LJWorld.com weblogs The Free Market
Posted
by Liberty_one
June 29, 2010 at 2:41 p.m.
Getting Used to Socialism
Reading the comments regarding the state-wide smoking ban in Kansas I came across one particularly poignant comment, the gist of which was that smokers will complain, maybe a few will boycott, but eventually they'll get over it and get used to it. This is the sometimes sad, but true, nature of human beings. Getting used to things is a key to our species success--we can adapt to all kinds of conditions. We can get used to all kinds of hardships, and the incremental creep of government control is made possible because of this.
We get used to filling out required paperwork, we get used to taxation, we get used to our dollar losing value, we get used to the rising cost of health care, we get used to increased government control of our businesses, property, lives and bodies. Only instead of adapting to natural problems like droughts and diseases, we are coping with infringements upon our liberty by our fellow man.
In Libertarian circles there is a belief that the recent increase in interest for libertarian ideology, free market economics, the rising popularity of Ron Paul and the discussion about the importance of liberty and the threat posed by government signal a changing wind which will move the country back towards increased freedom and away from increased government. I, however, am not so optimistic. I think this is only a temporary uptick but that people will get used to the changes being made to our country and "get over it," so to speak. In the Soviet Union people got used to cold apartments and waiting in line for food. In the UK people have gotten used to waiting for health care. In the US, we too have gotten used to the hardships brought about by the creep towards socialism.
I think history has shown that it is only when the government is weak or the people begin to starve that revolution occurs. Our government certainly isn't getting any weaker, and considering the main problem with US agriculture has always been overproduction, it will take a long time before our economy is so ruined that we begin to run out of food. The cycle of boom and bust economics will continue, our economy will deteriorate further as the government increases control and spends its way into more and more debt. People will get upset when the next big economic crash comes, but not as upset as they were before. Eventually we'll all just get used to high unemployment, lower wages, and a lower standard of living. As government continues to take control of more sectors of our economy, starting out with healthcare, education and transportation it will spread to other sectors. Shortages will become common and people will get angry, but then they'll get used to it.
It'll only be when food starts running short that people will finally stand up for themselves, because you can't get used to starvation.
and 23 others
Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment · Bars · Theatres · Restaurants · Coffeehouses · Libraries · Antiques · Services
- National group seeks repeal of 'Stand Your Ground' law in Kansas May 27, 2012 · 166 comments
- Kansas tax act most regressive in nation May 27, 2012 · 277 comments
- U.S. military sees new appreciation May 28, 2012 · 47 comments
- Sound Off: How much does the city’s transit system collect in fares compared with how much it costs May 27, 2012 · 137 comments
- Tax gamble May 26, 2012 · 95 comments
- Brownback tells federal judicial panel to toss legislative redistricting maps May 29, 2012 · 7 comments
- God, marriage May 25, 2012 · 200 comments
- On the street: How did you spend your Memorial Day? May 28, 2012 · 37 comments
- Remove politics, and redistricting map falls in line May 27, 2012 · 52 comments
- Blog: Iranian Nuclear Energy: Will It Destroy Lives Or Save Them? May 29, 2012 · 6 comments
- Kansas tax act most regressive in nation May 27, 2012
- Thread of pain ran through Jackson’s career June 28, 2009
- Hilltop executive director Pat Pisani stepping down May 28, 2012
- Friends mourn Lynn Bretz, former voice of KU May 28, 2012
- Town Talk: UPDATE: Frank Male files for county commission; keep an ear open for local sales tax talk; city hires new city engineer; wholesale water district buys land near Kaw; weekly land transfers May 29, 2012
- How to help: Guides needed for Lamplight Tour of Black Jack Battlefield and Nature Park May 27, 2012
- Library kicks off reading program May 27, 2012
- City, county mull upgrade to emergency radio system May 28, 2012
- Experts: Remedial college classes need fixing May 28, 2012
- Book helps family heal after tragedy May 28, 2012
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
Here is the comment that inspired this blog:
KC_Chicagoan (anonymous) replies…
"That aside, I see these smokers saying how they won't be going to bars or restaurants anymore/less often. I find that that truly hard to believe. There will be some who will protest by following through and not frequenting bars/restaurants, and I admire them for their persistence; it is their right to do so. However, the vast majority are just going to suck it up and have a smoke outside. They'll complain about it for a little and then it will just become another fact of life."
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2010/jun...
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
A case study in Americans getting used to hardships:
Income taxation was sold to the people as a way to avoid onerous tariffs that hindered farmers in particular. Only the top 1% would pay income taxes, so we were told, and the tariff would be reduced. Once the sixteenth amendment was passed Congress faithfully followed through, lowering the tariff. However the tariff was later restored and slowly but surely more and more people became subject to income taxation. Now it's just another "fact of life" which we have all gotten used to, like so many other infringements upon our property and our liberties.
madameX (anonymous) replies…
I say this in the least smart-alecky, least trying-to-start-a-fight way possible, but I'd be very curious to see what the reaction would be if the government tried to go back to taxing just the top 1%. Specifically, would it be seen as trying to "punish the rich" by making them shoulder the cost of running the government?
rumor_man (anonymous) says…
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Guitarzan (anonymous) says…
Was there a point to be made here?
