Ask Me Anything: Libertarianism Explained!

[Armacing]

7 hours ago, nashvylle said:

I do not want anything bad for your cousin nor do I want anyone not to make less money, but please also include the home owners whose home values are decreased substantially because they are next to airbnb houses that are filled with lousy noisy weekenders who don't give a **** about the neighborhood because they will soon be on a flight hungover back to their homes. 

Good point, I forgot to add NIMBY's to the list of winners.  Personally I think NIMBY's are a major problem when it comes to urbanization and housing availability/affordability, but you seem to have found common cause with the NIMBY's.  I bet there is a huge overlap between NIMBY's opposed to STR and NIMBY's opposed to increased residential density.

Interestingly, if you take out the word "weekenders" and replace it with any ethnic group above that whole post sounds really xenophobic.  "Making too much noise" has been an excuse to exclude innumerable groups of people throughout the history of Nashville, so I would just caution you about empowering NIMBY's with that kind of control about who can live next to them over any time scale (days, weeks, months) based on the aesthetic inconvenience experienced by the current residents.  What do you call a city where the character of neighborhoods is never allowed to change and the ability of current residents to exclude outsiders is enshrined in law?

[Armacing]

7 hours ago, nashvylle said:

I am completely against the S word, but you're using your cousin's financial difficulties to bring out your viewpoint, but telling others to not let financial difficulties to bring about their view... 

 

There's one key difference though:  I'm using financial hardship to highlight the injustice of government oppression, whereas you are using financial hardship to argue in favor of government oppression.   I'm arguing that people should be free to voluntarily and peacefully enter into sales and rental agreements, and you are arguing that the police power of the government should be deployed to stop those voluntary and peaceful interactions between private citizens. 

[ruraljuror]

14 hours ago, Armacing said:

Yes it is Socialism because the stated reason for the AirBNB ban was to make it more affordable for people to buy a house.  That is taking wealth/income/rights from the "haves" and transfering wealth/income/rights to the "have-nots".  Is this the commentary you want hidden in the Coffee House?  If someone is accusing AirBNB hosts of ruining the city, why that's just good wholesome commentary, but when someone actually points out the actual negative implications of that type of approach, then it should no longer be part of the conversation, right?  I think it's a double-standard.

ha. That's still not what socialism means. 

[Pdt2f]

On 3/25/2022 at 11:01 PM, Armacing said:

Yes it is Socialism because the stated reason for the AirBNB ban was to make it more affordable for people to buy a house.  That is taking wealth/income/rights from the "haves" and transfering wealth/income/rights to the "have-nots".  Is this the commentary you want hidden in the Coffee House?  If someone is accusing AirBNB hosts of ruining the city, why that's just good wholesome commentary, but when someone actually points out the actual negative implications of that type of approach, then it should no longer be part of the conversation, right?  I think it's a double-standard.

I think the point of 86ing the socialism accusations is it just isn’t helpful in the conversation.
 

First of all the hysterical boomer definition of socialism of “anything where the government sets a regulation on anything” has nothing to do with the reality of actual socialism, which is state ownership of the means of production.

Second of all, accusing something of socialism does not automatically render it an invalid point. To be honest when libertarians do this it reminds me of certain progressives who throw fascist accusations all over the place. Like it’s not helpful if you’re just calling people who disagree with you socialists, or anything you disagree with as socialism. Nor does it prove that your position is better or worse. 

Aside from this, I’d also just like to point out the fact that many actually socialist revolutions - not the “Obama-wants-to-raise-taxes “socialism” but the real Lenin-Castro-Chavez type - happen because those of lesser means are unable to acquire land. Smart nations see this and pass laws that de-emphasize the financial merits of land speculation and hoarding, dumb nations try and act like it’s not a problem until it’s too late. 

[Armacing]

On 3/26/2022 at 1:11 PM, ruraljuror said:

ha. That's still not what socialism means. 

Yes it is.  If you have a better definition, then throw it out there.

On 3/27/2022 at 11:20 PM, Pdt2f said:

I think the point of 86ing the socialism accusations is it just isn’t helpful in the conversation.

It's always helpful to accurately describe something, and the argument that people's property rights need to be restricted for the financial benefit of others is obviously collectivist, and the implementation of government policies to achieve that goal is clearly socialist in nature.   The way it helps the conversation is by cutting through all the nonsense and getting to the root of the issue.... otherwise the discussion could take days to make any real progress.

[ruraljuror]

1 hour ago, Armacing said:

Yes it is.  If you have a better definition, then throw it out there.

It's always helpful to accurately describe something, and the argument that people's property rights need to be restricted for the financial benefit of others is obviously collectivist, and the implementation of government policies to achieve that goal is clearly socialist in nature.   The way it helps the conversation is by cutting through all the nonsense and getting to the root of the issue.... otherwise the discussion could take days to make any real progress.

Seems to me your definition misses the key bit about the public ownership of the means of production/distribution, which seems pretty crucial.

[grilled_cheese]

Why did libertarians allow the Challenger to explode?

[Armacing]

On 5/1/2022 at 7:33 PM, grilled_cheese said:

Why did libertarians allow the Challenger to explode?

Because the crew members were not unconditionally committed to personal liberty.  

Next question!!

On 3/30/2022 at 11:49 AM, ruraljuror said:

Seems to me your definition misses the key bit about the public ownership of the means of production/distribution, which seems pretty crucial.

You're confusing socialism with communism.  Socialism skews more towards government controlling the allocation of capital, creating monopolies, and subsidizing private businesses, but still allowing private ownership to exist.   So when things go wrong they still have a "private sector" to blame things on, but the distortions in the market caused by government interference are still more than enough to dramatically lower the standard of living.  That's pretty much the concept promoted by both Democrats and Republicans in America today.  Neither side wants to substantially reduce the government's influence over the economy, although they both have slightly different ideas about just how that influence should be wielded.

Edited May 9, 2022 by Armacing

[ruraljuror]

2 hours ago, Armacing said:

 

You're confusing socialism with communism. 

It's kind of an odd mix of condescension and audacity to state that I'm confused about the definition of socialism, then follow it up with your own personal interpretation of the meaning of the word with nothing but 'trust me bro' to back it up.

Here's what Merriam-Webster and the good people at the Oxford dictionary think about it, for whatever it's worth to you: 

Definition of socialism

 

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

 

QUICK REFERENCE

An economic system in which the means of production are controlled by the state.

Edited May 9, 2022 by ruraljuror

[Armacing]

2 hours ago, ruraljuror said:

It's kind of an odd mix of condescension and audacity to state that I'm confused about the definition of socialism, then follow it up with your own personal interpretation of the meaning of the word with nothing but 'trust me bro' to back it up.

Here's what Merriam-Webster and the good people at the Oxford dictionary think about it, for whatever it's worth to you: 

Definition of socialism

 

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

 

QUICK REFERENCE

An economic system in which the means of production are controlled by the state.

I think you just proved my point for me... look at what you posted:  "collective administration of the means of production", and the quick reference "means of production are controlled by the state".  That's exactly what we have in the US today.  The web of regulations guarantee that important business decisions are dictated by the state and not free market forces.

The online Britannica definition says "socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources."  The key here is that socialism doesn't always involve government ownership, but is in fact a larger concept that includes public control of property  (even if the property is not outright owned by the government) where economic decisions are not strictly the domain of free individuals acting voluntarily, but rather involve government regulation that is backed up by police or military violence.  

Just think about the converse:  What are you calling a system where the means of production are privately owned but all decisions about how to utilize those assets are dictated by the government?  Are you calling that free-market capitalism?  Because I'm calling that socialism... Which falls under the broader umbrella of collectivism...  But the truth is those are all just labels and it doesn't matter what you call it or how you package it:  Using violence against peaceful individuals is wrong and we should all strive to create a society where everyone must interact peacefully and voluntarily to survive.

Edited May 9, 2022 by Armacing

[ruraljuror]

19 hours ago, Armacing said:

I think you just proved my point for me... look at what you posted:  "collective administration of the means of production", and the quick reference "means of production are controlled by the state".  That's exactly what we have in the US today.  The web of regulations guarantee that important business decisions are dictated by the state and not free market forces.

