Libertarianism. Is it more than just selfishness?

ml1 said:

STANV said:

It's a form of Utopianism. 

Libertarians can be a positive force in supporting Civil Liberties, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, etc.; or a negative force in opposing Governmental protection of vulnerable members of society.

The only totally Libertarian or Anarchist society I know of exists in the Science Fiction novel "The Dispossessed" by Ursula LeGuin. And the society is on its own planet!  

a lot of liberals are ACLU members who support all of those freedoms.  So while I like that libertarians are on the same side of those issues, their existence isn't necessary to push those ideas.

another negative is in the area of environmental regulation.  I haven't met anyone who calls themselves libertarian who thinks the government should be regulating businesses to protect the air, water, land and natural resources.  As if the market will force businesses to be responsible and move toward clean environmental practices.  And I suppose the flip side of that is if consumers don't make choices to force businesses into good environmental practices, then it's actually not in the best interests of a society for government to force it.

But we've certainly seen all over the world what happens in places that don't have environmental regulation.  They literally become poisonous landscapes if it's in the interests of businesses to pollute.

Libertarians are probably the most consistent supporters of civil rights there are.  I actually don't think progressives are very impressive defenders of civil liberties.  They seem to support civil liberty viiolations of people they disagree with or see as a threat to their politics.  See Assange, Snowden, Chelsea Manning as examples. 

The government has a terrible record on the enviornment. The Soviet Union, which had no private companies, was a terrible polluter.  The US government is a terrible polluter.  The US Government has allowed pollution for quite a while.  If a private entity owned the Cuyhahoga river, do we really think they would allow it to be polluted to the point that it caught fire? Essentially, the government owned that river and they let it get pollluted. 

Where are these "poisonous landscapes" you are referring to?

drummerboy said:

another thing about the "product of your labor".

Other than the most trivial of things, all products of "your" labor will rely on the products of others' labor.

i.e. - you didn't build that.

 There is a difference between coopoeration and appropriation.

terp said:

drummerboy said:

another thing about the "product of your labor".

Other than the most trivial of things, all products of "your" labor will rely on the products of others' labor.

i.e. - you didn't build that.

 There is a difference between coopoeration and appropriation.

 explain

I may need additional factors(raw materials, etc) to produce the product of my labor, but as long as I have attained those raw materials through trade I don't see the problem. If I took those from someone else, then I see a problem. 

I never understood the "You didn't make that argument".  What a silly argument to try to minimize the accomplishments of people who actually built a business or livelihood.  

terp said:

ml1 said:

STANV said:

It's a form of Utopianism. 

Libertarians can be a positive force in supporting Civil Liberties, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, etc.; or a negative force in opposing Governmental protection of vulnerable members of society.

The only totally Libertarian or Anarchist society I know of exists in the Science Fiction novel "The Dispossessed" by Ursula LeGuin. And the society is on its own planet!  

a lot of liberals are ACLU members who support all of those freedoms.  So while I like that libertarians are on the same side of those issues, their existence isn't necessary to push those ideas.

another negative is in the area of environmental regulation.  I haven't met anyone who calls themselves libertarian who thinks the government should be regulating businesses to protect the air, water, land and natural resources.  As if the market will force businesses to be responsible and move toward clean environmental practices.  And I suppose the flip side of that is if consumers don't make choices to force businesses into good environmental practices, then it's actually not in the best interests of a society for government to force it.

But we've certainly seen all over the world what happens in places that don't have environmental regulation.  They literally become poisonous landscapes if it's in the interests of businesses to pollute.

Libertarians are probably the most consistent supporters of civil rights there are.  I actually don't think progressives are very impressive defenders of civil liberties.  They seem to support civil liberty viiolations of people they disagree with or see as a threat to their politics.  See Assange, Snowden, Chelsea Manning as examples. 

The government has a terrible record on the enviornment. The Soviet Union, which had no private companies, was a terrible polluter.  The US government is a terrible polluter.  The US Government has allowed pollution for quite a while.  If a private entity owned the Cuyhahoga river, do we really think they would allow it to be polluted to the point that it caught fire? Essentially, the government owned that river and they let it get pollluted. 

Where are these "poisonous landscapes" you are referring to?

 you've gotta be kidding with this one.

A private owner of the Cuyahoga would have let it burn as long as it's purpose to the owner was maintained. If the river was just used as a byway, and not for drinking, for example, they would give a crap if it burned. They would put the fire out and continue on. Clean water doesn't make shipping any more efficient.

And the extent to which the U.S. government has allowed pollution is exactly  to the same extent that "free marketers" have been allowed to deregulate. (I'm talking since the 70's, not before.)

