The Cellar - View Single Post

Undertoad · 06-11-2005, 09:24 AM

Instead of trying to unwrap 90% rhetoric, let's take it a different direction.

- Private property is the centerpiece of libertarian individual rights.

- Land is the centerpiece of private property. You can always declare as private what you can carry, and what you can't carry can always be stolen. If you can declare land private, and subject to enforced rules of trespass, you can find just about every other right.

- Where the government is unstable or missing, we notice that there is little to no private land bought and/or sold, and/or the value of such property is miniscule, because the government does not enforce a rule of law. For example, it makes it impossible for a system of deeds to exist or makes the deeds irrelevant.

- We notice that even in a somewhat "free" society, lack of functioning government makes the society useless and property subject to rule of whomever has a bigger gun. (Albania.)

So. Somebody has to wield the official gun of society, to make sure that the basic private property rules are part of the rule of law.

Tricky. In some parts of the world, the person with the biggest gun gets to be in charge. It turns out that this approach gets one a pretty crappy result, with very little private property, but Raimondo seems to believe that's not the case. I mean, it turns out that guys like Raimondo would be purged in the old USSR, but in his world ballot access laws make the US's form of government just as illegitimate. I would rather have Ralph Nader not make the ballot in 15 states, than have 30 million people purged, but for Raimondo the distinction is hard to see.

Is Lebanon's government better off if they democratically elect Hezbollah? To me, under such circumstances, it really depends on the *next* election. If the government has to answer to the people then it will see the effects of not being a part of the world community. It'll either moderate or face the alternatives. This seems to lead to moderation. Does it matter to "anti-war" Raimondo that no two Democracies have ever gone to war?

06-11-2005, 09:24 AM	#5
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	Instead of trying to unwrap 90% rhetoric, let's take it a different direction. - Private property is the centerpiece of libertarian individual rights. - Land is the centerpiece of private property. You can always declare as private what you can carry, and what you can't carry can always be stolen. If you can declare land private, and subject to enforced rules of trespass, you can find just about every other right. - Where the government is unstable or missing, we notice that there is little to no private land bought and/or sold, and/or the value of such property is miniscule, because the government does not enforce a rule of law. For example, it makes it impossible for a system of deeds to exist or makes the deeds irrelevant. - We notice that even in a somewhat "free" society, lack of functioning government makes the society useless and property subject to rule of whomever has a bigger gun. (Albania.) So. Somebody has to wield the official gun of society, to make sure that the basic private property rules are part of the rule of law. Tricky. In some parts of the world, the person with the biggest gun gets to be in charge. It turns out that this approach gets one a pretty crappy result, with very little private property, but Raimondo seems to believe that's not the case. I mean, it turns out that guys like Raimondo would be purged in the old USSR, but in his world ballot access laws make the US's form of government just as illegitimate. I would rather have Ralph Nader not make the ballot in 15 states, than have 30 million people purged, but for Raimondo the distinction is hard to see. Is Lebanon's government better off if they democratically elect Hezbollah? To me, under such circumstances, it really depends on the next election. If the government has to answer to the people then it will see the effects of not being a part of the world community. It'll either moderate or face the alternatives. This seems to lead to moderation. Does it matter to "anti-war" Raimondo that no two Democracies have ever gone to war?