The online Britannica definition says "socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources."  The key here is that socialism doesn't always involve government ownership, but is in fact a larger concept that includes public control of property  (even if the property is not outright owned by the government) where economic decisions are not strictly the domain of free individuals acting voluntarily, but rather involve government regulation that is backed up by police or military violence.  

Just think about the converse:  What are you calling a system where the means of production are privately owned but all decisions about how to utilize those assets are dictated by the government?  Are you calling that free-market capitalism?  Because I'm calling that socialism... Which falls under the broader umbrella of collectivism...  But the truth is those are all just labels and it doesn't matter what you call it or how you package it:  Using violence against peaceful individuals is wrong and we should all strive to create a society where everyone must interact peacefully and voluntarily to survive.

It seems like what you're doing here is a bit of sleight of hand in redefining "administration" and "control" to mean "regulation" but these words are not synonyms in this context.

First, you'll note that in in your restatement of the Webster's definition, you've conveniently left out the words "and ownership" that follow "collective administration" which seems like a pretty crucial omission on your part that significantly alters the meaning of the sentence.

Further, accepting your interpretation of 'collective administration' and 'control' to mean 'regulation' wouldn't make any sense in a historical context, because doing so would then mean by your definition that every democracy in the history of civilization has been practicing socialism going back to Ancient Greece, and that trend isn't exclusive to democracy either. Business regulations like price and quality controls, licensure, and trade restrictions predate the concept of socialism by centuries (and millennia) in some cases I think, so if any business regulation imposed by a government authority equals socialism in your view, then the word socialism is essentially a synonym for government. Is that what you mean?

 

19 hours ago, Armacing said:

Using violence against peaceful individuals is wrong and we should all strive to create a society where everyone must interact peacefully and voluntarily to survive.

Couldn't agree more but we also have to make sure the garbage gets picked up so we don't get over run by bears.

https://newrepublic.com/article/159662/libertarian-walks-into-bear-book-review-free-town-project

 

 

 

Edited May 10, 2022 by ruraljuror

[Armacing]

6 hours ago, ruraljuror said:

First, you'll note that in in your restatement of the Webster's definition, you've conveniently left out the words "and ownership" that follow "collective administration" which seems like a pretty crucial omission on your part that significantly alters the meaning of the sentence.

Well the Britannica definition said "or ownership", but you are getting really derailed on these dumb definitions and missing the essential concept here:  Decisions about capital allocation are either made by free individuals based on their knowledge of the market and according to their own profit-seeking motivations, or capital allocation decisions are made by governmental entities that do not realize their goals through voluntary interaction at the individual level, but rather through violence or the threat of violence that is supported by a majority of citizens that are contented to see violence meted out upon the minority because it serves their interest and they have no way of bringing about that state of affairs through voluntary peaceful interaction.

I know that was the mother of all run-on sentences, but let's look at a real world example.  Take AirBNB, a topic that was discussed at length in another thread.  Let's say there is a private investor who wants to buy a historical SFH in East Nashville, demolish it, and build 3 tall & skinnies, then operate them all as STR.  In a free market, the only limitation on that investor's ability to pursue their business model is the current home owner's willingness to sell (voluntary), the bank's willingness to loan (voluntary), the builder's willingness to work on the project (voluntary), and the tourist's willingness to rent the house (voluntary). 

Now enter government:  It turns out the neighbors adjacent to the project were too poor to buy the SFH and turn it into an extension of their back yard or a pocket park shared by the surrounding neighbors, but they still want to control what happens to that land.  They hate AirBNB.   A classic case of someone wanting to take the freedom of someone else for their own benefit.  In theory, maleficent actors such as they should not be able to oppress the minority because minority rights should be protected, yet if those rights are insufficiently protected, democracy provides a way for the majority to codify oppression of the minority into law.  In this case, they will get the government to enforce a prohibition on the investor (involuntary) and enforce that prohibition by the use or threat of violence.  Thus, the opportunity cost of not allowing the free market to function is all the profit the investor would have made, and society as a whole is comparatively poorer than it would have been in the absence of government regulation/control/etc.  The collectivist nature of decision making actually restricted decision making about capital allocation to a *smaller* number of people (contrary to what the name would suggest), resulting in the destruction of wealth, or more precisely: prevention of the creation of wealth.

If you take that same phenomenon and expand it to all the millions of capital allocation decisions that diverge from what the free market would demand, you can start to see how government regulation at the national level can prevent economies from growing and reaching their full potential.  And this has been supported by studies that correlate economic freedom to prosperity... I think you might agree with this basic concept.  For some reason you've chosen to take issue with my use of the word "socialism", but that's just a different flavor of collectivism, which at it's core is based on majority-rule/top-down/central-planning.  The opposite of that is individualism/classical-liberalism/laissez faire/anarcho-capitalism that emphasizes individual liberty.

Actually, now that I'm thinking about this more, I think the ultimate choice is between two different systems:  1) The majority is happy, the minority is unhappy, and nobody is free, or 2) The majority is unhappy, the minority is happy, and everyone is free.  Bringing it back to the AirBNB example, in a free market economy, the neighbor's only way to prevent the SFH from falling into the hands of the STR developer would be to use their own capital to control it through direct ownership.  This forces them to make capital allocation decisions *within* the framework of the market, therefore ensuring that they deploy their capital in the way that provides the most utility to them.  If they ultimately decide "hey, I don't like the STR, but at the end of the day I want to spend my money on a boat and a new car and a trip to France", then the neighbor will have successfully integrated all of the various potential uses for their money into an actionable buy/sell decision that maximizes utility, while also not preventing the creation of wealth by others.  That's why capitalism creates wealth and socialism destroys it.

[ruraljuror]

44 minutes ago, Armacing said:

Well the Britannica definition said "or ownership", but you are getting really derailed on these dumb definitions and missing the essential concept here: 

You're missing the point. I'm pretty indifferent as to what you think 'the key is' or what you believe to be 'the essential concept here'. I only chimed in to point out that you were defining socialism incorrectly, the rest of your opinions about property rights etc. seems pretty irrelevant here.

Taking your Brittanica definition, you're still resting your argument on the idea that 'control' can be fairly interpreted to mean 'regulation' and I provided examples to show that your interpretation is so broad as to construe every single democratic government throughout history as practicing socialism. If that's your contention, so be it, but my only purpose here was to point out that particular definition of socialism is not in line with the commonly understood meaning of the word. 

Edited May 11, 2022 by ruraljuror

[Armacing]

2 hours ago, ruraljuror said:

commonly understood meaning of the word. 

If your commonly understood meaning has no utility other than to prop up the current regime in power and sustain the promotion of its authoritarian world view, then I would say according to *your* understanding you are correct.  However, if you want to achieve a deeper level of understanding and escape the oppressive paradigm promoted by the government and its supporters, then you should consider the essential concepts that I have generously provided for you in my other post.  As it stands currently, your adherence to the "official" definition promoted by authoritarian academics has forced you into arguing the untenable position that regulation does not equal control.  Just think about that for a second.  When was the last time you heard about a regulation that gave the government zero control over the actions of individuals?

Edited May 11, 2022 by Armacing

[Pdt2f]

11 hours ago, ruraljuror said:

You're missing the point. I'm pretty indifferent as to what you think 'the key is' or what you believe to be 'the essential concept here'. I only chimed in to point out that you were defining socialism incorrectly, the rest of your opinions about property rights etc. seems pretty irrelevant here.

Taking your Brittanica definition, you're still resting your argument on the idea that 'control' can be fairly interpreted to mean 'regulation' and I provided examples to show that your interpretation is so broad as to construe every single democratic government throughout history as practicing socialism. If that's your contention, so be it, but my only purpose here was to point out that particular definition of socialism is not in line with the commonly understood meaning of the word. 

There’s no point in debating someone who provides their own definitions to suit their arguments and believes they’re the only one that should allow personal experiences to influence their views on stuff. I’d advise disengaging. 

[ruraljuror]

10 hours ago, Armacing said:

If your commonly understood meaning has no utility other than to prop up the current regime in power and sustain the promotion of its authoritarian world view, then I would say according to *your* understanding you are correct.  However, if you want to achieve a deeper level of understanding and escape the oppressive paradigm promoted by the government and its supporters, then you should consider the essential concepts that I have generously provided for you in my other post.  As it stands currently, your adherence to the "official" definition promoted by authoritarian academics has forced you into arguing the untenable position that regulation does not equal control.  Just think about that for a second.  When was the last time you heard about a regulation that gave the government zero control over the actions of individuals?