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
Point is, it's going to get a whole lot worse before it gets better.
parrothead8 (anonymous) says…
Slightly under 20% of Americans smoke. How is it "socialism" to not allow their cancer sticks to infringe upon the lungs of the other 80%?
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
parrot, it is because the government is controlling how property owners use their property. If the government takes more and more control over private property, it no longer is really private, now is it?
It is noteworthy that you try and co-opt the language of liberty when you are talking about "infringe upon" as if non-smokers are having their rights abused. However this is nonsensical. The property owner is the only one who has the right to allow smoking or not in her establishment. If someone does not want to breath smoke he does not have to go there.
DougCounty (anonymous) replies…
That's called privatizing the profits while socializing the costs. Your smoke drifts under my nose and you are telling me that it's MY problem even tho it's your smoke that drifts out of your nose and into mine. Scale this issue up to any scale you want, and it's the same dynamic, whether it be my upstream neighbor pooping into the crick or BP spilling into the Gulf of Mexico. It's not freedom if your actions are befouling my nest, and that principle has been recognized since Cain and Abel.
The solution is called a social contract, of course: by restraining some of your personal freedoms, the larger community benefits, whether it be a no-smoking sign, a seat belt or regulations requiring functional blow out preventers. The consequences of not doing so are clear: second hand smoke-induced cancer, the whole community having to pay for your head injury bills, the massive cleanup and economic devastation in the Gulf of Mexico.
The terms of the social contract are dynamic and specific to place and time. What is needed in Kansas is different than what is needed in New York City, and what worked in NYC in the 20's is different than what is needed today. Why? Because the population has grown everywhere, we rub elbows a lot more frequently than we used to, plus we use a heck of a lot more energy in different ways than we did in the 20s.
Liberty_One (anonymous) replies…
DougCounty (anonymous) replies…
"That's called privatizing the profits while socializing the costs. Your smoke drifts under my nose and you are telling me that it's MY problem "
Incorrect. There's no socializing of costs here. No one is forcing you to accept smokers onto your property. You are going onto someone else's property where they have their rules.
"whether it be my upstream neighbor pooping into the crick or BP spilling into the Gulf of Mexico"
Incorrect. These are examples of people violating other people's property rights. If your actions cause harm to someone else's property you are liable for the damages. There is no need to have a "social contract," just hold the tortfeasor liable for damages.
DougCounty (anonymous) replies…
Wrong. When I'm walking down a street in downtown Lawrence, it's public space and the cost of your cigarette smoke is socialized.
Wrong with the Gulf of Mexico, too. The degree of befouling could very well exceed the total value of BP, so who picks up the tab?
Wrong about the guy who smashed up his brain when he exercised his liberty to not wear a helmet. How is a 25 year old unemployable male without insurance going to pay his hospital bill? Or, if you're a true libertarian, his funeral expenses?
How do you keep air pollution, water pollution, nitrate and pesticide runoff, radioactivity, etc. on an individual's or corporation's private property? How do you prevent your CO2 from warming the air or rising the sea level on my property? How do you keep the guy's poop upstream from washing down the river onto my property?
Reality is interconnected, unlike your philosophy. They simply don't match up, and if you can't/don't pay for your messes, I have to, plain and simple. That's what I mean by privatizing the profits while socializing the costs, and no amount of denying will change the way reality works.
Liberty_One (anonymous) replies…
"When I'm walking down a street in downtown Lawrence, it's public space and the cost of your cigarette smoke is socialized. "
I have no problem with public laws regulating publicly owned places. However I was privately owned places.
"The degree of befouling could very well exceed the total value of BP, so who picks up the tab?.....How do you keep air pollution... etc. on an individual's or corporation's private property?"
You eliminate the corporate veil and allow victims to direcly sue the owners. When all you have to lose is your investment in a stock, all you care about is maximum return. When you could be sued and lose your house and bank accounts, then you are going to darn well make sure things are being run safely.
"no amount of denying will change the way reality works"
You are assuming the current legal, judical and economic setup. Of course half-implementing Libertarian policies won't work very well. If you get rid of regulations but not liabiliy caps and allow money damages to replace injunctions, of course it won't work to eliminate pollution. Saying I'm denying reality and it won't work only means you can't see how it would work because you don't know all the details.
DougCounty (anonymous) replies…
Liberty:
"I have no problem with public laws regulating publicly owned places. However I was privately owned places."
