Freedom Of Association? - page 11. | Bitcointalksearch.org

ascent

newbie

Activity: 56

Merit: 0

Quote from: myrkul on July 19, 2011, 02:11:10 PM

Quote from: NghtRppr on July 19, 2011, 02:03:52 PM

That's just playing into his hands. Now he's going to whine about all the poor people that can't afford helicopter rides.

The point is, nobody is going to buy land unless there's a stipulation that access can never be denied by some maniac buying up all the surrounding land. When he buys the land he won't be buying up the right to deny access because that's not something the seller will own. It will have already been sold to the guy in the middle of the other land.

See Walter Block's "The Privatization of Roads and Highways" for a detailed argument.

Good point, but 'poor people' usually can't afford to buy land, either.

And yes, only idiots buy land without a driveway.

Who owns the driveway and who makes sure it stays a driveway?

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: bonker on July 19, 2011, 02:17:19 PM

Until you can reasonably and consistently address racial and religious conflicts

The answer to every conflict ever: MYOB.

bonker

hero member

Activity: 784

Merit: 502

Quote from: NghtRppr on July 19, 2011, 02:10:06 PM

Quote from: bonker on July 19, 2011, 02:04:53 PM

The example I gave of an extended whites only, anti-homo collective would cause considerable ill will amongst the negro and homosexual community. Your expectation
that these people will be educated Libertarians and to passively boycott such a collective I find somewhat unrealistic.

The fact you keep using the word "negro" and now expect us to believe they will resort to violence is offensive. Stop trolling.

This thread raises an entirely legitimate concern. The reason you have failed to address it is that you have not thought past the
simplistic assumption that property rights solve all problems. This is not the case.

Until you can reasonably and consistently address racial and religious conflicts, Libertarianism is nothing more than a childish
muse for the decadent.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: NghtRppr on July 19, 2011, 02:03:52 PM

That's just playing into his hands. Now he's going to whine about all the poor people that can't afford helicopter rides.

The point is, nobody is going to buy land unless there's a stipulation that access can never be denied by some maniac buying up all the surrounding land. When he buys the land he won't be buying up the right to deny access because that's not something the seller will own. It will have already been sold to the guy in the middle of the other land.

See Walter Block's "The Privatization of Roads and Highways" for a detailed argument.

Good point, but 'poor people' usually can't afford to buy land, either.

And yes, only idiots buy land without a driveway.

NghtRppr

sr. member

Activity: 504

Merit: 252

Elder Crypto God

Quote from: bonker on July 19, 2011, 02:04:53 PM

The example I gave of an extended whites only, anti-homo collective would cause considerable ill will amongst the negro and homosexual community. Your expectation
that these people will be educated Libertarians and to passively boycott such a collective I find somewhat unrealistic.

The fact you keep using the word "negro" and now expect us to believe they will resort to violence is offensive. Stop trolling.

bonker

hero member

Activity: 784

Merit: 502

Quote from: JoelKatz on July 19, 2011, 01:56:04 PM

I don't follow. What kind of conflicts of interest do you think Libertarianism can't deal with?

You mean where you do something in private that I don't like? I have to get over it. Sure, allowing me and a bunch of my friends to vote on a law to prevent you from doing it resolves the conflict in my favor, but that's not a good way to deal with the conflict.

The example I gave of an extended whites only, anti-homo collective would cause considerable ill will amongst the negro and homosexual community. Your expectation
that these people will be educated Libertarians and to passively boycott such a collective I find somewhat unrealistic.

However, even in this case, there is a natural tendency for such a society to polarise further and conflict to escalate. There is no mechanism in the Libertarian order to
prevent this, or is there?

NghtRppr

sr. member

Activity: 504

Merit: 252

Elder Crypto God

Quote from: myrkul on July 19, 2011, 02:00:09 PM

Ascent... Here's the answer to your "I bought all the land around you, now what? Bwahahahah!":

That's just playing into his hands. Now he's going to whine about all the poor people that can't afford helicopter rides.

The point is, nobody is going to buy land unless there's a stipulation that access can never be denied by some maniac buying up all the surrounding land. When he buys the land he won't be buying up the right to deny access because that's not something the seller will own. It will have already been sold to the guy in the middle of the other land.

See Walter Block's "The Privatization of Roads and Highways" for a detailed argument.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Ascent... Here's the answer to your "I bought all the land around you, now what? Bwahahahah!":

JoelKatz

legendary

Activity: 1596

Merit: 1012

Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.