Good god man. Words have meanings, don't blame me. And nothing I've said has in any way undermined your ability to mindlessly rant away like you're composing some incel manifesto. Just replace your use of the word 'socialism' with 'business regulation' and you should be good to go. 

[Armacing]

2 hours ago, ruraljuror said:

Good god man. Words have meanings, don't blame me. And nothing I've said has in any way undermined your ability to mindlessly rant away like you're composing some incel manifesto. Just replace your use of the word 'socialism' with 'business regulation' and you should be good to go. 

I stand by my characterization of regulations that  involve government control of capital allocation as "socialism", and you can be as outraged or disinterested as you want.  You didn't accomplish anything by claiming that socialism must involve government ownership of the means of production because this is obviously not true based on numerous socialist regimes throughout history and today that feature private ownership of property and businesses.  I don't really know what you were trying to accomplish with your mindless rant about definitions, which to me seemed like some kind of incel manifesto, but good job I guess?

[ruraljuror]

21 hours ago, Armacing said:

I stand by my characterization of regulations that  involve government control of capital allocation as "socialism", and you can be as outraged or disinterested as you want.  You didn't accomplish anything by claiming that socialism must involve government ownership of the means of production because this is obviously not true based on numerous socialist regimes throughout history and today that feature private ownership of property and businesses.  I don't really know what you were trying to accomplish with your mindless rant about definitions, which to me seemed like some kind of incel manifesto, but good job I guess?

Listen, I was in a hurry yesterday and shot off the incel comment without giving it much thought. I take it from the fact that you felt compelled to pull an 'I'm rubber and you're glue" and sling it back at me means that I struck a nerve, and I apologize. If it makes you feel any better I'm among the class of the voluntarily celibate i.e. married with kids, so we're in similar boats anyway.

That said, given that you've created a whole thread here to explain libertarianism based on your qualifications as a libertarian, I would think that you'd be more inclined to allow the socialists to define themselves in a similar manner.  The alternative is pretty blatant hypocrisy, of course, which is why I honestly didn't think it would set your hair on fire to point out that your usage of the word socialism doesn't match the historical timeline and isn't in line with the common understanding of the word. I even tried to soften the blow by pointing out that there are in fact more accurate words to use that allow you to make the exact same points that you want to be making so you could keep up your momentum without missing a beat. As I said, if you want to take the position that every democracy in history has practiced some degree of socialism, go for it - I even kind of like the idea actually - but from a language standpoint you can't ignore the problem such a definition creates given that democracy predates the modern conception of socialism. 

But I do think you're right at least that we should probably wrap up this brief interlude of 'socialism explained' and get back to the original intent of the thread where we get to 'ask you anything' about your libertarian beliefs, since that's clearly where your expertise lies. So, here's a couple questions I've got:

1. What do you think should be the age of consent?

2. Do you support the reversal of Roe v. Wade? 

3. What was it that went so terribly wrong in the town where libertarians took over, and how would your governing philosophy lead to any different or less disastrous results if libertarians took over another town, or a state, or a country? https://newrepublic.com/article/159662/libertarian-walks-into-bear-book-review-free-town-project

Thanks in advance for whatever insight you can provide.

 

 

[Armacing]

48 minutes ago, ruraljuror said:

 I struck a nerve, and I apologize.

No apology needed, but I also apologize if it offended you.  I thought it was funny, but I wanted to see what would happen if I used it against you since maybe it had some significance to you.  FYI... I'm also married with kids, so I got your meaning on the second half of your comment 

50 minutes ago, ruraljuror said:

if you want to take the position that every democracy in history has practiced some degree of socialism, go for it - I even kind of like the idea actually - but from a language standpoint you can't ignore the problem such a definition creates given that democracy predates the modern conception of socialism

Yes, I do take that position.  The struggle to maintain freedom and the rights of minorities is a central feature of all democracies given the tendency of the majority to wield their democratic power to oppress the minority.  Understanding the essential concepts of economics are beyond the mental capacity of most people (present company excluded, of course), so democratic voters often fall into the trap of believing they can improve their economic plight by targeting one particular minority that (at least superficially) appears to hold the key to their poverty problem: rich people.  Even before the words socialism and communism were developed in the 19th century, the underlying principles were at work since the dawn of civilization... which is logical when you consider how they arise spontaneously in human populations that are not sophisticated enough to comprehend the complex natural laws of trade.

I should also mention here one of the key principles of Austrian Economics that informs my commentary above:  That the fundamental principles of economics are "natural laws" akin to gravity and inertia.  They are essential truths of human motivation/interaction/planning/decision-making/survival that are necessarily  derived from the reality of humankind's plight (i.e., they must find a way to survive on a planet with scarce resources).  In this way, the principles of economics are not a policy to be set by governmental decree, but rather a fundamental set of truths that underlie all peaceful human interaction and they must be discovered by observation and the development of theories and hypotheses similar to other sciences. 

Oh sure, laws can be made that control economic activities, but they are unable to alter the fundamental principles of reality, therefore they almost uniformly worsen the plight of humans, at least in the long run.  At their core, such laws are basically decrees that essentially consist of "go create wealth" (which is of course impossible to decree because wealth is created through voluntary interaction,  not by coercion) or "go transfer wealth" (which rather amusingly includes the implicit assumption that an inexhaustible source of wealth exists to be transferred).  Indeed, most educated people seem to comprehend at some intuitive level that such laws actually destroy wealth over the long term, but they are willing to overlook that unpleasant fact for the sake of political expediency.

1 hour ago, ruraljuror said:

1. What do you think should be the age of consent?

In my opinion, the only Libertarian angle on this question would be to say it should be the same age where one obtains adulthood and full agency including the ability to enter contracts.  As for what age that is, I think that's a cultural question that will be decided based on the religions and traditions of a given culture and a worthy question to be decided by democracy.  From a Libertarian perspective, any age chosen will be arbitrary, but that arbitrariness does not run afoul of the principles of freedom and private property so long as everyone obtains full emancipation at that age.

1 hour ago, ruraljuror said:

2. Do you support the reversal of Roe v. Wade? 

Another case where determining the boundary between tissue sample and viable human will involve a democratic process that will be influenced by culture and religion.  However, in the particular case of Roe v. Wade, I will say that I support the concept of letting states decide their own laws on as many issues as possible, so yes, I support its repeal.  That doesn't mean I necessarily support limiting abortion, but rather that I'm just a huge proponent of state's rights.  It would be awesome if we could have enough variation in laws within the US to provide a homeland for everyone on the political spectrum that exactly matches their values.

1 hour ago, ruraljuror said:

3. What was it that went so terribly wrong in the town where libertarians took over, and how would your governing philosophy lead to any different or less disastrous results if libertarians took over another town, or a state, or a country? https://newrepublic.com/article/159662/libertarian-walks-into-bear-book-review-free-town-project

First of all, I would say it's hard to take the article seriously considering the publication, but I will humor it with a response:  What is the complaint?  Potholes?  They exist even in the most socialist of cities.  What else?  Bears?  The article itself states this problem arises from the New Hampshire prohibition on shooting bears on your property....So that is clearly not libertarian and the author chose to make a big stink about the bears without acknowledging the obviously governmental origins of the problem... very disingenuous if you ask me... perhaps intentionally deceptive?  The article could be more truthfully be titled "How state and federal laws ruined a Libertarian experiment".  But of course, that doesn't fit the narrative that The New Republic wants to promote.  They are pro-government to the extreme, but this particular article is actually sad in that it displays just how desperate they are to try to find something wrong with freedom - - even to the extent of blatant omission of the obvious.

[ruraljuror]

2 hours ago, Armacing said:

No apology needed, but I also apologize if it offended you.  I thought it was funny, but I wanted to see what would happen if I used it against you since maybe it had some significance to you.  FYI... I'm also married with kids, so I got your meaning on the second half of your comment 

Yes, I do take that position.  The struggle to maintain freedom and the rights of minorities is a central feature of all democracies given the tendency of the majority to wield their democratic power to oppress the minority.  Understanding the essential concepts of economics are beyond the mental capacity of most people (present company excluded, of course), so democratic voters often fall into the trap of believing they can improve their economic plight by targeting one particular minority that (at least superficially) appears to hold the key to their poverty problem: rich people.  Even before the words socialism and communism were developed in the 19th century, the underlying principles were at work since the dawn of civilization... which is logical when you consider how they arise spontaneously in human populations that are not sophisticated enough to comprehend the complex natural laws of trade.