OK, so you own property upstream from the city's water intake and you're pooping directly iinto the river. Do you have that right because any law restricting the use of your private property is verboten?
Liberty:
"You eliminate the corporate veil and allow victims to direcly sue the owners...."
I certainly agree that folks hide behind the corporate veil--CEOs aren't owners and too often are not held responsible for the damage they oversee and then leave on their golden parachutes when the kitchen gets too hot. But I'm curious as to the details on what corporate reform you are suggesting--what exactly are you proposing? And without regulatory oversight, how can you expect to be able to successfully sue? Furthermore, don't you think it's in your personal interest to have some public enforcer suing that big corporation instead of you personally going up against that corporation's legal team and having to shell out big bucks to try to get them to stop their polluting? Or are you intending to restrict their ability to defend themselves against personal lawsuits? And exactly how would that work in your libertarian world?
Liberty:
"Saying I'm denying reality and it won't work only means you can't see how it would work because you don't know all the details."
Please, give me the details as to how a legal, judicial and economic setup would accurately deal with the interconnectedness of reality using a libertarian approach. And pointing me to Ayn Rand won't cut it--whats your specific proposal?
Mahkwa (Brent Mowery) replies…
"OK, so you own property upstream from the city's water intake and you're pooping directly iinto the river. Do you have that right because any law restricting the use of your private property is verboten?"
Would this not be violation of public property, therefore making the property owner liable?
Liberty_One (anonymous) replies…
DougCounty (anonymous) replies…
"OK, so you own property upstream from the city's water intake and you're pooping directly iinto the river. Do you have that right because any law restricting the use of your private property is verboten?"
No because your actions cause damage to someone else's property. You can't pollute on your property if it is going to seep onto other people's property. They can get an injunction against you. That's why free market environmentalism is so much better. Under our regulatory system, you can pollute all you want as long as you have a permit.
"But I'm curious as to the details on what corporate reform you are suggesting--what exactly are you proposing?"
Corporations are a creation of the government. In a free market all businesses would be run as sole proprietorships or partnerships. There would be no such thing as a corporation. It's as simple as that.
"And without regulatory oversight, how can you expect to be able to successfully sue?"
Why would you need regulations to sue? Tort law is common law--it has nothing to do with regulations.
"don't you think it's in your personal interest to have some public enforcer suing that big corporation instead of you "
Absolutely not! That public enforcer is going to be subject to the whims of politicians who accept large campaign donations from that corporation. I want my own attorney suing on my behalf, not some bought-off government agency which will compromise with the corporation.
"give me the details as to how a legal, judicial and economic setup would accurately deal with the interconnectedness of reality using a libertarian approach"
Just look at the pollution example. Instead of some disinterested agency dealing with pollution it will be the people actually affected by it that will enforce the law. Asking some bureaucrat in DC to decide what levels of pollution are acceptable in Kansas does not reflect the "interconnectedness of reality,'" now does it?
DougCounty (anonymous) replies…
Interesting scenario, Liberty. If I'm reading you right, you are suggesting that we get rid of all corporations, thereby relieving the government for the need for burdensom regulations to protect the individual against corporate excesses. I'm really intrigued with that kind of a possibility, although it presents a number of real challenges:
-how does one dismantle the global corporatist system that dominates the current economies, including how to redistribute the assets, the means of production, the media, the transportation sector, etc?
-What safeguards would there be to protect against excesses by individual proprietorships and partnerships? Would the only safeguard against externalizing costs be the tort courts? You may think that this would be an adequate process, but wouldn't it entail a huge expansion of the tort court system? And would civil penalties be enough of a disincentive to prevent large scale polluters from continuing to pollute?
-In certain situations, such as endangered species, it is impossible to pay enough money to compensate. Does money bring back an extinct species? Does it lower the sea level?
-Similarly, how does one assign culpability in such situations where there is collective guilt, as in the case of creating large dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico caused by the runoff from corn fields in the Midwest? It seems that to change the basic way things are done in order to avoid continuation of the problem, regulations have a central role to play. It cannot be addressed just through the tort system of redress. It is through the bureaucrat who works in conjunction with the locals in Kansans that such regulatory systems are established and actually have a pretty darn good record of cleaning up the air, water and soils of the land. Huge strides have been made in areas where there was a clear right and wrong but very little will to do the right thing without regulatory mandates being constructed through a multi-dimensional protocol that has its roots in the concept of a social contract.
Liberty_One (anonymous) replies…
"-how does one dismantle the global corporatist system "
That's easy enough. All you'd have to do is begin to deny renewing corporate charters, and any with a forever type of charter, simply impose a phase-out time period. Eventually all the charters would expire and they would become partnerships by default.
"What safeguards would there be to protect against excesses by individual proprietorships and partnerships?"