Also, your list of people whom which progressives allegedly support civil rights violations is going to be ridiculously short, especially when compared to the many tens of millions of people for whom progressives have been fighting for, for many, many years.

terp said:

I may need additional factors(raw materials, etc) to produce the product of my labor, but as long as I have attained those raw materials through trade I don't see the problem. If I took those from someone else, then I see a problem. 

I never understood the "You didn't make that argument".  What a silly argument to try to minimize the accomplishments of people who actually built a business or livelihood.  

Of course you don't understand it. Libertarianism doesn't allow you to.

That's how religions work.

drummerboy said:

terp said:

I may need additional factors(raw materials, etc) to produce the product of my labor, but as long as I have attained those raw materials through trade I don't see the problem. If I took those from someone else, then I see a problem. 

I never understood the "You didn't make that argument".  What a silly argument to try to minimize the accomplishments of people who actually built a business or livelihood.  

Of course you don't understand it. Libertarianism doesn't allow you to.

That's how religions work.

  Interesting that the person who clearly had a visceral emotional reaction to what I wrote thinks that I'm "religious".   I am logically backing up my arguments.   

You are the one who knows what would have happened with this counterfactual.  And your case gives your lord and savior the government a pretty big benefit of the doubt.  Yet, for all intents and purposes the government owned the Cuyohoga and yet the fact is that it burned.

drummerboy said:

 you've gotta be kidding with this one.

A private owner of the Cuyahoga would have let it burn as long as it's purpose to the owner was maintained. If the river was just used as a byway, and not for drinking, for example, they would give a crap if it burned. They would put the fire out and continue on. Clean water doesn't make shipping any more efficient.

And the extent to which the U.S. government has allowed pollution is exactly  to the same extent that "free marketers" have been allowed to deregulate. (I'm talking since the 70's, not before.)

Also, your list of people whom which progressives allegedly support civil rights violations is going to be ridiculously short, especially when compared to the many tens of millions of people for whom progressives have been fighting for many, many years.

terp said:

drummerboy said:

terp said:

I may need additional factors(raw materials, etc) to produce the product of my labor, but as long as I have attained those raw materials through trade I don't see the problem. If I took those from someone else, then I see a problem. 

I never understood the "You didn't make that argument".  What a silly argument to try to minimize the accomplishments of people who actually built a business or livelihood.  

Of course you don't understand it. Libertarianism doesn't allow you to.

That's how religions work.

  Interesting that the person who clearly had a visceral emotional reaction to what I wrote thinks that I'm "religious".   I am logically backing up my arguments.   

You are the one who knows what would have happened with this counterfactual.  And your case gives your lord and savior the government a pretty big benefit of the doubt.  Yet, for all intents and purposes the government owned the Cuyohoga and yet the fact is that it burned.

drummerboy said:

 you've gotta be kidding with this one.

A private owner of the Cuyahoga would have let it burn as long as it's purpose to the owner was maintained. If the river was just used as a byway, and not for drinking, for example, they would give a crap if it burned. They would put the fire out and continue on. Clean water doesn't make shipping any more efficient.

And the extent to which the U.S. government has allowed pollution is exactly  to the same extent that "free marketers" have been allowed to deregulate. (I'm talking since the 70's, not before.)

Also, your list of people whom which progressives allegedly support civil rights violations is going to be ridiculously short, especially when compared to the many tens of millions of people for whom progressives have been fighting for many, many years.

 

Yes it burned, until progressives forced it to get cleaned. As they did to the rest of the country.

Thank you progressives.

Are all of your environmental arguments going to consist of things that happened before the environmental movement got off the ground? Knock yourself out.

And a visceral reaction means my subsequent discussion is not logical?

What?

terp said:

The government has a terrible record on the enviornment. The Soviet Union, which had no private companies, was a terrible polluter.  The US government is a terrible polluter.  The US Government has allowed pollution for quite a while.  If a private entity owned the Cuyhahoga river, do we really think they would allow it to be polluted to the point that it caught fire? Essentially, the government owned that river and they let it get pollluted. 

Correct, the river became so polluted because the government failed to take steps to keep out the pollution.

"Steps to keep out the pollution" by government would be laws land regulations governing the disposal of pollution into the river by private parties.  So you've endorsed government regulation to protect the environment. 

terp said:

The government has a terrible record on the enviornment. The Soviet Union, which had no private companies, was a terrible polluter.  The US government is a terrible polluter.  The US Government has allowed pollution for quite a while.  If a private entity owned the Cuyhahoga river, do we really think they would allow it to be polluted to the point that it caught fire? Essentially, the government owned that river and they let it get pollluted. 