I should also mention here one of the key principles of Austrian Economics that informs my commentary above:  That the fundamental principles of economics are "natural laws" akin to gravity and inertia.  They are essential truths of human motivation/interaction/planning/decision-making/survival that are necessarily  derived from the reality of humankind's plight (i.e., they must find a way to survive on a planet with scarce resources).  In this way, the principles of economics are not a policy to be set by governmental decree, but rather a fundamental set of truths that underlie all peaceful human interaction and they must be discovered by observation and the development of theories and hypotheses similar to other sciences. 

Oh sure, laws can be made that control economic activities, but they are unable to alter the fundamental principles of reality, therefore they almost uniformly worsen the plight of humans, at least in the long run.  At their core, such laws are basically decrees that essentially consist of "go create wealth" (which is of course impossible to decree because wealth is created through voluntary interaction,  not by coercion) or "go transfer wealth" (which rather amusingly includes the implicit assumption that an inexhaustible source of wealth exists to be transferred).  Indeed, most educated people seem to comprehend at some intuitive level that such laws actually destroy wealth over the long term, but they are willing to overlook that unpleasant fact for the sake of political expediency.

In my opinion, the only Libertarian angle on this question would be to say it should be the same age where one obtains adulthood and full agency including the ability to enter contracts.  As for what age that is, I think that's a cultural question that will be decided based on the religions and traditions of a given culture and a worthy question to be decided by democracy.  From a Libertarian perspective, any age chosen will be arbitrary, but that arbitrariness does not run afoul of the principles of freedom and private property so long as everyone obtains full emancipation at that age.

Another case where determining the boundary between tissue sample and viable human will involve a democratic process that will be influenced by culture and religion.  However, in the particular case of Roe v. Wade, I will say that I support the concept of letting states decide their own laws on as many issues as possible, so yes, I support its repeal.  That doesn't mean I necessarily support limiting abortion, but rather that I'm just a huge proponent of state's rights.  It would be awesome if we could have enough variation in laws within the US to provide a homeland for everyone on the political spectrum that exactly matches their values.

In your second paragraph, when you're speaking negatively about democracy, you note that a majority can use it to target a particular minority, in this case rich people, who you're defending.

But in your fifth and sixth paragraphs, you speak positively about democracy in that it can enable the majority to target a particular minority, in this case minors and pregnant women, who you do not defend.

Seems like a disconnect there. Why should it be a good thing for the majority to decide the consent and abortion issues on behalf of a minority who may not share their culture or religious views, but somehow it's a bad thing for the same majority to decide tax and property issues for a minority who may not share their cultural or economic news. 

One step further, if the majority of the voters share a religion that opposes abortion (or same sex marriage, or interracial marriage, etc.) and you're okay with that outcome even though it restricts the free, voluntary actions of individuals who don't share that religion, then wouldn't it correlate that if a majority of voters share a religion that states render unto 'Caesar that which is Caesar's' and 'that it's easier for a rich man to get through the eye of a needle than to get into heaven' then shouldn't you be okay with taxes not to mention outlawing the accumulation of wealth? 

2 hours ago, Armacing said:

First of all, I would say it's hard to take the article seriously considering the publication, but I will humor it with a response:  What is the complaint?  Potholes?  They exist even in the most socialist of cities.  What else?  Bears?  The article itself states this problem arises from the New Hampshire prohibition on shooting bears on your property....So that is clearly not libertarian and the author chose to make a big stink about the bears without acknowledging the obviously governmental origins of the problem... very disingenuous if you ask me... perhaps intentionally deceptive?  The article could be more truthfully be titled "How state and federal laws ruined a Libertarian experiment".  But of course, that doesn't fit the narrative that The New Republic wants to promote.  They are pro-government to the extreme, but this particular article is actually sad in that it displays just how desperate they are to try to find something wrong with freedom - - even to the extent of blatant omission of the obvious.

If the New Republic as a source is a major hold up, there are tons of other publications and authors who have covered this story in a lot of different forms of media. I assure you that the New Hampshire prohibition against bear hunting was not the source of the downfall of this particular would-be libertarian utopia considering that the town residents went to the caves and took out as many bears as they could despite having to break state law to do so. And as the article made clear, the bears weren't the only problem, though I am curious how you would have handled the bears, as well. 

What would you have done about the lady leaving piles of grain with sugar donuts sprinkled on top to lure the bears?  What recourses should her neighbors have had after the bears did a bunch of damage on the way to the donut feast? 

Do you agree with the project founder's ideas about legalizing organ trafficking, Alexander Hamilton style duels, and paying bums to fight on the street?

Do you agree with one of the other founders of the projects who led the volunteer fire department and restricted his friends' ability to start fires as they saw fit on days with high wildfire risk, or was that just another example of government overreach in your view? Was the fire chief being smart to put some limits on wildfire potential, or had that little bit of power that came with his position already corrupted the former true believer? 

One man's trash is another man's treasure, of course, but trying to live in such a place truly sounds like a nightmare to me. 

Edited May 12, 2022 by ruraljuror

[Armacing]

1 hour ago, ruraljuror said:

Seems like a disconnect there. Why should it be a good thing for the majority to decide the consent and abortion issues on behalf of a minority who may not share their culture or religious views, but somehow it's a bad thing for the same majority to decide tax and property issues for a minority who may not share their cultural or economic news. 

When it comes to economic issues there is no disagreement between rich & poor:  They both agree that money is good and they both want it.  The question is whether or not the majority will be permitted to use the government as a proxy to inflict violence upon the otherwise peaceful minority.   But there is no disagreement or philosophical gray area here:  Both sides agree taxes are backed by violence, and both sides admit the socialist transfer of wealth from rich to poor is not voluntary.

In contrast, I would say abortion and consent issues boil down to a determination about what is violence, and even when a person is determined to be a victim or non-victim of violence based on their age.  Almost two sides of the same coin, but essentially the question is different.  It's not about justifying violence with some delusional philosophies, but rather a question of whether or not violence has been committed.  I see them as distinct.  Furthermore, the abortion/consent laws apply to everyone, not just a select few based on income, so it's not discriminatory like socialist-style re-distribution of wealth is.   A non-discriminatory law is morally superior to a discriminatory law.

1 hour ago, ruraljuror said:

One step further, if the majority of the voters share a religion that opposes abortion (or same sex marriage, or interracial marriage, etc.) and you're okay with that outcome even though it restricts the free, voluntary actions of individuals

Abortion is not about free, voluntary actions though, is it?  The essential question is when the unborn child has rights... specifically the right to life.  You could only claim abortion is voluntary if the fetus also consents to be aborted, but that would  run afoul of the age of consent law anyway, so we're back to square one.

2 hours ago, ruraljuror said:

New Hampshire prohibition against bear hunting was not the source of the downfall of this particular would-be libertarian utopia

Well,  that law was at least the cause of the bear problem, which constituted an outsized portion of the article.  But you do go off the rails when you characterize it as a "utopia".  I think it was intended to be a libertarian refuge, but I doubt anyone claimed it was a utopia.  There were so many different interpretations among the townsfolk about what constituted an acceptable exercise of freedom that nobody was happy with anybody.  To you that sounds like a flaw, but it's actually a feature.  Free societies are characterized by people having the ability to do what makes them happy regardless of other people's opinions about it and unencumbered by government regulation.  The only restriction is that you cannot deprive others of their life/liberty/property, but as long as you don't then the sky's the limit.

2 hours ago, ruraljuror said:

I am curious how you would have handled the bears, as well. What would you have done about the lady leaving piles of grain with sugar donuts sprinkled on top to lure the bears?  What recourses should her neighbors have had after the bears did a bunch of damage on the way to the donut feast? 

I would say remove the state law against shooting bears on your property.  If an errant bear enters your yard, then its life is forfeit.  You've heard of the castle doctrine, right?  If a human comes into your yard and threatens you with violence and destroys your property, then you have the right to use deadly force to defend yourself, your family, and in most cases, your property.  Surely a violent bear has fewer protections under the law than a violent human does.  If doughnut lady wants to keep bears on her property, that's her right, but she's gonna need a fence to keep them in.  You know the old saying about how good fences make good neighbors?  Definitely true in a libertarian world.