Removing the corporate veil is huge since that protects the owners from the actions of the corporation. Without that the owners are going to be held personally responsible for any harms caused by their business. Tort reform would be necessary. In the early 1800s, if anyone, for example, polluted on your property, you could get an injunction forcing them to stop. However, courts stop issuing injunctions and decided money damages was enough because the polluters provided jobs etc. Simply reverse this and bring back the availability of injunctions as a remedy to trespass and nuisance tort claims.
"wouldn't it entail a huge expansion of the tort court system?"
Most of these things are already litigated, it's just that remedies are limited, for example BP has a cap on their potential liability, and money damages are usually the best you can get. Also, regulatory agencies have their own administrative courts. Those resouces would be freed up to handle any extra load. And finally judicial costs are only a tiny part of the state and federal budget as it is.
"And would civil penalties be enough of a disincentive to prevent large scale polluters from continuing to pollute?"
Injunctions would force them to stop polluting. And remember, it wouldn't be a corporation, but the actual owners who would get thrown in jail for disobeying an injunction.
"In certain situations, such as endangered species, it is impossible to pay enough money to compensate."
People who want to protect the habitat of endangered species can buy the land themselves. There are groups that do this.
"how does one assign culpability in such situations where there is collective guilt, as in the case of creating large dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico caused by the runoff from corn fields in the Midwest?"
It wouldn't get that far in the first place because whoever owned the rivers and lakes that the runoff first went to would seek injunctions forcing them to stop.
Regardless, the main problem with regulatory agencies is that they will never have the same motivation to protect the environment as those who are directly affected. They get pressured by congressmen and the President to compromise and in fact that's the official policy. You can pollute all you want if you get a permit for it. In addition they rely on businesses to self-monitor most of the time. They can't come to the plant every single day an monitor how many gallons of pollutant they are discharging, now can they?
DougCounty (anonymous) replies…
Your scenario is much more interesting than I expected, so thanks for trotting out more details than I expected in this usually shallow venue. So what the heck--why not keep going?
I think that on the local scale, your system potentially has some real merit and would be very interesting to see in action, even though I don't see any political will to start denying corporate charters. In fact, all you would need is a state willing to register corporations like Delaware has traditionally done, and you've lost the battle. In other words, I think it's not really as simple as you are saying it would be. Am I missing something here? I mean, even China accepts the corporate model, even though I agree much of the economic and environmental havoc of our time can be directly traced to the idea that a company should be given the same rights as an individual.
The problem of culpability in the case of the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico is that nobody on the Mississippi River would care about the excess nitrate runoff going down the river, since it is going downstream, so it does not begin to show up as an overwhelming problem until it exits into the Gulf of Mexico, at which point there is no owner to issue an injunction. The only way to change that in your scenario would be to privatize off parcels of the continental shelf under the Gulf, which would be completely impractical and as unworkable as trying to sell off segments of the air!
And as you know, the current BP spill is a prime example of how merely placing an injunction or thowing someone in jail doesn't stop the pollution from continuing. I can envision quite a list of similar situations where these "sticks" would not be up to the task of stopping destruction/pollution/degradation from continuing despite the penalties. Not that this is hugely different from our current pickle; it just does not hold a significant advantage over the current mess we've created for ourselves.
Have you ever run across Jeff Smith's www.geonomics.org site? Somehow your scenario has elements of his geo-economics model and therefore I think you might be interesed in it.
Liberty_One (anonymous) replies…
"all you would need is a state willing to register corporations like Delaware has traditionally done, and you've lost the battle"
Kansas courts don't have to recognize Delaware law.
"The only way to change that in your scenario would be to privatize off parcels of the continental shelf under the Gulf,"
No need for that, the fishermen and others with interests at stake would have standing to sue.
"the current BP spill is a prime example of how merely placing an injunction or thowing someone in jail doesn't stop the pollution from continuing."
From continuing, no, but perhaps from occuring in the first place. After the Exxon spill fisherman tried to sue Exxon and were denied, letting Exxon get away with ruining their occupation along with destroying that area. George Bush Sr. started the liability caps for oil companies. When your risk is minimized like this, it is only natural that firms will take more chances and cut corners where they otherwise would not have. Of course corporate protection for owners also leads to riskier behavior because if all you have to lose is your investment, investors are going to seek maximum return and not care about the risks.
Corporations also cause people to spend money foolishly, because if their business spends it, then it's a tax write-off. Consequently we see conventions on cruise ships and at Vegas because it counts as a deduction. In the past, only businesses that were doing something for the public good could get corporate protection, so like building a bridge or something. And it always expired after a few years. Now the charters renew forever and any type of business can get one. You read business books that say incorporating is a must for tax benefits and liability protection. They'll cite the possibility that your employee will hurt somebody and you'll get sued sicne they were on the job. But of course with corporate protection for your personal assets, there's less motivation to make sure the employees aren't screwing up! The whole system is welfare for the rich but won't likely go away anytime soon.