Quote from: bonker on July 19, 2011, 01:54:23 PM

Quote from: JoelKatz on July 19, 2011, 01:45:32 PM

It depends what kind of conflicts you're talking about. The typical Libertarian view is that if the conflict involves a violation of rights, then it is the proper role of government to provide courts and police to resolve those conflicts. If the "conflict" is that you don't like what someone's doing and would prefer they do something else, then tough.

Indeed, but then conflict resolution is what governance is all about. If Libertarianism can't deal with inevitable conflicts of interest, then is it reasonable to expect it to last?

I don't follow. What kind of conflicts of interest do you think Libertarianism can't deal with?

You mean where you do something in private that I don't like? I have to get over it. Sure, allowing me and a bunch of my friends to vote on a law to prevent you from doing it resolves the conflict in my favor, but that's not a good way to deal with the conflict.

bonker

hero member

Activity: 784

Merit: 502

Quote from: JoelKatz on July 19, 2011, 01:45:32 PM

[It depends what kind of conflicts you're talking about. The typical Libertarian view is that if the conflict involves a violation of rights, then it is the proper role of government to provide courts and police to resolve those conflicts. If the "conflict" is that you don't like what someone's doing and would prefer they do something else, then tough.

Indeed, but then conflict resolution is what governance is all about. If Libertarianism can't deal with inevitable conflicts of interest, then is it reasonable to expect it to last?

JoelKatz

legendary

Activity: 1596

Merit: 1012

Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.

Quote from: bonker on July 19, 2011, 01:48:04 PM

Taking stock from the above, Libertarianism will allow the freedom of association and the formation of racist apartheid private collectives.
Whites only restaurants, malls, schools, cultural festivals etc. However, liberals are free to boycott these collectives in some non-violent manner.

That applies to every system. Can you name a system that won't, under the right circumstances, "allow" such a thing? Our Democracy used to allow such things and only stopped allowing them when circumstances changed.

Quote

Yes, I can follow the reasoning, but suspect such a situation is somewhat unstable.

Perhaps some wise Libertarian can enlighten us further?

Absolutely, just as the situation was unstable in the United States and the system changed when people insisted it do so, so a Libertarian system would change as people's views change as well. See my prior post about expanding business ostracism.

NghtRppr

sr. member

Activity: 504

Merit: 252

Elder Crypto God

Quote from: JoelKatz on July 19, 2011, 01:45:32 PM

then it is the proper role of government to provide courts and police to resolve those conflicts

How do they provide that? Buy taxing people at gunpoint? You're still a statist and as such you're only hurting logically consistent libertarians by pretending you're on our side.

Quote from: bonker on July 19, 2011, 01:48:04 PM

Yes, I can follow the reasoning, but suspect such a situation is somewhat unstable.

What do you mean by "unstable" and why should we care?

bonker

hero member

Activity: 784

Merit: 502

Taking stock from the above, Libertarianism will allow the freedom of association and the formation of racist apartheid private collectives.
Whites only restaurants, malls, schools, cultural festivals etc. However, liberals are free to boycott these collectives in some non-violent manner.

Yes, I can follow the reasoning, but suspect such a situation is somewhat unstable.

Perhaps some wise Libertarian can enlighten us further?

JoelKatz

legendary

Activity: 1596

Merit: 1012

Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.

Quote from: bonker on July 19, 2011, 01:38:01 PM

That's quite a confrontational attitude. On the assumption that not all people think the same, there may well be considerable support for a whites only restaurant.

Perhaps. At least in a Libertarian society, they can't use the law to push their views. Just remember, a traditional Democracy can't guarantee a particular outcome either. It wasn't so long ago in our history that discriminatory systems were firmly entrenched in the law. Likely a Libertarian system would have permitted substantially the same discrimination because it's the views of the people, not the system, that sets those norms. With most people believing gender discrimination to be invidious, almost any system would wind up prohibiting or discouraging it.

Quote

Which, I suppose, naturally leads to how a Libertarian society deals with conflicts. Presumably, its just left to sort itself out, as seems to be the pattern with you dreamy folk.

It depends what kind of conflicts you're talking about. The typical Libertarian view is that if the conflict involves a violation of rights, then it is the proper role of government to provide courts and police to resolve those conflicts. If the "conflict" is that you don't like what someone's doing and would prefer they do something else, then tough.