2 hours ago, ruraljuror said:

legalizing organ trafficking, Alexander Hamilton style duels, and paying bums to fight on the street?

Organ sales.... Libertarian says:  No restrictions on trade

Duels... Libertarian says:  Murder is illegal

Pay for fight... Libertarian says:  People are free to chose any profession they want

2 hours ago, ruraljuror said:

restricted his friends' ability to start fires as they saw fit on days with high wildfire risk,

People can start fires on their land, but big mistakes come with big lawsuits.

[ruraljuror]

17 hours ago, Armacing said:

When it comes to economic issues there is no disagreement between rich & poor:  They both agree that money is good and they both want it.  The question is whether or not the majority will be permitted to use the government as a proxy to inflict violence upon the otherwise peaceful minority.   

Ha. The idea that money is "good" seems pretty contradictory to the notions that 'money is the root of all evil' and the love of money is one of the seven deadliest mistakes a human being can make in this world, so I'm not sure your depiction of unanimous agreement on the issue is quite accurate.

But yeah, most everybody wants money - or rather most everybody wants food, shelter, health, security, entertainment, etc. and we have structured our society in such a way as to make money the primary - and near exclusive - means of obtaining these things.

Your argument is like saying that everybody wants a car, when really what everybody wants is the freedom of movement, all the while you're ignoring the last 100 years and trillions of dollars that have been spent creating infrastructure and an environment that ensures there's no meaningful alternative. Of course, in places where there are efficient alternative transit options allowing for a comparable freedom of movement, the desire to own a car drops precipitously. Only 1 in 4 people in Amsterdam own cars, for example. 

Put another way, everybody in a mafia-protected neighborhood wants mafia protection, but only because such 'protection' is necessary for their survival, and there is no meaningful alternative other than destruction. Given your heightened sensitivity toward authoritarian power flexing, I'm genuinely a little surprised these kinds of arguments don't color your thinking more on these issues. Extortion and the lack of choice are the complete antithesis of free and voluntary association.

17 hours ago, Armacing said:

But there is no disagreement or philosophical gray area here:  Both sides agree taxes are backed by violence, and both sides admit the socialist transfer of wealth from rich to poor is not voluntary.

Have to disagree in part again. I for one pay my taxes voluntarily just the same as I tip at least 20% on every meal. There are tons of people like me who vote and spend money trying to change tax law in a way that would increase our taxes owed, as well, which seems like a pretty good proxy for voluntary taxation. I'd argue it's patriotic to willingly fund your government.

You're right of course that taxes are backed by violence, but violence backs the enforcement of property rights, and violence backs civil claims restitution etc. just the same, so I'm not sure this is the moral high ground you seem to think it is. The 'rules' are always backed by violence - that goes for the rules you like just the same as the rules you don't like.

17 hours ago, Armacing said:

Furthermore, the abortion/consent laws apply to everyone, not just a select few based on income, so it's not discriminatory like socialist-style re-distribution of wealth is.   A non-discriminatory law is morally superior to a discriminatory law.

You've got the right idea that a non-discriminatory law is morally superior to a discriminatory law but you applied the logic completely backwards.

Being rich is one of the least immutable of all possible characteristics. You can be rich one day and poor the next or vice versa. In fact, if one believes they are being discriminated against as a part of the rich minority it is completely within their power to give away enough assets as to no longer have to suffer at the hand of the oppressive poor majority. The rich can pull an 'if you can't beat them, join them' in the blink of an eye if poor people start giving themselves too good of a deal.

Contrast that with abortion, where more than half of people can't even get pregnant in the first place. Regardless of what the laws in Tennessee say, I can 100% guarantee that I will never be forced to carry my rapists child because to do so would be physically impossible, and there's nothing women can do to enjoy that same privilege short of eliminating the possibility of bearing children at all. Same goes with the age of consent: you're either legally defined as a minor or you're not, but you can't make yourself older in order to join the oppressive majority of adults  faster than one day at a time. 

17 hours ago, Armacing said:

Abortion is not about free, voluntary actions though, is it?  The essential question is when the unborn child has rights... specifically the right to life.  

I don't think it matters at all when the unborn child has rights actually, because no person has the right to demand the use of another person's body for any purpose without that person's consent. Most parents would gladly donate blood, bone marrow, to their kid in need, but the government isn't stepping in and making laws that force parents to do so, even if the kid's survival depends on it. That right doesn't exist for people.

17 hours ago, Armacing said:

I would say remove the state law against shooting bears on your property.  If an errant bear enters your yard, then its life is forfeit.  You've heard of the castle doctrine, right?  If a human comes into your yard and threatens you with violence and destroys your property, then you have the right to use deadly force to defend yourself, your family, and in most cases, your property.  Surely a violent bear has fewer protections under the law than a violent human does.  If doughnut lady wants to keep bears on her property, that's her right, but she's gonna need a fence to keep them in.  You know the old saying about how good fences make good neighbors?  Definitely true in a libertarian world.

Ha. I'm not worried about the rights of the bears. Even if shooting them were perfectly legal, I don't want to have to do so. Maybe it's against my religion, maybe I don't own a gun and don't want to have to buy one to protect myself, my kids, and my family from wild animals because some idiot next door is baiting them.  How many bears would you have to kill before your tune changes, how much time and money would you have to spend disposing of the bears' bodies, how much time and money would you have to spend in court trying to claw back the damages and/or expenses you've incurred as a result, all the while hoping nobody seriously gets hurt when you're not home are asleep or are doing anything other than keeping lookout for bears?

What if she were baiting deadly rattle snakes or murder hornets instead of bears, so the gun is no longer effective? Or what if she's not just baiting these things, she's creating a perfect environment to allow their populations to grow and thrive with the specific intent of boosting her pest control and/or antidote businesses around town? Is that still cool? Where do you draw the line? Hard to put up a fence that can keep out murder hornets. 

17 hours ago, Armacing said:

Organ sales.... Libertarian says:  No restrictions on trade

Duels... Libertarian says:  Murder is illegal

Pay for fight... Libertarian says:  People are free to chose any profession they want

The organ sale issue is about provenance. Will you be tightly regulating the organ market to make sure the organs function properly, are disease free, are were not harvested from kidnapped/murdered people or are you just mainstreaming the black market? 

Regarding duels, is murder still illegal when it's consensual? I thought you'd be on the other side of this one.

17 hours ago, Armacing said:

People can start fires on their land, but big mistakes come with big lawsuits.

Think about what you're saying here for a second.

Let's say I do something really reckless and it ends up burning down 1,000 acres. That could be billions of dollars in damage. Where do you think that money's going to come from? I'm going to be bankrupt before the ink on the class action suit is dry.

Further, the loss of the forest itself could take hundreds of years if not thousands to return to it's pre-fire form, if it ever does. Even if I had the money to cover all the built damage I caused, money alone is entirely incapable of restoring the life that my fire ended - including trees, animals, and people. 

And in the end, whatever the judgements against me are determined to be in court, after all the loss and all the suffering, the government will still ultimately rely on violence to compel my involuntary behavior. 

Since violence is underpinning the government's actions regardless, maybe some reasonable restrictions to limit wildfire risk and prevent some of the irreplaceable loss from needing replacement in the first place would be the preferable route. It's certainly more efficient from a financial standpoint, and everybody wants more money, right?

Edited May 13, 2022 by ruraljuror

[Armacing]

4 hours ago, ruraljuror said:

most everybody wants money - or rather most everybody wants food, shelter, health, security, entertainment, etc. and we have structured our society in such a way as to make money the primary - and near exclusive - means of obtaining these things.

Money is just a means of trade... a medium of exchange, so you are correct to point out that people want money so they can obtain assets.  But that nice little observation does not invalidate the crux of my point about there being no ambiguity about who is committing violence and who is the victim of violence and what the motive for violence is.  There is a clear aggressor and a clear victim and a clear motive.  My point of contrast was that your other two issues dealt more with determining whether or not violence has been committed - a fundamentally different question.  Because in all cases we agree that violence against peaceful, innocent individuals is wrong and should be punished by law.  The example of socialism however shows how democracy twisted that concept and sanctioned violence against innocent, peaceful individuals... And those who supported such an immoral application of government power are now compelled to construct elaborate contradictory philosophies to try to justify it.

