Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg700
For me, rights are inalienable because though a government may not recognize them, they are the essential freedoms a person must have in order to be sovereign, or truly responsible for theirselves. I also believe that suppression of those rights is an essential element of any oppressive government.
|
Assuming there are rights that are objectively essential for people to be sovereign, what does personal sovereignty mean? Does that mean you do everything for yourself, or just most things?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg700
As far as private property is concerned, I personally feel it stems from being able to keep the fruits of your own labor. If there were no private property, and willravel worked very hard to have a nice garden, the lazy masses who wanted fresh vegetables without the bother of growing them could take as they please, leaving nothing for the producer. The extension to property (not necessarily land) is easy...if you work to generate the resources necessary to produce, purchase, or otherwise acquire something, nobody else should be able to take it from you because 'they need it more.'
|
This assumes one mode of social organization and ignores all others, though. I brought up pre-agrarian social organization in humans because it's existence defies libertarian explanation. Imagine a group of 12 humans that live as a unit of some kind, like a pack. What they each contribute isn't for themselves as individuals, but rather for the whole, to ensure the continuation of the social unit. This can still be seen in the way that parents care for children, but that children also work to support the household. When I was a boy of 12, my dad made something in the neighborhood of $50k a year and I had a paper route which made a few hundred dollars a month, but we both contributed to the household in the best way we could. I, as a child, did not have the education, discipline, nor opportunity to make $50k a year. This fact was taken into consideration and I was allowed to live on the collective fruits of the family's labor just like my dad. Was I lazy or was I simply not in a position to provide for myself? Was my father hurt by providing for me? Is responsibility for one's kin/unit/etc. something hat cannot be transferred to larger societies?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg700
I know some very early societies, and some modern primitives dont' believe in private property. However, you don't see this in modern society as it simply isn't a successful strategy. When everyone shares everything, the people who work the hardest and are most productive are unable to realize additional gains over their neighbors. There is no incentive to go the extra mile as the person who doesn't will get to enjoy the results without the effort.
|
I beg to differ. Back in 2002, I decided to join some friends in a joint real estate venture and we each collectively owned what we purchased. One could even argue that stocks represent collective ownership.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg700
Libertarians (excepting the extremists that are present in any party) don't believe in no government, just small government, with money spent only on those things that are of vital importance to the nation. For instance, the postal service, military, core services, congress, etc. It is largely up to the individual to interpret what is meant by *essential*.
|
This makes sense, but it also represents a splintering issue for libertarians. The meaning of essential strikes me as being very much subjective and subjectivity is a problem when dealing with political or economic theory because it directly effects the real world application of said theory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg700
A great example of this is socialized medicine. The libertarian philosophy is that individuals are far better able to choose what is right for them than the government is. If you want healthcare, then you are better off paying for it directly and getting exactly what you want than paying through taxes for a cumbersome, expensive, unresponsive federal version.
|
This assumes federal healthcare is worse than private healthcare. I know most libertarians are concerned with government interference in the US medical system, but I doubt anyone could argue that the US system is more socialized than actual universal healthcare systems used elsewhere that happen to be better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg700
Can't afford healthcare but want it? Then get a better job because using tax dollars stolen from someone else is income redistribution at best and is, in my opinion, far closer to outright theft and extortion (since the goverment doesn't leave you any choice.) The libertarian utopia is a society where everyone is responsible for everything they do, and the government is the bare minimum to maintain order and the sovereignty of the nation. However, much like every other 'ideal' I can think of, it isn't something that could ever actually work. But it doesn't mean we wouldn't benefit from taking a few huge steps in that direction.
|
I wish it was as easy to get a better job as you make it seem in your second sentence. In theory it's great but in practice most people have the best job they can get. If someone wasn't born into a situation that made good education and job opportunities possible, who are you to say they are doomed to live the life they happened to be born into? Is that fair? Does the market reward all hard workers with a living wage or better?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg700
Oh, to touch on the environment real quick: Just as it would be reasonable to stop a company from spewing cyanide gas into the air and killing off a local town, it is reasonable for the government to pass laws which protect it's citizens. Reasonable environmental safeguards are perfectly fine, so long as they will protect PEOPLE. Saving a wood toad (or insert some insignificant but endangered animal) is not normally justifiable unless the lost of that creature would have a clearly definable negative impact on peoples lives (like cutting down the last tree on ester island). Otherwise it's just natural selection at work.
|
So you're okay with the existence of the EPA? Most libertarians I know want it dismantled.