DougCounty (anonymous) replies…
And aspiring rich, which is why this scenario is so unlikely. I just don't see much movement to get serious corporate reform through our laws, let alone get rid of them altogether.
Actually, I think in the more fundamentalist Islamic states, there have been real strides here, but who would like to sign up for that?
rooster (anonymous) replies…
"parrot, it is because the government is controlling how property owners use their property. If the government takes more and more control over private property, it no longer is really private, now is it?"
Does that mean I should be able to dump toxic waste on my property? How about you guys let me house illegal immigrants on my property. It's my property right?
rooster (anonymous) replies…
Ohh even better, How about you guys let me slaughter protected species on my property while I genetically create a super virus? Come on Liberty, It my property right?
Liberty_One (anonymous) replies…
rooster (anonymous) replies…
"Ohh even better, How about you guys let me slaughter protected species on my property"
As long as you don't infringe upon the rights of others, I have no right to tell you what to do with your property.
"while I genetically create a super virus? Come on Liberty, It my property right"
As if someone who wished to do such a thing is going to restrain themselves because a law is in some book.
rooster (anonymous) replies…
They may not restrain themselves because a law is in a book but because the law is there we have limited access to materials to make a supervirus and appropriate recourse if someone does try.
Liberty_One (anonymous) replies…
rooster (anonymous) replies…
"Does that mean I should be able to dump toxic waste on my property?"
Yes, you can store toxic waste on your property so long as it does not seep onto someone else's property. If any of it does you will be held liable for all damages it causes and be forced to stop it, no matter the cost.
"How about you guys let me house illegal immigrants on my property"
Fine by me. Immigration is perfectly OK in my book.
rooster (anonymous) replies…
Both of the above are illegal as the likelyhood of both leaving my property is extremely high. Most Toxic waste is not stored in a 100% leakproof container so the chances of it seeping is unreasonably high, Furthermore the chances of said illegals leaving my property is equally as high.
Liberty_One (anonymous) replies…
"Both of the above are illegal as the likelyhood of both leaving my property is extremely high. "
Only if you won't be held liable for the consequences. This is why BP was so careless. With their liabiliy capped by the government, they will never be held fully liable for the damages they cause, so why shouldn't they cut corners? If you are going to be held fully liable for the damage you cause, you might rethink your toxic waste dump, or you might take extra precautions that you otherwise wouldn't.
rooster (anonymous) replies…
Sure but my only liability for damages extends to my worth or future worth. I can't reasonbly pay for the costs of my toxic leak on 75k per year.
Liberty_One (anonymous) replies…
Then it's off to debtors' prison for you.
Liberty_One (anonymous) replies…
Still think it's a good idea?
bad_dog (anonymous) replies…
Haven't taken the bankruptcy course yet, I see.
Liberty_One (anonymous) replies…
bad_dog (anonymous) replies…
"Haven't taken the bankruptcy course yet, I see."
A perfect example of what I'm talking about at the end of this post:
http://www2.ljworld.com/weblogs/liber...
Libertarianism is more than just legalizing pot, you know.
bad_dog (anonymous) replies…
Perhaps you should consider laying off the "cabbage" then, eh?
bad_dog (anonymous) replies…
Debtor's prison seems a bit draconian while increasing the need for more taxes to support ever expanding prison systems. Perhaps we should consider reinstituting usage of stocks and public flogging? Seems much more expedient, yet still satisfies your punishment agenda.
Liberty_One (anonymous) replies…
Debtor's prison seems draconian? How is not paying off your debts any different than theft? We put thieves in jail and putting people in jail who borrow money and never pay it back is no different as they are just as much a thief.
bad_dog (anonymous) replies…
Umm, there's this little thing (element) called "the intent to permanently deprive". Perhaps you've heard of it? I'm not saying some debtors don't have bad intent, e.g. bank fraud, but come on; send all debtors to prison?
From a purely social perspective, what makes more sense-imprisoning debtors, incurring the cost of imprisonment and creating additional taxpayer burdens or discharging the debt? What about the debtor's dependents? Does society support them in some fashion during the incarceration, ignore them completely or is it off to Leavenworth for them as well? The family that incarcerates together certainly stays together-at least for the term of the sentence, I guess. Given how many debtors got into their predicaments it seems many creditors should be visiting the gray bar hotel too.
Utilizing your scheme seems a Pyrrhic victory at best.
Liberty_One (anonymous) replies…
This is the problem with socialism--it takes no account of human action. You assume that people would act exactly the same.
bad_dog (anonymous) replies…
I guess you're right. People have acted as they have for thousands of years. Libertarianism would magically flip the switch for the better. Human nature, bad luck and foibles be damned, this political philosophy will cure all that ails humankind.