4 hours ago, ruraljuror said:

Extortion and the lack of choice are the complete antithesis of free and voluntary association.

Now here is an interesting comment.  If I understand you correctly, you're characterizing the fact that people must endlessly pursue money just to survive as "extortion" and "lack of choice", and that by utilizing the government to take money from rich people they can achieve a society of free and voluntary association, is that correct?  You think that needing money to survive is some kind of wrong that has been inflicted upon them by the structure of pseudo-capitalist society, is that right?  If so, then I would say you are wrong because the scarcity of resources is a burden placed upon humans by the universe itself, chiefly the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

4 hours ago, ruraljuror said:

You're right of course that taxes are backed by violence, but violence backs the enforcement of property rights, and violence backs civil claims restitution etc. just the same, so I'm not sure this is the moral high ground you seem to think it is. The 'rules' are always backed by violence - that goes for the rules you like just the same as the rules you don't like.

I'm not opposed to taxes, per se.  I'm opposed to discriminatory taxes where the money is taken with the express intent of not providing a government service to the taxed person in return.  Taxes that fund legitimate government functions must be backed by violence, as you correctly pointed out, but re-distribution of wealth is not a legitimate function of government.  There is already a 100% voluntary system for distributing wealth in a free society and it's called the free market.  

4 hours ago, ruraljuror said:

Being rich is one of the least immutable of all possible characteristics. You can be rich one day and poor the next or vice versa. In fact, if one believes they are being discriminated against as a part of the rich minority it is completely within their power to give away enough assets as to no longer have to suffer at the hand of the oppressive poor majority. The rich can pull an 'if you can't beat them, join them' in the blink of an eye if poor people start giving themselves too good of a deal.

Well, first of all I think it's more likely they would destroy their assets rather than give them away in such a scenario, but let's overlook that point and focus on the crux of your argument.  Are you saying that it's OK for a government to discriminate against certain peaceful citizens so long as they are capable of changing the criteria used for discrimination?

4 hours ago, ruraljuror said:

Contrast that with abortion, where more than half of people can't even get pregnant in the first place.

Again, you're looking at this backwards.  Everyone is a fetus at some point, so the rule applies to 100% of the population during the course of their lives.

4 hours ago, ruraljuror said:

I will never be forced to carry my rapists child because to do so would be physically impossible, and there's nothing women can do to enjoy that same privilege

Rape represents an incredibly small % of abortions and in such cases action could be taken immediately to prevent an unwanted pregnancy long before the fetus reached an age that anyone cared to argue about.

4 hours ago, ruraljuror said:

Same goes with the age of consent: you're either legally defined as a minor or you're not, but you can't make yourself older in order to join the oppressive majority of adults  faster than one day at a time. 

Yeah, that's how age of consent works.  Wait, so are you opposed to the concept of age of consent?

4 hours ago, ruraljuror said:

I don't think it matters at all when the unborn child has rights actually, because no person has the right to demand the use of another person's body for any purpose without that person's consent.

Good to hear you say that about no person having the right to demand the use of another person's body - totally agree.  Does that mean you think an unborn fetus is a person?

Let's flip the script:  Let's say a mother wants to have a baby but she also really loves alcohol, cocaine, and heroin (which should be 100% legal, by the way).  If the child is born deformed and drug dependent, does the mother face child abuse charges, or is she in the clear since the damage from her drug usage occurred before the baby was born?

Personally, I think the mother has the right to have an early C-section or chemically induced birth at any stage of pregnancy.   If the baby lives, great, if not, well, [insert your god here] has reclaimed their own.  But that's not what happens during abortion, is it?  It's not merely between two people parting ways (free association), but the doctor actively kills the fetus.  Now you may say "Even if the mother never has to lift a finger to raise the child, she would still be burdened with emotional anguish knowing she is a mother when she didn't want to be.   To that I respond:  I am unsympathetic to the emotional anguish of individuals who propose violence as a means of alleviating that anguish [*cough* Socialists! *cough*].  

4 hours ago, ruraljuror said:

How many bears would you have to kill before your tune changes?

Ha, I don't think I would ever give up on defending myself or my property.  How many bears are willing to sacrifice themselves to my rifle before they change their tune?  Bears are not as dumb as you think.  Any number of much less intelligent animals have learned to associate humans with danger.  I could even argue that since those bears were not exposed to the threat of death from human encounters at an early age, they have been falsely lulled into a sense of safety around humans - - and for that unfortunate state of affairs, I blame the NH state law.  But once freedom (human freedom, that is) is returned to NH, the bears will be quickly disavowed of their previously mistaken assessment of security around human dwellings.  Then the glorious balance of nature will be restored and bears will be motivated (compelled?) to roam free up in the mountains and away from the village.

4 hours ago, ruraljuror said:

how much time and money would you have to spend in court trying to claw back the damages and/or expenses you've incurred as a result

What damage and expense am I trying to reclaim in court?  Are you suggesting I would have legal recourse against someone else if a wild bear walks onto my property and does damage?  I view that as an act-of-god, unless the bear is owned by someone else.  Is it owned by someone else in your scenario?

4 hours ago, ruraljuror said:

What if she were baiting deadly rattle snakes or murder hornets instead of bears, so the gun is no longer effective? Or what if she's not just baiting these things, she's creating a perfect environment to allow their populations to grow and thrive with the specific intent of boosting her pest control and/or antidote businesses around town? Is that still cool? Where do you draw the line? Hard to put up a fence that can keep out murder hornets. 

People are free to keep pets, but if their pets do damage to someone else's property, then they are legally liable.  I think a court would ultimately have to decide if any animal is owned by another person if damages are going to be sought... As far as creating perfect habitats:  Hard to imagine that raises to the level of owning a pet.  But in general, someone who lives in the woods is well equipped to deal with snakes and hornets and all manner of creepy-crawlies.  Personally, I would very much like to see how the rattle-snake/murder-hornet-lady lives on her own property.  If she manages to control the beasts to her satisfaction, then I might employ similar tactics to keep them in check.

 

4 hours ago, ruraljuror said:

The organ sale issue is about provenance. Will you be tightly regulating the organ market to make sure the organs function properly, are disease free, are were not harvested from kidnapped/murdered people or are you just mainstreaming the black market? 

It's only a "black market" if it's illegal, which it would not be in a free market society.  In a Libertarian economy, markets are tasked with regulating themselves.

4 hours ago, ruraljuror said:

Regarding duels, is murder still illegal when it's consensual?

How is it consensual?  I thought the goal of each participant in the duel was to kill, not be killed.  If the goal was to die, then it would be easier to just commit suicide (which should be legal).

4 hours ago, ruraljuror said:

Let's say I do something really reckless and it ends up burning down 1,000 acres. That could be billions of dollars in damage. Where do you think that money's going to come from? I'm going to be bankrupt before the ink on the class action suit is dry.

Well, first of all I would just like to point out that exact scenario happens with some regularity in California, which I assume has numerous anti-forest fire regulations on the books.   However, when someone commits criminal arson (including through negligence), they are imprisoned, and that provides a deterrent against others being so careless.  Can the forest be restored?  No.  Does the threat of jail deter?  Probably.  If you can start a forest fire and keep it entirely on your property, then you are free to do so within a Libertarian society.  As you can tell, in a free society, any number of unusual landscaping practices are permitted.

4 hours ago, ruraljuror said:

Since violence is underpinning the government's actions regardless, maybe some reasonable restrictions to limit wildfire risk and prevent some of the irreplaceable loss from needing replacement in the first place would be the preferable route. It's certainly more efficient from a financial standpoint, and everybody wants more money, right?

I'm not so sure it's more efficient (or let's say, productive) from a wealth preservation standpoint because you're not weighing the wealth destruction caused by the prohibition on burning.  Some burning is beneficial for forest management and agriculture.  But regardless of whether or not your economic calculus is correct, the fundamental principle of allowing freedom first and trying court cases when a dispute arises is superior to attempting to remove freedom in order to avoid litigation.  Freedom trumps convenience in a Libertarian society.

