www.ditl.org

Cpl Kendall wrote: So if my neighbor comes onto my property I can execute him without punishment?

Um. Maybe Teaos can elaborate a little, but they get a little fuzzy where initiation of force and property rights meet.

Certainly if you said "Get off my property right now or I shoot you" and they don't get off it's time to bust a cap.

But just killing someone would, I believe, constitute an infringment of their rights even on your propery.

Of course if you told the police that you'd told them three times to get off your property and they didn't..........

teaos wrote: I always dread these consersations with people though because people who arent familiar with Libertarian idiology and only the American political party tend to think us as selfish racist arseholes.

I'd say I'm semi familiar. And certainly familiar with enough to know that a large part of the American demographic of people who self identify as Libertarians are selfish arseholes, and a sizable minority at least is racist.

Now I bet, especially in NZ where I think you're from, many Libertarians wish the racist would just go away and be Republicans or something. But Republicans do all sorts of annoying things like support Katrina victims at least to some degree, and don't cancel food stamps, only Libertarianism offers them what they're looking for.

People also cant seem to see the difference between Libertarians and anarchists.

Um. A significant part of those who self identify as Libertarians support Anarcho-Capitalism (everything, including the police force and court system is privatized).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
The concept of which actually comes out of Libertarianism and was proposed by one of the founders of a couple Libertarian Journals.

But many Libertarians don't quite trust a totally privatized police force/military/judiciary, but recognize the need for some size of a police force to smash face when the impoverished masses rise up. Hence the need for some government.

Teaos wrote:Pretty much.

I always dread these consersations with people though because people who arent familiar with Libertarian idiology and only the American political party tend to think us as selfish racist arseholes.

People also cant seem to see the difference between Libertarians and anarchists.

That is not what I would say. What I would say is that this idea in practice is abhorrent because your rights exist only circumstantially based on where you happen to be, and if you get harassed or discriminated against or whatever else, it may have been your tough luck cause you were standing in x business or x library where the owner says it's okay. You either believe people have certain rights, and certain limitations of those rights, or you don't. Not well I have the right to do this cause I'm standing on the last two inches of my porch but if I said/did the same (I dunno, making a bomb threat or death threat or something?) three inches forward it would be a crime. I would think this only holds much appeal for people who don't, as a general rule, LIKE the idea that people have a certain set of rights/legally agreed upon limitations on rights universally, and want to create "zones of divergence" where some rules apply more and some apply less. And yes, while I am sure not every Libertarian is a racist, this sounds like the perfect framework for someone who is a racist.

So if my neighbor comes onto my property I can execute him without punishment?

If the private property was well marked and signed to as point out that trespassers will not be tolerated the person could with fair warning.

The views vary from person to person but I believe the general though is that if the person on your property infringes apon your ownership right ie robs from you or assults you, you are allowed to defend yourself/property with lethal force.

(everything, including the police force and court system is privatized).

Yeah I dont support that.

Police/defence/justice are all government controlled but scaled back. I believe all Libertarians would revoke a huge number of laws. I've heard estimates that 70% of the laws in my country would be slashed. An example would be all of the victimless crimes like forcing someone to wear a safety helmet or seat belt.

Teaos wrote: An example would be all of the victimless crimes like forcing someone to wear a safety helmet or seat belt.

And I think that would work, in its way, under Libertarianism because I think if people get injured they either have to pay for it themselves (or through their personal insurence), or they just get left to bleed out and die.

Though I'm not 100% sure of the last bit. Libertarians complain a lot about the uninsured but I can't say I've had one explicitly give their stance. Since somehow money isn't being spent on unisured people at emergency rooms I presume they're just left to bleed out.

Or I suppose maybe organs are harvested to pay for the care or they get sold into indentured servitude or something.

Or I suppose maybe organs are harvested to pay for the care or they get sold into indentured servitude or something.

Havent heard that one before, although I do support the rights of people to sell organs if they wish. No in most Libertrian texts medical care for those who truely need it and are not just to lazy or stupid to have insurance or savings are generally covered by voluntery charity.

Teaos wrote:An example would be all of the victimless crimes like forcing someone to wear a safety helmet or seat belt.

Since when were those victimless crimes? I doubt the number of people in the front seat of a car killed by people in the back seat not belting up would think that. Nor the emergency services who have to clean up the mess caused when these idiots go through the windscreen, or spread the insides of their heads across the road.

Teaos wrote:No in most Libertrian texts medical care for those who truely need it and are not just to lazy or stupid to have insurance or savings are generally covered by voluntery charity.

And when the money available from that charity isn't enough, what happens then?

When done along with other libertarian ideals there should never me more than a tiny minorty who can't afford it because they are physically unable to work. According to all the figures I've seen charity (by charity we include help from family not just organised groups) would be more than enough to cope.

Teaos wrote:When done along with other libertarian ideals there should never me more than a tiny minorty who can't afford it because they are physically unable to work. According to all the figures I've seen charity (by charity we include help from family not just organised groups) would be more than enough to cope.

Charity and insurance could provide over £1,750 per person, per year could they? Consistently, with no gaps when people become unemployed, when they fall behind on their premiums, when price rises mean they have to choose between the health insurance, the morgage/rent, and putting food on the table? Because that's how much the NHS costs.

Charity and insurance could provide over £1,750 per person, per year could they? Consistently, with no gaps when people become unemployed, when they fall behind on their premiums, when price rises mean they have to choose between the health insurance, the morgage/rent, and putting food on the table? Because that's how much the NHS costs.

You obviously over looked the part about it being used along with other initiatives.

