17th July 2015, 9:49 PM
Great Rumbler: A government isn't necessary to incentivize against violations of rights that may arise from your concerns. Whoever it is that you worry may break your standards has their reputation and the price they pay for insurance on the line, i.e. builders, water providers. Also intrusive pollution is a violation of universal rights to begin with.
Dark Jaguar: What do you mean by "it ignores that people don't start on equal footing." I believe anyone can become a billionaire through hard work. Do note, that I don't say that everyone can, because there is extreme competion for and limited resources of the billions. Whoever wants to become a billionaire from scratch needs to realize getting there is going to be a double-time job. You may call it luck, but it is hard work networking yourself constant to be in the right place and right time. I couldn't handle it. I and no one I know is interested in that hard work, and we're fine with not getting the billions. I'd rather earn wages M-F or try to start a small business. Who really wants to be a billionaire? For anyone that contemplates the effort and then decides against pursuing it, I don't see the unfairness.
Parents & children: Parents assent to bring a dependent being into the world. ("I accidentally had a kid" is BS. It's not a valid argument; in my opinion it's a cowardly rejection of self-ownership.) Their child did not consent; he/she had no say in becoming a vulnerable being in this world. Thus the parents have to put to put forth effort to protect/maintain the child's right to life. Failing to do so is a violation of the child's universal right to life.
Landlords: The landlord will have to follow the remedies of the lease agreement if he/she evicts the tenant for reasons not in their mututal agreement. I definitely advocate protecting self and business via thorough contracts. On the other hand governments, outside of any contract, claim the right and use the threat of violence to exercise their power... the power to evict per your example.
Now I almost stumped myself with your example "Let's say every bit of land if owned by a corporation..." I was overzealous, trying to win within these parameters and defend the straw man you created. Within your paramers (which implies that this situation arose from the void) then, yes, corporations would be like governments... in that they skipped over civilized competition to obtain resources. Yes, just like governments, these hypothetical corporations' competition with eachother is about who will be less violent than who in this or that situation. In fact municipalities are considered "corporations". Land or towns within a county that are outside city boundaries are known as "unincorporated" county land.
People/corporations have to purchase or homestead/develop the land in order to obtain it. So in reality, I'd love to see corporations try to buy enough land or develop enough unclaimed land, and then convince existing homeowners and landowners to move onto their land and pay rent. The corporations would need to disburse HUGE amounts of cash to do that, all in light of the great risk of no one moving in and having wasting the cash.
However, corporations are able to successfully do this on smaller levels to great success, i.e. aparment buildings, or going a bit larger with HOAs. These corps even have people wanting to move in... so many in fact that there are competing apartments and HOAs.
I really want to remind you of one thing: it is the government that some of you need which legalized the existence corporations. Why? Perhaps so officials could keep their hands clean of any of the business's liabilities. How many of our federal and perhaps even state lawmakers are in the "1%"? How many of them have interests in corporations?
Let me give you a hypothetical situation: In a libertarian world, people can NOT create separate legal entities. If people desire an entity between themselves and the possible liabilities of their venture, they would have to write that idea into every contract they enter in with 3rd parties. There would be NO automatic avoidance of one's business venture liabilities.
Basically, thank the government, which some of you are enthusiastic to defend, for corporations. They created them to get a cut of the wealth via taxes, even buy in on the returns as a stockholder, and keep their hands clean. Yes, I've been arguing per the reality that corps already legally exist as people do. I believe corps shouldn't exist.
Weltall: You may understand the implications of some half-assed or quarter-asssed libertarians, or you don't understand libertarianism at all.
So libertarians seek a justification for not contributing to society? Do you think charity just about "looking good?" A libertarian knows that a charitable contribution is a purchase of happiness.
I can entertain you with a pissing contest between various charitable contributors:
I believe the top 10% wealthy people/entities already contribute over 50% of the govt's tax collections. Yes, it's by force, so maybe that isn't "good". Aside from this, think of how much these dreaded wealthy people contribute to the politicians you support.
How about the Catholic Church? This wealthy organization is one of, if not the largest monetarilty charitable organization. I'm not fan of the Catholic Church, but this organization at least isn't collecting its money from everyone via force; its all completely voluntary.
Have you heard that conservatives assholes donate more to charity that democrat clowns? I don't know if it's true. Screw them both.
All in all, I would bet rich people on average voluntarily donate more than me. And if most rich people were conservative, I bet they felt it makes conservative "look good." Personally, I'm not concerned with other people's charitable contributions.
"Libertarians want to remove government from the picture because the government helps other people."Like my last sentence, why would libertarians care what other people do peacfully? They wouldn't stop anyone from helping people. By definition they would not interfere someone helping other people. Voluntary transactions between A &B only arise when they benefit both parties... unless someone is on a self-destrucitve kick. Competition (when it arises) may offer B with greater benefit than A can provide at a price that C is perfectly happy with. I could say party C is being helpful if it's cheaper than Party A.