NghtRppr

sr. member

Activity: 504

Merit: 252

Elder Crypto God

Quote from: bonker on July 19, 2011, 01:38:01 PM

On the assumption that not all people think the same, there may well be considerable support for a whites only restaurant.

There may well be considerable support for repealing the 13th amendment. No system can save you when most of the people disagree with you.

Quote from: ascent on July 19, 2011, 01:40:12 PM

You don't get it, do you? Try harder.

In other words, you've got nothing.

ascent

newbie

Activity: 56

Merit: 0

Quote from: NghtRppr on July 19, 2011, 01:37:47 PM

You're talking about homesteading a donut shaped parcel of land around some unowned parcel of land. You can't do that in the first place. However, if you were to homestead a parcel of land and then try to sell the center of a donut to someone, nobody would buy it unless there was a contract granting access. Just like you have title insurance when buying a house, you would have access insurance, to make sure you can actually get out of the driveway of the $200,000 home you just bought.

You don't get it, do you? Try harder.

bonker

hero member

Activity: 784

Merit: 502

Quote from: JoelKatz on July 19, 2011, 01:31:09 PM

Quote from: bonker on July 19, 2011, 01:18:23 PM

Freedom of association is a legitimate freedom that inevitably restricts the liberty of others, usually based upon the sacred cow delineations of race, gender and orientation.

So what does the wise Libertarian Council of Elders do?

The Libertarian position is that if you want to open a whites only restaurant, that is your right. But if I want to boycott your restaurant, and even boycott everyone who ever goes into your restaurant, that's my right too.

I can even boycott people who don't boycott you. I can boycott your suppliers, your employees -- I can even boycott their families, people who employee members of their families, and so on, if I really don't like your business. See how long a whites only restaurant lasts in a Libertarian society as decent people isolate themselves from everyone associated with it.

That's quite a confrontational attitude. On the assumption that not all people think the same, there may well be considerable support for a whites only restaurant.
Which, I suppose, naturally leads to how a Libertarian society deals with conflicts. Presumably, its just left to sort itself out, as seems to be the pattern with you
dreamy folk.

NghtRppr

sr. member

Activity: 504

Merit: 252

Elder Crypto God

Quote from: ascent on July 19, 2011, 01:33:07 PM

Mostly I agree with the Libs' arguments here, but as usual, they don't completely grasp the full nature of what they're proposing. As an example, let's say I own a parcel of land. Who and what owns the parcels of land on all sides of me? What if they have obscure rules regarding entry onto their property? I'd be totally screwed. In other words - their system is lame, despite the fact that I agree with what they're saying about private property.

Yet again, we have a statist calling a system ignorant because of some objection he thought of after a few seconds, disregarding the fact that plenty of libertarians, much smarter than he and I have already come up with the same objection and figured out a response.

You're talking about homesteading a donut shaped parcel of land around some unowned parcel of land. You can't do that in the first place. However, if you were to homestead a parcel of land and then try to sell the center of a donut to someone, nobody would buy it unless there was a contract granting access. Just like you have title insurance when buying a house, you would have access insurance, to make sure you can actually get out of the driveway of the $200,000 home you just bought.

Seriously, read some books before you start hurling insults. It only makes you look ignorant. You won't convince any libertarian that's done their homework with hamfisted arguments.

JoelKatz

legendary

Activity: 1596

Merit: 1012

Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.

Quote from: ascent on July 19, 2011, 01:33:07 PM

Mostly I agree with the Libs' arguments here, but as usual, they don't completely grasp the full nature of what they're proposing. As an example, let's say I own a parcel of land. Who and what owns the parcels of land on all sides of me? What if they have obscure rules regarding entry onto their property? I'd be totally screwed. In other words - their system is lame, despite the fact that I agree with what they're saying about private property.

Unless you're not particularly bright, you wouldn't buy a parcel of property that didn't include easements to permit yourself access to your own land.

There are many libertarians who believe that private property doesn't include the right to exclude others from reasonably traversing your land to the extent reasonably necessary to get to other parcels of land. Rights to private property generally don't include the right to do things to or with your land that unreasonably prevent other people from the peaceful enjoyment of their land.

A reasonably-maintained perimeter road would meet this requirement. It doesn't significantly affect your privacy or ability to use your land.

ascent

newbie

Activity: 56

Merit: 0

Imagine if I bought the land on all sides of myrkul. I could have some fun, then.

Topic: Freedom Of Association? - page 11. (Read 11878 times)