With drastic tax cuts funded by the slashing of usesless government departments such as, (I will have to use NZ examples here since they are what I am most familiar with but other countries probably have similar departments) education, health, labour, native affairs, public works, arts and culture along with the reduction of other departments.

Currently the average tax rate here sits at about 33% with 12.5% GST and individual tax on many items such as petrol, smokes ect ect.

With those rates cut drastically everyone would have more money of their own money to use as they need. With more money being kept and spent my individuals the economy grows. With tax cuts the size we're talking about that bring about massive economic growth, in this enviroment anyone capable of working would have work available to them. If they choose not to tuff shit.

Now the question I can see coming a mile away is, People still have to pay for all the things they were once paying for through taxes.

Partially true. Things like health and education obviously still need to be paid for but by paying direct and cutting out the middle man it ends up costing less.

Government costs money it doesnt make it. It wastes huge amounts money that could otherwise be used to stimulate the economy.

It also does not award competition. If the government is responcible for something it almost always ends up costing more and being done slower than if it was done privately. Private companies don't waste because waste costs money, and if they do waste they will fail to be replaced by someting that doesnt.

I suppose part of the reason I am so against big govenmnt is because I have seen it fail time and time again. Public health care sucks, public works cost far more than they should.

Look at things that are run solely by the Government, public post service. Unbearably slow and terrible service. Compare it to private ones like DHL and Fedex, they go out of their way to help.

Mikey wrote:
Not unless the Great White North suddenly went Libertarian.

Haha, if it happens you'll hear a sonic boom as my family and I leave for The Netherlands.

Teaos wrote:When the free market is in the Seventh House
And property rights align with Individuality
Then peace will guide the planets
And love will steer the stars

This is the dawning of the age of Libertarious
The age of Libertarious
Libertarious!
Libertarious!

Right. The everybody will have healthcare because there is just so much money around.

There are some problem with this, and I'm pretty confident they applies in NZ as much as the USA.

The first one that should be painfully obvious is the shifting of the effective tax burden.

Right now the vast majority of taxes are paid via corporate taxes or by the wealthy. And many of the government services go to the poor. This bothers the typically wealthy Libertarians to no end.

At any rate with taxes removed and all the servies being paid for by the indavidual it means the effective tax burden is shifted way down. Especially since the taxes Libertarians do allow are typically along the lines of "Fair" taxes on things like consumer goods, again ensuring that the tax burden rest just as heavily on the poor as the wealthy.

This should be doubly obvious since in the US round about half the budget is going to things like medicade/medicare/social security/food stamps etc.

And the military/judiciary chunks would still be around just "fair"taxed. And then the poor have to pay for the now private schooling. If they can, and if the local schools accept "their kind".

Of course there is the "trickle down" theory, whereby when corporate taxes go down wages go up.

But a free market exists to produce profit not put money in the pockets of the poor. Argue if you want. But there are countries with vastly lower corporate taxes out there like Ireland and Hungary, and they still have to have and continually increase minimum wage laws. So I'd like to see an explination for reality before some hand waving hypotheticals.

Also in a Libertarian free market monopolies are pretty natural. I think the massive amount of antitrust law testifies to that(which Libertarians would throw right out the window), especially since it has to actually be used even when the companies know about the antiturst laws. And as corps form even local monopolies you get monopsony effects (which you see anyway in many markets). Interesting stuff if you care to read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopsony


The bottom line being that anybody who is getting government assistance now is F&*#ed under Libertarianism, and anyone who is even in the working class is probably in deep crap. Dead really if they ever need medical care they can't afford.

And since government assistance for things like college, or even public/state colleges are things of the past the underclass is going to have a hard time getting out from under the thumb of the wealthy.


Also I get the impression that a sizable chunk of Libertarians realize all this and simply look forward to it. For they plan to be lords not serfs in the new economic feudalism.

sunnyside wrote:

Also I get the impression that a sizable chunk of Libertarians realize all this and simply look forward to it. For they plan to be lords not serfs in the new economic feudalism.

You know exactly what would happen right? There would promptly be a mass die off of Libertarian Lords, through all sorts of accidents and assasinations.

Cpl Kendall wrote: You know exactly what would happen right? There would promptly be a mass die off of Libertarian Lords, through all sorts of accidents and assasinations.

Maybe, but you remember that they may, literaly, own the police force.

Even if the police force isn't privatized. Remember that:

a. The rich will be a lot richer
b. They can do what they want on property they own, including the use of deadly force on trespassers and such.
c. I hear the Iraqi's want those Blackwater guys out of the country. And regardless I'm sure there will always be people like that looking for work.

So I'm guessing the Libertarians aren't overly worried about their personal safety.

Granted that might limit their ability to go out in "public" but who would want to go out in that hellhole when you have lovely gated communities?

sunnyside wrote:
Maybe, but you remember that they may, literaly, own the police force.

Even if the police force isn't privatized. Remember that:

a. The rich will be a lot richer
b. They can do what they want on property they own, including the use of deadly force on trespassers and such.
c. I hear the Iraqi's want those Blackwater guys out of the country. And regardless I'm sure there will always be people like that looking for work.

So I'm guessing the Libertarians aren't overly worried about their personal safety.

Granted that might limit their ability to go out in "public" but who would want to go out in that hellhole when you have lovely gated communities?

True, though that just saves them from IED's and ambushes. I'm sure they won't be happy when someone builds a mortar out of a pipe and starts shelling their compound. Seeing as military equipment is now able to be sold for whatever the market will bear, I fully expect only the super-rich to actually afford a radar system to pick up when they are being shelled. Which means they won't be able to locate the mortar.