Edited May 13, 2022 by Armacing

[ruraljuror]

26 minutes ago, Armacing said:

Now here is an interesting comment.  If I understand you correctly, you're characterizing the fact that people must endlessly pursue money just to survive as "extortion" and "lack of choice", and that by utilizing the government to take money from rich people they can achieve a society of free and voluntary association, is that correct?  You think that needing money to survive is some kind of wrong that has been inflicted upon them by the structure of pseudo-capitalist society, is that right?  If so, then I would say you are wrong because the scarcity of resources is a burden placed upon humans by the universe itself, chiefly the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

Sure, all this would be true if we were living in a time before we had the technology to produce far more food/shelter/clothing than human beings could possibly consume. In recent decades in our pseudo-capitalist, however, scarcity has largely been artificially induced in order to keep up price and brand cache  - which is why so much unused product gets destroyed and/or thrown away.

33 minutes ago, Armacing said:

I'm not opposed to taxes, per se.  I'm opposed to discriminatory taxes where the money is taken with the express intent of not providing a government service to the taxed person in return.  Taxes that fund legitimate government functions must be backed by violence, as you correctly pointed out, but re-distribution of wealth is not a legitimate function of government.  There is already a 100% voluntary system for distributing wealth in a free society and it's called the free market.  

You're in luck. All of your taxes are in fact taken with the express intent of providing a government service to you in return. You certainly won't need or use all of the services the government is providing on any given day/week/month/year/decade, but when serving 330 + million people, somebody needs those services today, and it may be you tomorrow. 

Argue for fewer services to your hearts content, but don't overlook the ways you benefit from a lot of the services indirectly even when not directly. 

47 minutes ago, Armacing said:

Well, first of all I think it's more likely they would destroy their assets rather than give them away in such a scenario, but let's overlook that point and focus on the crux of your argument.  Are you saying that it's OK for a government to discriminate against certain peaceful citizens so long as they are capable of changing the criteria used for discrimination?

Genuinely fascinated if the spite you're projecting in destroying assets over donating them in this completely fictionalized scenario is meant just for rich people, or for people in general, but it's both telling and bleak.

As for the crux of my argument, I'm saying that having graduated income tax rates doesn't discriminate against anybody and that the rich aren't a class of people. One year my income may stretch all the way into the top tax bracket. Then next year it may not. Either way, it's just a math calculation and the effective overall rate is going to be similar. That calculation is applied equally to everyone's income, thus no discrimination.

57 minutes ago, Armacing said:

Again, you're looking at this backwards.  Everyone is a fetus at some point, so the rule applies to 100% of the population during the course of their lives.

Do I have it backwards? Tell me again, what rules are being applied to fetuses, exactly? Because I'm pretty sure the fetus has no choice in the matter either way, and that abortion restrictions are curtailing the options of the mother - a situation that not everyone experiences.

59 minutes ago, Armacing said:

Rape represents an incredibly small % of abortions and in such cases action could be taken immediately to prevent an unwanted pregnancy long before the fetus reached an age that anyone cared to argue about.

I doubt the thousands of women who get abortions every year from pregnancies caused by rape and incest are all that comforted by the fact that they represent a tiny portion of total rapes over all.

I totally agree with you that any such victim should terminate the pregnancy as soon as possible, but sometimes that's a lot easier said than done - especially in states where the cultural and religious majority may have made accessing such medical services extremely problematic and in some cases effectively impossible. What are we going to do about that?

1 hour ago, Armacing said:

Good to hear you say that about no person having the right to demand the use of another person's body - totally agree.  Does that mean you think an unborn fetus is a person?

I was saying that it doesn't matter when we assign personhood because the right to use another person's body against their will doesn't exist for persons of any age or pre/post-birth status.  That applies whether legal personhood is granted at the moment of conception or when the kid takes its first breath. 

1 hour ago, Armacing said:

Let's flip the script:  Let's say a mother wants to have a baby but she also really loves alcohol, cocaine, and heroin (which should be 100% legal, by the way).  If the child is born deformed and drug dependent, does the mother face child abuse charges, or is she in the clear since the damage from her drug usage occurred before the baby was born?

Very interesting question. Just my opinions here, but I'm inclined to say that the mother should face child abuse charges because she willing accepted a certain duty of care when she decided to have the baby which she obviously violated. My analogy would be that mothers aren't required to provide blood transfusions to their kids if they don't want, but if they do decide to provide those transfusions then they can be held accountable for knowingly spiking them with heroin or an infections disease.

That said, my positions is pretty flexible here - I could see a lot of fair justifications for not charging child abuse in these situations too.

1 hour ago, Armacing said:

Personally, I think the mother has the right to have an early C-section or chemically induced birth at any stage of pregnancy.   If the baby lives, great, if not, well, [insert your god here] has reclaimed their own.  But that's not what happens during abortion, is it?  It's not merely between two people parting ways (free association), but the doctor actively kills the fetus.  Now you may say "Even if the mother never has to lift a finger to raise the child, she would still be burdened with emotional anguish knowing she is a mother when she didn't want to be.   To that I respond:  I am unsympathetic to the emotional anguish of individuals who propose violence as a means of alleviating that anguish [*cough* Socialists! *cough*].  

This part is also very interesting to me, but for very different reasons, as from my perspective it seems to be a perfect example of taking your philosophy to such an extreme as to become a little absurd.

Don't get me wrong, I respect the consistency in a way at the very least, and I think what you've laid out here is a pretty clever rationale enabling you to oppose the safe and humane abortion procedures as they currently exist, while promoting your openness to far more dangerous and invasive procedures that accomplishes exactly the same result up to half way through the third trimester (when most people are ok with abortion being illegal anyway), just for the sake of ideological purity, even if it means worse ways to achieve the exact same end.

1 hour ago, Armacing said:

It's only a "black market" if it's illegal, which it would not be in a free market society.  In a Libertarian economy, markets are tasked with regulating themselves.

Why do black markets not regulate themselves? 

1 hour ago, Armacing said:

How is it consensual?  I thought the goal of each participant in the duel was to kill, not be killed.  If the goal was to die, then it would be easier to just commit suicide (which should be legal).

Ha. Fair enough. I suppose neither participant wants to be the one who dies, but can they not essentially sign a waiver acknowledging that potential outcome and choosing to participate anyway. That seems right up your alley.

1 hour ago, Armacing said:

Well, first of all I would just like to point out that exact scenario happens with some regularity in California, which I assume has numerous anti-forest fire regulations on the books.   However, when someone commits criminal arson (including through negligence), they are imprisoned, and that provides a deterrent against others being so careless.  Can the forest be restored?  No.  Does the threat of jail deter?  Probably.  If you can start a forest fire and keep it entirely on your property, then you are free to do so within a Libertarian society.  As you can tell, in a free society, any number of unusual landscaping practices are permitted.

I'm not so sure it's more efficient (or let's say, productive) from a wealth preservation standpoint because you're not weighing the wealth destruction caused by the prohibition on burning.  Some burning is beneficial for forest management and agriculture.  But regardless of whether or not your economic calculus is correct, the fundamental principle of allowing freedom first and trying court cases when a dispute arises is superior to attempting to remove freedom in order to avoid litigation.  Freedom trumps convenience in a Libertarian society.

Totally. It's these kinds of wildfires are a very common occurrence and they are devastating, which is why it's a good idea do do just about everything within reason to limit their occurrence and scope.

And yes, I recognize that in a libertarian society, one is free to start a forest fire and try to keep in entirely on their property, but that's one of the many reasons that a libertarian society is a bad idea. More money than can every be recovered is lost, irreplaceable property and life is lost for generations, and everyone's insurance premiums go up to cover the shortages, but you still don't think there are any other parties involved with enough interest to justify maybe setting a cap on the size of bonfires in order to try and prevent this loss from happening.  Just seems so flippant to me, but I digress. 

[Armacing]

On 5/13/2022 at 5:02 PM, ruraljuror said:

Sure, all this would be true if we were living in a time before we had the technology to produce far more food/shelter/clothing than human beings could possibly consume. In recent decades in our pseudo-capitalist, however, scarcity has largely been artificially induced in order to keep up price and brand cache  - which is why so much unused product gets destroyed and/or thrown away.

If somebody wants to throw away their property that is their prerogative as property owners.  You seem to be arguing for the complete elimination of private property rights and free will, right?

On 5/13/2022 at 5:02 PM, ruraljuror said:

You're in luck. All of your taxes are in fact taken with the express intent of providing a government service to you in return.