Maybe you can use this to help me better understand your "voluntary association" framework. Under this framework, if the factories are fine dumping the pollution, and the entity where the pollution ends up doesn't have a problem with this, it seems there's no problem at all? I'm not sure how it makes a difference whether the entity controlling the river is public or private under this framework, only whether or not they accept the pollution? To me this seems an incorrect outcome -- surely a river catching fire is a problem, regardless of which entities are involved -- but I'm having a hard time seeing how a polluted river is inherently a problem under the "voluntary association" framework. Couldn't the polluting factories just buy the river for use as their dumping ground?

terp said:

 What influence are you referring to?  I hear this refrain often, but all I see is perpetual war, an ever-growing welfare state, and a monetary policy only a drummerboy could love.   All of the major trends are antithetical to a libertarian.  How exactly are we having influence?  

It's people who don't really understand what libertarian concepts are, but who think of themselves as "libertarians".  The kind of people shouting at store clerks that they won't wear a mask because "freedom"!  The kind of people who freaked out over limitations on smoking in public because "freedom"!  The kind of people who own businesses and don't think there should be any regulations on how they dispose of their waste.  That sort of influence.

just for the record, it was more than 50 years ago that the Cuyahoga River caught fire for the last time.  And it was cleaned up after the city of Cleveland passed a bond act to fund the restoration.   

terp said:

sprout said:

I see Libertarianism as focusing on the human drive for competition, while Communism focuses on the human drive for cooperation.

I don't think either can be a successful society on it's own, because the existence of humanity relies on a mix of both.

 Interesting that in a libertarian society you would be free to create a commune & live the dream of cooperation and communal existence.  The opposite is not possible.

That's not a good reason for Libertarianism, in the same way the phrasing does not provide a good reason for societies to allow war:

Interesting that in a society that allows war, you would be free to create places of peace and live the dream of a lower-stress and less traumatic experience. In a society that does not allow war, the opposite is not possible. 

ml1 said:

just for the record, it was more than 50 years ago that the Cuyahoga River caught fire for the last time.  And it was cleaned up after the city of Cleveland passed a bond act to fund the restoration.   

"After the city of Cleveland engaged in theft via taxation to fund the restoration."

Fixed that for you.

nohero said:

ml1 said:

just for the record, it was more than 50 years ago that the Cuyahoga River caught fire for the last time.  And it was cleaned up after the city of Cleveland passed a bond act to fund the restoration.   

"After the city of Cleveland engaged in theft via taxation to fund the restoration."

Fixed that for you.

 sorry.  I should have mentioned the confiscation.

terp said:

Essentially, the government owned that river and they let it get pollluted. 

I thought your whole point was that if you own something, you can do whatever the heck with it, and nobody else has the right to challenge that. So by your own religion, if the government owned that river, why are you upset they let it get polluted? 

My point isn't and hasn't been that governments don't ever pollute or allow pollution. In fact my point initially was how bad the environment can get if governments don't regulate would-be polluters. 

ml1 said:

terp said:

 What influence are you referring to?  I hear this refrain often, but all I see is perpetual war, an ever-growing welfare state, and a monetary policy only a drummerboy could love.   All of the major trends are antithetical to a libertarian.  How exactly are we having influence?  

It's people who don't really understand what libertarian concepts are, but who think of themselves as "libertarians".  The kind of people shouting at store clerks that they won't wear a mask because "freedom"!  The kind of people who freaked out over limitations on smoking in public because "freedom"!  The kind of people who own businesses and don't think there should be any regulations on how they dispose of their waste.  That sort of influence.

 Ah.  Where the rubber meets the road! Solve those problems and we damn well may have our utopia!

PVW said:

terp said:

The government has a terrible record on the enviornment. The Soviet Union, which had no private companies, was a terrible polluter.  The US government is a terrible polluter.  The US Government has allowed pollution for quite a while.  If a private entity owned the Cuyhahoga river, do we really think they would allow it to be polluted to the point that it caught fire? Essentially, the government owned that river and they let it get pollluted. 

Maybe you can use this to help me better understand your "voluntary association" framework. Under this framework, if the factories are fine dumping the pollution, and the entity where the pollution ends up doesn't have a problem with this, it seems there's no problem at all? I'm not sure how it makes a difference whether the entity controlling the river is public or private under this framework, only whether or not they accept the pollution? To me this seems an incorrect outcome -- surely a river catching fire is a problem, regardless of which entities are involved -- but I'm having a hard time seeing how a polluted river is inherently a problem under the "voluntary association" framework. Couldn't the polluting factories just buy the river for use as their dumping ground?

 Why would the factories be fine dumping pollution?  The owner of that river may have something to say about that?   The funny thing about owners is that they like to take care of things not only for them but for their progeny.

ml1 said:

just for the record, it was more than 50 years ago that the Cuyahoga River caught fire for the last time.  And it was cleaned up after the city of Cleveland passed a bond act to fund the restoration.   