To paraphrase Patrick Henry, "Give me Libertarianism and debtor's prison". Gotta like te sound of that.
Nothing personal, but you sound like a snake-oil salesman to me.
I'm out...
tange (anonymous) says…
It is not habituation but inertia which is at work here.
If Ron Paul can be said to be gaining popularity within some circles,
then it is due to his ability to tap outdated, vicious inertial loops.
Economies are now too complex to permit anything approximating a "free market."
"Libertarianism" is just another self-focused grab for resources
which could be better managed from a broader perspective
than one which simply bandies a label of "socialism."
overthemoon (anonymous) replies…
yep
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
tange (anonymous) says…
"Economies are now too complex to permit anything approximating a "free market.""
I would say it's the exact opposite. Economies are too complex for central planning. Only a free market could possibly handle a modern economy with all it's complexities since price information is the most accurate decision-making tool. For example, the decision on whether or not to build a car can best be made based upon prices--what are the input costs and what is the expected selling price? If projected revenue is greater then you build the car, if not then you don't. The most successful entrepreneurs are the ones who can most accurately predict future prices of inputs and finished products. In a centrally planned economy there's no easy way to determine whether or not to build a car and whether it will be an efficient use of resources.
""Libertarianism" is just another self-focused grab for resources"
Again, you seem to be 180 degrees incorrect. Libertarian economics is based on voluntary exchange. There is no "grab for resources" if you mean trying to acquire something for nothing like what occurs under socialism. You can only acquire resources by giving the owners something they value in exchange for them. If they refuse to sell, then you must look elsewhere. Under socialism, if the government wants your house, you "patriotically" must give up your house for the good of the state, regardless of your personal wishes.
I have no idea what you're talking about when you say "outdated, vicious inertial loops," though it certainly looks like it's just meaningless invective to me.
tange (anonymous) replies…
... oh, and did I mention *rhetoric*?
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
tange (anonymous) replies…
"... oh, and did I mention *rhetoric*?"
No, just a bunch of unsubstantiated conclusions.
tange (anonymous) replies…
I accept your concession.
Liberty_One (anonymous) replies…
My concession was that you mentioned a bunch of unsubstantiated conclusions.
tange (anonymous) replies…
I concede your delusion.
jonas_opines (anonymous) replies…
*snrk*
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
Now that the laughter has died down, what is this *really* about: The rights of nicotine addicts, or the rights of property owners?
tange (anonymous) replies…
It's about 500 *words* committed to white space.
overthemoon (anonymous) replies…
Neither. Its the right of the individual to do what ever they want...and to complain loudly when other individuals do things they want to do but first mentioned individual does't like. Goes hand in hand with the "I got mine (by the lucky cosmic draw of being a white male) and screw everybody else." The Individualist/Libertarian notion is just delusion that fails to acknowledge the fact that we are a communal species that craves civilized progress.
Liberty_One (anonymous) replies…
overthemoon (anonymous) replies…
"The Individualist/Libertarian notion is just delusion that fails to acknowledge the fact that we are a communal species that craves civilized progress."
Libertarianism acknowledgestha we are a communal species far better than statism. We don't need force to work together to accomplish things, we will work together of our own free will for our mutual benefit because we will personally benefit by doing so. The baker doesn't bake your bread out of the kindness of his heart, yet he does so. Why? If it isn't because he wants to feed the population, what else motivates him to bake your bread? It's the self-interest that motivates people to work hard under capitalism which in turn benefits society at large. No force or threats of force are required, unlike under socialism.
"Goes hand in hand with the "I got mine (by the lucky cosmic draw of being a white male) and screw everybody else." "
A strange thing to say, since under Libertarianism the kind of favors that come with being in a favored position no longer exist since all exchanges are completely voluntary. It is precisely my selflessness that leads me to libertarian ideology, not the other way around. It is selfishness which leads to the statism where people want the government to protect their special interest from competition.
maxcrabb (anonymous) says…
"Smoking's bad, mkay?"
MyName (anonymous) says…
So what, Socialism is all about passing laws against smoking in public? Are you sure you didn't get the "For Dummies" edition of Das Kapital?
tange (anonymous) replies…
Ya know, Marx was right.
tange (anonymous) replies…
... and Harpo was profound.
gogoplata (anonymous) says…
There are people like Liberty One who believe in freedom. Then there are a lot of people in America that say they believe in freedom who are really FOS. I'm with Liberty One. I believe in freedom. The property owner should decide things like smoking on the property they own. I decide if people can smoke in my house. A business owner should decide if people can smoke in their business. Freedom is really simple. Just tell the government to piss off in almost every circumstance that doesn't involve theft or violence.
tange (anonymous) replies…
Freedom... it's "just another word."
tange (anonymous) replies…
... for property rights, apparently.
