Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If Odds & Ends was a country

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by cori93437 View Post
    Hmm... what will the angry neighbors do?

    Used force and violence...
    Band together to enforce rules against pig/meth farms in areas that they deem inappropriate...
    And continue to use force and violence to make sure it stays that way.

    Maybe make exceptions for a guy who pays them to be allowed to keep his pig farm open...

    Perhaps not. Perhaps they will use a free-market court system which would rule in favor of the community over the single pig farmer since the pig farmer was indeed polluting the air with bad odors which was indeed lowering property values which could actually be proven in a civilized court.

    However, let's say that didn't work and the pig farmer refused to comply. Then yes, violence would be justified because the pig farmer had been shown in court that he was indeed polluting the atmosphere and thus polluting on other people's private property thereby lowering the value of their land.

    Libertarians are not pacifists, we believe in violence for self-defense. We support the ownership of guns.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Grok View Post
      Just try starting a pig farm in a free society where you start polluting all your neighbors property and start lowering the value of all your neighbors land.

      You aren't going to be able to sell enough pigs to be able to afford to protect your farm from all of your angry neighbors.

      The only reason giant pig farms exist today, polluting entire towns, is because they used government protection to protect their property.
      So you're saying it's OK and reasonable for angry citizens to violently object to a pig farm by hopping over a fence with pitchforks, but not OK for those same citizens to object to (or approve of) a pig farm by voting or other collective regulatory action?

      Originally posted by Grok View Post
      So, if you don't think people should be free to decide what do with their property when they die, then what exactly do you think should happen?

      The only alternative is to use force and violence against people to force them to do something against their will.

      Is there some third option I am missing?!
      When a person dies, is their property still theirs? I have trouble reconciling how the property of a deceased person can still be owned, when the owner no longer exists. There is no philosophical reason why a blood relative should have priority over anyone else for access to the resources formerly controlled by someone who no longer exists, especially in the case of real estate, which cannot in fact be "given" or "taken", only occupied or vacated, used or not used. For the record I have no issue with bequeathing possessions. Bequeath away. I have an issue with the idea of real estate being a possession in the same sense.
      Today I will: Eat food, not poison. Plan for success, not settle for failure. Live my real life, not a virtual one. Move and grow, not sit and die.

      My Primal Journal

      Comment


      • #48
        Kennnn, Odds & Ends as a country wouldn't last long since the population argues all the time.
        If I just said LOL, I lied. Do or do not. There is no try.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by justyouraveragecavemen View Post
          Kennnn, Odds & Ends as a country wouldn't last long since the population argues all the time.
          And Kenn would be the furor stirring that pot.
          “You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.”
          ~Friedrich Nietzsche
          And that's why I'm here eating HFLC Primal/Paleo.

          Comment


          • #50
            What I find fascinating about Libertarianism is how close it is to Communism. Libertarianism isn't about being accountable for your actions; it's about making sure no one can hold you to account for your actions. Under libertarianism the rich and powerful would be able to crush and exploit and torment the rest of the population as they pleased, the common people would have no legal recourse, and if they tried anything extra-legal that's when the government would come crashing down. Under libertarianism the primary domestic job of the government is making sure the common people don't rise up against their masters.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Legbiter View Post
              Under libertarianism the primary domestic job of the government is making sure the common people don't rise up against their masters.
              "When fascism comes to America, it will be called ant-fascism" ~ Huey Long

              Libertarians throw out any and all class analysis so they can obsessively pursue an all important "government"/"private" distinction. A distinction that's really not the end all/be all.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Legbiter View Post
                What I find fascinating about Libertarianism is how close it is to Communism. Libertarianism isn't about being accountable for your actions; it's about making sure no one can hold you to account for your actions. Under libertarianism the rich and powerful would be able to crush and exploit and torment the rest of the population as they pleased, the common people would have no legal recourse, and if they tried anything extra-legal that's when the government would come crashing down. Under libertarianism the primary domestic job of the government is making sure the common people don't rise up against their masters.
                Where the heck did you learn about libertarianism? That doesn't accurately describe anything about a free and voluntary society and, in fact, it actually fits the description of our current governmental system. In our current system the rich and elite already monopolize and exploit the people with use of government force and violence and offers of "security" and "free" shit that makes people unmotivated, uneducated, desensitized, and dependent on the system for every decision they make from the size of their soda to whom they can marry. The US has the highest population of prisoners per capita, higher than China! How is the system helping the poor and disadvantaged now?? By throwing them thousands of (fake) Fed dollars in students loans that they can never ever pay back in their lifetime or by ruining their life with BS drug and weapons convictions? Or by taking a large portion of their income so that they can't properly prepare for their retirement and end up living at poverty levels in the last years of their lives because the government spent their money on wars and bailouts to failiing companies and corn and soy mega-farms.