 And what happened to the industry? Did the factories suddenly get green?  Did the American people do without the products that these factories produced?  Did they see the light and curbed their consumerism for the benefit of a pristine environment?   

ml1 said:

My point isn't and hasn't been that governments don't ever pollute or allow pollution. In fact my point initially was how bad the environment can get if governments don't regulate would-be polluters. 

 Politicians will allow pollution when it increases their power.  They will take measures to curb pollution when that increases their power.

basil said:

terp said:

Essentially, the government owned that river and they let it get pollluted. 

I thought your whole point was that if you own something, you can do whatever the heck with it, and nobody else has the right to challenge that. So by your own religion, if the government owned that river, why are you upset they let it get polluted? 

 So, everything you know about liberty you read on the back of a cereal box?

nohero said:

terp said:

The government has a terrible record on the enviornment. The Soviet Union, which had no private companies, was a terrible polluter.  The US government is a terrible polluter.  The US Government has allowed pollution for quite a while.  If a private entity owned the Cuyhahoga river, do we really think they would allow it to be polluted to the point that it caught fire? Essentially, the government owned that river and they let it get pollluted. 

Correct, the river became so polluted because the government failed to take steps to keep out the pollution.

"Steps to keep out the pollution" by government would be laws land regulations governing the disposal of pollution into the river by private parties.  So you've endorsed government regulation to protect the environment. 

terp said:

 And what happened to the industry? Did the factories suddenly get green?  Did the American people do without the products that these factories produced?  Did they see the light and curbed their consumerism for the benefit of a pristine environment?   

 No they didn’t go green, so to speak. Regulations on proper sewerage systems and recycling enforcement. The river never caught fire again. 

terp said:

 Why would the factories be fine dumping pollution?

They did -- does it matter why?

The owner of that river may have something to say about that? The funny thing about owners is that they like to take care of things not only for them but for their progeny.

All owners? There are no examples of owners who allow pollution? I mean, going back to the factories that polluted the river, I'm fairly certain that in addition to the river the factory grounds had a great deal of pollution. Is that a problem?

Jaytee said:

terp said:

 And what happened to the industry? Did the factories suddenly get green?  Did the American people do without the products that these factories produced?  Did they see the light and curbed their consumerism for the benefit of a pristine environment?   

 No they didn’t go green, so to speak. Regulations on proper sewerage systems and recycling enforcement. The river never caught fire again. 

 Either that or the industry moved. 

PVW said:

terp said:

 Why would the factories be fine dumping pollution?

They did -- does it matter why?

The owner of that river may have something to say about that? The funny thing about owners is that they like to take care of things not only for them but for their progeny.

All owners? There are no examples of owners who allow pollution? I mean, going back to the factories that polluted the river, I'm fairly certain that in addition to the river the factory grounds had a great deal of pollution. Is that a problem?

Someone who owns a natural resource is more likely to want to preserve its usefulness.  Any third party who pollutes that natural resource is likely to hear from that owner.  The fact that there no owner results in the "tragedy of the commons" as is often used as an attack against liberty.  Is this a perfect system? No, but as we have seen the government's record is rather spotty. 

OK Terp, I’m sure you’ve addressed this before in earlier threads, but please expand on how non-individual, let’s say, multi-individual, needs are addressed by libertarianism in the real world.

Ignore Utopia. Let’s say the U.S. was fully libertarian. Other regimes are not so.

How do we confront the potential threats of non-libertarian, international regimes without confiscating property? Taxing.

I guess the same question applies at a local level (security, fire fighting) but I think I your know answer is Fee-for-service?

terp said:

PVW said:

terp said:

 Why would the factories be fine dumping pollution?

They did -- does it matter why?

The owner of that river may have something to say about that? The funny thing about owners is that they like to take care of things not only for them but for their progeny.

All owners? There are no examples of owners who allow pollution? I mean, going back to the factories that polluted the river, I'm fairly certain that in addition to the river the factory grounds had a great deal of pollution. Is that a problem?

Someone who owns a natural resource is more likely to want to preserve its usefulness.  Any third party who pollutes that natural resource is likely to hear from that owner.  The fact that there no owner results in the "tragedy of the commons" as is often used as an attack against liberty.  Is this a perfect system? No, but as we have seen the government's record is rather spotty. 

There are many, many examples of private property owners that pollute their own property or allow others to pollute their property. You seem to be arguing that if their property is a waterway this would somehow be different? And I think you're getting off on a tangent on whether it's a public or private entity we're talking about here. My question to you is, if the entity controlling the river is fine with allowing pollution, is that a problem? Under the "voluntary association" framework, I can't see how it is, and that seem incorrect.

From my perspective, I can say that the public entities controlling the Cuyohoga failed the people of Cleveland, Ohio, and the United States, because those people had claims to a safe, clean river, and those claims were not met. I struggle to understand on what basis your framework allows us to label the state of the river in the late 60s a problem.

boy, catching up on this thread was a total waste of time.