thebigspoon (anonymous) replies…
Janis said "Freedom's just another wowrd for nopthing left to lose". Is that Libertarianism?
verity (anonymous) replies…
OK, I'm going to get trashed for pointing this out, but it wasn't Janis who said that, it was Kris Kristofferson.
thebigspoon (anonymous) replies…
You're correct in that Kris co-wrote the song. Roger Miller first recorded it, followed by Janis. The point is well taken. I didn't think there were enough fogies out there to remember that far back. Great song, in any case, and thanks for setting the record (no pun intended) straight.
maxcrabb (anonymous) replies…
Is it sad that I'm happy you two worked this out, so much so that I want to comment on it? I mean, of all the crazy intangible arguments I see on this forum, you have returned sanity to my mind. Thanks.
(plus, i'm a sucker for Joplin AND Miller, the former more than the latter)
MyName (anonymous) replies…
You are dumb. There has never been an unlimited license on what you can do with real property. The question is where the line gets drawn, and it is perfectly fair to draw the line on areas of public health. Restaurant owners aren't allowed to keep a dirty kitchen and still serve food, and no one claims this is an infringement on their freedom, but somehow second hand smoking (which, in case you haven't heard, causes cancer and can set off all kinds of health problems) is a "sacred freedom".
Please explain why smoking gets this special dispensation. Or step off your soapbox.
Liberty_One (anonymous) replies…
"You are dumb."
Base invective.
"There has never been an unlimited license on what you can do with real property."
Strawman
"Please explain why smoking gets this special dispensation."
Another strawman.
thebigspoon (anonymous) replies…
As with most Libertarian hogwash, your comments are just another way of ignoring reality. Try again.
Liberty_One (anonymous) replies…
Actually I believe libertarians are the only ones facing reality. The liberals and conservatives are the ones who have rung up trillions of dollars of debt while fighting unnecessary wars and promising trillions in future benefits for programs like SS and Medicare which we will have no way to pay for.
gogoplata (anonymous) says…
Freedom is property rights. Starting with your body.
tange (anonymous) replies…
Wha...?
Oh. You meant with one's (own) body.
( Had me squirming there for a moment. )
tange (anonymous) replies…
You don't thin it was Freudian, do you?
Certainly not.
( phew )
Kontum1972 (anonymous) says…
americans enjoy complaining.....no matter what.....things don't go their way...they Bi*ch....in other countries you can be shot on the spot...or just disappear....how many of you have had your doors kicked down for whatever it is u don't like.....if you don't like how things are going here in the usa....pack your bags and go find some other country to live in.....no one is making you all stay here.....your free to leave anytime!
IndusRiver (anonymous) says…
From reading last night, the government cannot take away a right that it did not give, and the government never gave us the right to smoke.
Smoking is a natural right, and one we've always had. It is not a legal right nor is it one of the Unenumerated rights. The issue is not even found in this country's Constitution anywhere, therefore no one can base their "ban" on any statement that says "tenants do not have a right to smoke."
You did not give me "my right." You shall not take it away, period.
tange (anonymous) replies…
The issue here would seem to be about other people's rights...
the right to breathe freely, among the huddled masses.
tange (anonymous) replies…
Whoa... deja vu.
slowplay (anonymous) replies…
This comment is so ignorant on so many levels. No one said you can not smoke.
Agnostick (anonymous) replies…
IndusRiver, what an ultra maroon! "Smoking is a natural right?" Well guess what, bub? Unless you popped out of your momma's birth canal already holding a lit Marlboro in your little fist, I'm going to wager that you were born breathing clean air, just like the rest of us. I'm also going to wager that you spent quite a few years breathing clean air, until you got your first hit off a nicotine cigarette, and turned into a nicotine addict.
I'll even go so far as to wager that "clean air breathers" existed on this Earth... long, long before the first nicotine addict discovered that (s)he could get high off smoking a tobacco leaf.
So, I'd say the "clean air population" was on the scene quite a while before you and yours ever showed up.
You're in the back seat.... back of the bus.
Taking full advantage of the pun, here... feel free to put *that* in your pipe and "smoke it."
thebigspoon (anonymous) replies…
Wrongo, IR. The preamble to the constitution clearly and explicitly assigns us the right to life, among other inalienable rights. Thus, the constitution clearly bans your "right" to make others breathe your toxic fumes. I smoke, and even I can not argue with this law. It is reasonable since we smokers will not take responsibility for our actions vis-a-vis others' health.
jonas_opines (anonymous) says…
Nature confers just one right. The strong eat, the weak are meat. The rest is homespun BS. Society confers rights.
tange (anonymous) replies…
That would seem to be a rather precognitive view of nature.
And you forgot the "quick" and the dead.
( Oh, I guess the dead have no rights. )
notaubermime (anonymous) replies…
There is a whole slew of very big, very strong extinct animals which are really wishing your comment had more truth to it.