Libertarians have beef w/ their govts because govts are not peaceful entities.
Dark Jaguar: What do you mean by "it ignores that people don't start on equal footing." I believe anyone can become a billionaire through hard work. Do note, that I don't say that everyone can, because there is extreme competion for and limited resources of the billions. Whoever wants to become a billionaire from scratch needs to realize getting there is going to be a double-time job. You may call it luck, but it is hard work networking yourself constant to be in the right place and right time. I couldn't handle it. I and no one I know is interested in that hard work, and we're fine with not getting the billions. I'd rather earn wages M-F or try to start a small business. Who really wants to be a billionaire? For anyone that contemplates the effort and then decides against pursuing it, I don't see the unfairness.
Parents & children: Parents assent to bring a dependent being into the world. ("I accidentally had a kid" is BS. It's not a valid argument; in my opinion it's a cowardly rejection of self-ownership.) Their child did not consent; he/she had no say in becoming a vulnerable being in this world. Thus the parents have to put to put forth effort to protect/maintain the child's right to life. Failing to do so is a violation of the child's universal right to life.
Landlords: The landlord will have to follow the remedies of the lease agreement if he/she evicts the tenant for reasons not in their mututal agreement. I definitely advocate protecting self and business via thorough contracts. On the other hand governments, outside of any contract, claim the right and use the threat of violence to exercise their power... the power to evict per your example.
Now I almost stumped myself with your example "Let's say every bit of land if owned by a corporation..." I was overzealous, trying to win within these parameters and defend the straw man you created. Within your paramers (which implies that this situation arose from the void) then, yes, corporations would be like governments... in that they skipped over civilized competition to obtain resources. Yes, just like governments, these hypothetical corporations' competition with eachother is about who will be less violent than who in this or that situation. In fact municipalities are considered "corporations". Land or towns within a county that are outside city boundaries are known as "unincorporated" county land.
People/corporations have to purchase or homestead/develop the land in order to obtain it. So in reality, I'd love to see corporations try to buy enough land or develop enough unclaimed land, and then convince existing homeowners and landowners to move onto their land and pay rent. The corporations would need to disburse HUGE amounts of cash to do that, all in light of the great risk of no one moving in and having wasting the cash.
However, corporations are able to successfully do this on smaller levels to great success, i.e. aparment buildings, or going a bit larger with HOAs. These corps even have people wanting to move in... so many in fact that there are competing apartments and HOAs.
I really want to remind you of one thing: it is the government that some of you need which legalized the existence corporations. Why? Perhaps so officials could keep their hands clean of any of the business's liabilities. How many of our federal and perhaps even state lawmakers are in the "1%"? How many of them have interests in corporations?
Let me give you a hypothetical situation: In a libertarian world, people can NOT create separate legal entities. If people desire an entity between themselves and the possible liabilities of their venture, they would have to write that idea into every contract they enter in with 3rd parties. There would be NO automatic avoidance of one's business venture liabilities.
Basically, thank the government, which some of you are enthusiastic to defend, for corporations. They created them to get a cut of the wealth via taxes, even buy in on the returns as a stockholder, and keep their hands clean. Yes, I've been arguing per the reality that corps already legally exist as people do. I believe corps shouldn't exist.
Weltall: You may understand the implications of some half-assed or quarter-asssed libertarians, or you don't understand libertarianism at all.
So libertarians seek a justification for not contributing to society? Do you think charity just about "looking good?" A libertarian knows that a charitable contribution is a purchase of happiness.
I can entertain you with a pissing contest between various charitable contributors:
I believe the top 10% wealthy people/entities already contribute over 50% of the govt's tax collections. Yes, it's by force, so maybe that isn't "good". Aside from this, think of how much these dreaded wealthy people contribute to the politicians you support.
How about the Catholic Church? This wealthy organization is one of, if not the largest monetarilty charitable organization. I'm not fan of the Catholic Church, but this organization at least isn't collecting its money from everyone via force; its all completely voluntary.
Have you heard that conservatives assholes donate more to charity that democrat clowns? I don't know if it's true. Screw them both.
All in all, I would bet rich people on average voluntarily donate more than me. And if most rich people were conservative, I bet they felt it makes conservative "look good." Personally, I'm not concerned with other people's charitable contributions.
"Libertarians want to remove government from the picture because the government helps other people."Like my last sentence, why would libertarians care what other people do peacfully? They wouldn't stop anyone from helping people. By definition they would not interfere someone helping other people. Voluntary transactions between A &B only arise when they benefit both parties... unless someone is on a self-destrucitve kick. Competition (when it arises) may offer B with greater benefit than A can provide at a price that C is perfectly happy with. I could say party C is being helpful if it's cheaper than Party A.
Libertarians have beef w/ their govts because govts are not peaceful entities.