                You have it backwards, my friend. The state is the aggressor; the rich and powerful monopolies that are in bed with the government would not exist in a stateless society. Corporations are products of the government. Explain how a (bad) monopoly could exist without the government that enforces laws that are created by these corporations to suppress competition and steer markets. A truly free market doesn't have protectionism. A business without government has to survive on its own merits. And with competing currencies, we'd have even leveler playing fields in free markets. Right now the government forces us to use one currency or they throw us in a cage. In a truly free society we can trade many things of value and have choices. The government = monopolies and violence
                Last edited by j3nn; 09-26-2012, 04:04 PM.
                | My (food) Blog | Follow me on Facebook | Pinterest | Twitter |

                “It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.” - Samuel Adams

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Uncephalized View Post
                  When a person dies, is their property still theirs? I have trouble reconciling how the property of a deceased person can still be owned, when the owner no longer exists. There is no philosophical reason why a blood relative should have priority over anyone else for access to the resources formerly controlled by someone who no longer exists.
                  That definitely sounds more civilized. Hey, sorry about your father passing away, but we need to throw you out of this house because it belongs to the people now.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Rojo View Post
                    "When fascism comes to America, it will be called ant-fascism" ~ Huey Long

                    Libertarians throw out any and all class analysis so they can obsessively pursue an all important "government"/"private" distinction. A distinction that's really not the end all/be all.
                    I'm sure many libertarians would have no problem at all with religious or other tyranny, as long as it isn't imposed by the government. The idea that oppression or coercion is only oppression or coercion if the government does it is a common libertarian belief.

                    But the reason libertarianism won't work in a full-blown form is that it relies on the assumption that people value freedom above all else. They don't. Or, at least they don't as soon as some creature comfort is threatened. People like a balance of freedom and security, and when they feel they don't have enough of one of those, then they want the pendulum to swing towards the other.

                    Since you quote, I'll add one as well.

                    "There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."
                    John Rogers.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Legbiter View Post
                      I'm sure many libertarians would have no problem at all with religious or other tyranny, as long as it isn't imposed by the government. The idea that oppression or coercion is only oppression or coercion if the government does it is a common libertarian belief.

                      But the reason libertarianism won't work in a full-blown form is that it relies on the assumption that people value freedom above all else. They don't. Or, at least they don't as soon as some creature comfort is threatened. People like a balance of freedom and security, and when they feel they don't have enough of one of those, then they want the pendulum to swing towards the other.
                      You don't need to use threats of violence to provide for those human needs.

                      Why is it such a terrible thing to want to opt-out of something you do not like, and are morally opposed to?

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Legbiter View Post
                        The idea that oppression or coercion is only oppression or coercion if the government does it is a common libertarian belief.
                        Yep. If my employer makes me piss in a cup or my landlord makes me get rid of my cat, I'm still "free".

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by DamienMaddox View Post
                          You don't need to use threats of violence to provide for those human needs.

                          Why is it such a terrible thing to want to opt-out of something you do not like, and are morally opposed to?
                          A) Damn dirty hippy.

                          B) Join the Amish.


                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by j3nn View Post
                            The state is the aggressor; the rich and powerful monopolies that are in bed with the government would not exist in a stateless society.
                            Sure they would. Monopoly control is the animal drive of any good capitalist. And without state monopoly on violence, the rich would form their own security apparti.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Rojo View Post
                              Yep. If my employer makes me piss in a cup or my landlord makes me get rid of my cat, I'm still "free".
                              You can choose another employer or another landlord. You can even chose neither. You're not born into either choice. In the case of government, you're stuck with it whether you like it or not.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Rojo View Post
                                Yep. If my employer makes me piss in a cup or my landlord makes me get rid of my cat, I'm still "free".
                                I know. The mind boggles.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X