of how some of their policies come across. many people agree with the need for less govt nannying but there;s a big jump from this position to wanting to ban seat belts (for example). they need to be guided there in baby steps.

For the record, the LDP is not in favour of banning anything (apart from bans on things). Its philosophy is quite simple – when nobody else is likely to suffer adversely and involuntarily (ie coercion), it’s none of the government’s business.

While its policy does not specifically include repeal of seatbelt laws, it regards enforcement as a low order priority. It might be stupid not to wear a seatbelt, but stupidity is not sufficient justification for invoking criminal law.

In purist terms, repealing seatbelt laws makes more sense. In New Hampshire the wearing of seatbelts is not compulsory for libertarian reasons. However, the LDP operates in the Australian political environment, not the US. Australians are less comfortable with accepting responsibility for their own decisions, so a more measured approach is needed. All the LDP’s policies have been written from that perspective.

By: Jim Fryar

Jim Fryar — Sun, 25 May 2008 02:05:05 +0000

The most telling factor in my transition to libertarianism was the argument for limiting the power of the state to interfere in our lives and in the process reducing the financial dead weight of government.

If we “ever sanction more state spending just to gain power.” then we cease to be libertarian. I am all for a gradualist approach, but this must not violate our basic principles.

By: pommygranate

pommygranate — Sun, 25 May 2008 01:30:31 +0000

people want it spent on services. They want the state to manage risk for them

i don’t disagree. however, that’s what people thought in the UK until they saw the consequences of 12 years of state spending. having lived thru that, they now want tax cuts and less state involvement.

when people are wealthy, they vote for more welfare. when things get tough, they vote for more economically literate policies.

there is no way any libertarian party would ever sanction more state spending just to gain power.