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
Liberty_One, I'll give you this much on your whole property rights issue... this, and only this.
I would agree that as long as the addictive drug nicotine is handled in the very hypocritical way it is currently handled by the federal government... business owners should be given freedom of choice.
You either cater to the nicotine addict, or you don't. Period. Finito. That's it.
None of this crap about "Would you like 'Smoking' or "Non-smoking'?" I worked in restaurants for seven years when I was in my 20s. "Sectioning" never really worked.
I remember driving around downtown Topeka early one weekend morning, about two years ago... my family and I were wanting some breakfast. We saw a sign for some little hole-in-the-wall diner, so we parked the car and got out. There was a sign pasted on the front window that said something like (and this is *not* a direct quote) ...
"This business allows smokers, as well as non-smokers. Anyone who enters will most likely be exposed to second-hand smoke. Enter at your own risk."
My stomach was grumbling as we drove off, and that might have lured me into muttering a few curse words under my breath... but overall, I was grateful and appreciative that the owner took such an up-front, honest attitude about their business.
That's the only way it should be, really. Either a "smoking" or "non-smoking" business. Pick one crowd and cater to them.
And no, just because you have a "smoking" establishment, that shouldn't prohibit you from allowing non-smokers in. If a non-smoker wants to visit a smoking business, so be it.
Cappy (anonymous) says…
Just wait until the day republicans and libertarians get what they want. Corporations will be running everything. Your rights will erode faster than a river bank. The Senator from Marlboro country will introduce a bill requiring you to smoke.
Cappy (anonymous) replies…
But you'll get used to that...
Liberty_One (anonymous) replies…
Cappy (anonymous) says…
"Just wait until the day republicans and libertarians get what they want. Corporations will be running everything."
Corporations are a creation of the state. In a free market there would be no such thing as a corporation and all businesses would be sole proprietorships or partnerships.
Cappy (anonymous) replies…
Not according to (Ayn) Rand Paul. Corporations are hunky-dorey to him.
Liberty_One (anonymous) replies…
Is that a direct quote or are you paraphrasing?
rbwaa (anonymous) says…
the ultimate libertarian has an ultimate inability to think logically
BrianR (anonymous) says…
There are a lot of thoughtful Libertarians out there. However, most of the Libertarians I know make me think that libertarianism should be in the DSM-5.
dowser (anonymous) says…
I find it interesting that Libertarians usually try to twist everybody else's rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness so that it matches their own. So, if in preserving your right to smoke wherever you please just happens to cause a non-smoker to develop lung cancer from your smoke, that's not your problem because they didn't have to be where you are in the first place? The difficulty is that exercising your rights in this way will impact others because of the need for some unlucky individual to require medical attention and to pay for it with or without medical insurance. Either way, everybody but you loses - the ultimate goal of a narcissist!
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
dowser (anonymous) says…
"So, if in preserving your right to smoke wherever you please just happens to cause a non-smoker to develop lung cancer from your smoke, that's not your problem because they didn't have to be where you are in the first place?"
Incorrect. There's no such thing as a right to smoke wherever you please. The right is the owner of the property can dictate the kind of behavior that occurs there. I do not smoke, and you cannot smoke in my house. Not because of any law but because it is my property and I get to make the rules. If you want to come on my property then you have to follow my rules, and if you don't like it then you can leave, understand? And if you don't like the rules at a restaurant or bar you don't have to go there.
"everybody but you loses - the ultimate goal of a narcissis!"
No, that's your system, where you can tell property owners that they have to follow your rules even though your name isn't on the deed. You want to go around telling other people how to run their establishment to suit your happiness. Sorry, but the world doesn't revolve around you. If you want a smoke-free establishment, buy one yourself or pay the owner to change his rules, otherwise too bad.
WizarDave (anonymous) says…
The smoking ban law is not required. Free market can take care of the smoking "problem" if in fact there is such a thing. In fact, without government interference, the free market will take care of most "problems."
Example:
I am a business owner who decides to allow smoking in my establishment.
If you decide not to visit, so be it.
If I realize I am losing too much business then I have the freedom to change and not allow smoking.
If you think you can open a non-smoking establishment in competition with me, great.
Let the market decide who wins.
So it is with most social agendas.
Some people THINK they know best. They try to force their ideals on others.
They are chicken to let ideas compete in a truly free market.
Next thing you know we will all be driving pink cars with purple polka dots.
All I have to do is find I scientist to say we will all live longer if we switch all cars to this color scheme. Which, of course, if very easy. All I have to do is offer a grant and someone will "discover" this. Then it's just a matter of passing the law for the "good of the people."
If you choose to stand by and watch while others loose their rights,
do not complain when your rights are taken.
Do not doubt that "they" will stop with other's rights,
"they" will be after your's next.