No they are not.  If I want to receive food stamps they tell me my income is too high, which coincidentally is the same reason I was target for taxation.  By design, those who contribute the most taxes are excluded from receiving most welfare services.  Contrast that with taxes paid for national defense where everyone benefits equally.

On 5/13/2022 at 5:02 PM, ruraljuror said:

Argue for fewer services to your hearts content, but don't overlook the ways you benefit from a lot of the services indirectly even when not directly. 

Example?

On 5/13/2022 at 5:02 PM, ruraljuror said:

Genuinely fascinated if the spite you're projecting in destroying assets over donating them in this completely fictionalized scenario is meant just for rich people, or for people in general, but it's both telling and bleak.

Not as bleak as the current reality of socialism we live in with declining standards of living and a hopelessly ignorant public who can't figure out how their own actions caused the very thing they are complaining about.

On 5/13/2022 at 5:02 PM, ruraljuror said:

As for the crux of my argument, I'm saying that having graduated income tax rates doesn't discriminate against anybody and that the rich aren't a class of people. One year my income may stretch all the way into the top tax bracket. Then next year it may not. Either way, it's just a math calculation and the effective overall rate is going to be similar. That calculation is applied equally to everyone's income, thus no discrimination.

But how come the services you receive in return for paying more taxes do not also ramp up in years of high income to match the amount of money taken?  A person who pays a higher %  in taxes should receive more services, otherwise everyone should be taxed the same.  Equality is the name of the game when it comes to government.

On 5/13/2022 at 5:02 PM, ruraljuror said:

I totally agree with you that any such victim should terminate the pregnancy as soon as possible, but sometimes that's a lot easier said than done - especially in states where the cultural and religious majority may have made accessing such medical services extremely problematic and in some cases effectively impossible. What are we going to do about that?

There is no state that has made laws restricting immediate treatment for rape victims, but let's assume there could be.  Let's assume that some crazy state says once conception has occurred, then *nothing* can be done to terminate the pregnancy for any reason.  If I were a woman in that state, I would move to another state.  Heck, even as a man I would consider moving to another state because it's just a matter of time before they pass some idiotic law targeting other freedoms.  That's the whole point behind states having different laws and competing economically and culturally against each other.   Eventually the pain of population loss and economic stagnation makes the consequences of stupid laws obvious and unavoidable such that the most offensive state laws are repealed as a matter of survival.  Voting with your feet is the highest form of democracy because instead of making everyone suffer through one particular law, a variety of laws are available to live under and we get to find out which ones actually work best in real life.

On 5/13/2022 at 5:02 PM, ruraljuror said:

I was saying that it doesn't matter when we assign personhood because the right to use another person's body against their will doesn't exist for persons of any age or pre/post-birth status.  That applies whether legal personhood is granted at the moment of conception or when the kid takes its first breath. 

Agreed.

On 5/13/2022 at 5:02 PM, ruraljuror said:

Very interesting question. Just my opinions here, but I'm inclined to say that the mother should face child abuse charges because she willing accepted a certain duty of care when she decided to have the baby which she obviously violated. My analogy would be that mothers aren't required to provide blood transfusions to their kids if they don't want, but if they do decide to provide those transfusions then they can be held accountable for knowingly spiking them with heroin or an infections disease.

That said, my positions is pretty flexible here - I could see a lot of fair justifications for not charging child abuse in these situations too.

Great answer, I like what you did with the "willing acceptance of duty" concept... It preserves the element of free association, and essentially turns it into a contract.  Of course, the law will have to decide when (at which state of pregnancy) this acceptance is implied... so we're right back where we started with the government establishing some red line during the pregnancy beyond which abortion is prohibited because that would breach the previously accepted duty. ...  Unless you are thinking that all pregnancy duties must be explicitly accepted by registering pregnancies with the government?  Assuming you did intend implicit acceptance in your scenario, how is that different from the current status quo?

The Libertarian perspective is that the mother cannot be charged with any crimes for activities related to her own body, therefore she could not be charged with child abuse.  Mandating standards for acceptable behavior by the mother during pregnancy is a slippery slope that leads to rules about avoiding 2nd hand smoke and taking prenatal vitamins and undergoing mandatory doctor visits and the codification of legal birthing practices, etc.  In a Libertarian world view, the mother is completely in charge of the pregnancy regardless of the opinions of others, including the right to end the pregnancy by C-section or chemical inducement at any stage of pregnancy.  The only nuance, as I outlined before, is that her rights do not extend to the ability to end the child's life.  If premature separation results in death, so be it, but if not, then the child lives regardless of her feelings about the matter.

On 5/13/2022 at 5:02 PM, ruraljuror said:

This part is also very interesting to me, but for very different reasons, as from my perspective it seems to be a perfect example of taking your philosophy to such an extreme as to become a little absurd.

Don't get me wrong, I respect the consistency in a way at the very least, and I think what you've laid out here is a pretty clever rationale enabling you to oppose the safe and humane abortion procedures as they currently exist, while promoting your openness to far more dangerous and invasive procedures that accomplishes exactly the same result up to half way through the third trimester (when most people are ok with abortion being illegal anyway), just for the sake of ideological purity, even if it means worse ways to achieve the exact same end.

It's situations dealing with life and death that demand the most rigorous application of ideological purity, in my view.  I could just as easily characterize your philosophy of "let's do whatever is easiest and most convenient" as absurd considering the morally weighty nature of the question at hand.  However, instead I would rather focus on your characterization of abortion as "humane", or in this case, more humane than my proposed system.  Let's do an experiment:  Let's let those babies who can survive (some can at even 23 weeks) grow up to age 18 and then take a poll among them to see if they think my method or your method is more humane.  It only makes sense to let those experiencing the "humane" treatment you are concerned with to give some customer feedback, don't you think?

On 5/13/2022 at 5:02 PM, ruraljuror said:

a pretty clever rationale enabling you to oppose the safe and humane abortion procedures as they currently exist

Yep, I'm just like the Sheriff of Nottingham:  "No more merciful beheadings". 

On 5/13/2022 at 5:02 PM, ruraljuror said:

Why do black markets not regulate themselves? 

They are black because they are regulated by government.  Every black market (with all of it's negative features) used to be a free market that was self-regulated to perfection until the government stepped in.

On 5/13/2022 at 5:02 PM, ruraljuror said:

Ha. Fair enough. I suppose neither participant wants to be the one who dies, but can they not essentially sign a waiver acknowledging that potential outcome and choosing to participate anyway. That seems right up your alley.

Engaging in risky activities is the right of every free individual, but if someone get's killed, then a crime has been committed... could be manslaughter or murder depending on the circumstances.  If it's just an injury and not death, then I guess it depends on whether or not anyone wants to press charges.

On 5/13/2022 at 5:02 PM, ruraljuror said:

And yes, I recognize that in a libertarian society, one is free to start a forest fire and try to keep in entirely on their property, but that's one of the many reasons that a libertarian society is a bad idea. More money than can every be recovered is lost, irreplaceable property and life is lost for generations, and everyone's insurance premiums go up to cover the shortages, but you still don't think there are any other parties involved with enough interest to justify maybe setting a cap on the size of bonfires in order to try and prevent this loss from happening.  Just seems so flippant to me, but I digress. 

Nope, a libertarian society is a great idea... maybe the greatest idea ever!  The phrase "Live Free or Die" is the perfect example of ostensibly flippant libertarian concepts that seem to be unnecessarily simplistic and short-sighted.  However, the truth is that freedom is not easily established nor maintained, and it is characterized by a bunch of people who love their own freedoms but are unhappy about the way everyone else is exercising their freedoms.  So statements like that serve as a reminder that freedom is an ideal unto itself regardless of the real world consequences of the pursuit of freedom.

Now, let's go back to California:  In a Libertarian society a person's insurance company would have something to say about reckless behavior and losing your insurance and being labeled "uninsurable" carries certain weighty consequences in a Libertarian society that will cause most people to think twice.  Then there's criminal arson.  Plus the threat of civil court proceedings and the loss of assets, including the loss of the very land that the offender loves to exercise freedom on so much.  It seems to me there would be ample disincentive in a Libertarian society to discourage people from behaving recklessly.  And if a person is hell-bent on starting a forest fire, then no amount of laws will stop them, as we see today in CA.

Edited May 18, 2022 by Armacing