Libertarian land ownership theory
Here is libertarian land theory for you...
I own my land. It's mine, and nobody else on earth has any claim to it. I can do with it as I please. My neighbors have no say in what I do with my land as long as I'm not polluting into ground water or otherwise trespassing on their land. If I'm not living on my land, it's still mine. If you camp out on my land, you have no ownership of it. If you build a house on my land, you have no ownership of the land or the house. If you and your family move into the house and live there for 10 generations, you still have no ownership of the land or the house. The land belongs to me (assuming I've lived 10 generations) or to those I've given it to, and not to you. Your presence on my land does not give you any ownership of it; not even if you've been there for 300 years.
If land is won by governments in wars, it is honestly acquired land every bit as much as if it were purchased or given to them as a gift. This is especially true if the country that wins the land did not start the aggression in the first place. This is because you can keep only what you, or your agent (for instance security guards or even a government) can defend for you.
If you find land that is not claimed by anyone else, you can claim it for yourself...assuming you can defend it. For instance, the American Indians didn't claim to own land because they didn't think land could be owned. This means no land was ever stolen from them and any claims of such are completely empty.
We can apply this to the middle-east as well.
As far as recorded history goes, it shows that Israel has always been controlled by one empire or another. It was controlled by the Egyptian Empire, the Ottoman Empire, and the British Empire that we know of.
While I'm against imperialism and the initiation of force, land won in wars is honestly acquired, especially if the land was won by the defending force rather than the attacking force.
The land currently called Jordan, and the land being fought over by the nomadic Arabs of the area calling themselves "Palestinians" was historically all considered Israel. At no point during all of recorded history did these nomads own a single grain of sand in the disputed territory. It was owned by the UK, and the Turks, and the Egyptians, but never the squatters living on it.
The UK generously decided to split the land in half and give half of it to those squatters, who previously owned nothing. They gave the other half to the Jewish people to return part of their historical homeland so they would have a nation of their own after being persecuted throughout the world for so long.
Rather than be grateful for finally owning some land for the first time in history, these racist murderers claimed they were wronged, and started murdering Jewish people. They have said they will not stop until the last Jew is dead. They don't recognize their right to even live.
Israel on the other hand, has extended kindness, opportunity, charity, and political freedom to Arabs at a level they could never get in any Arab nation. They allow Arab men AND WOMEN to become Israeli citizens and to live, vote, work, and hold political office within Israel. There is no Arab nation on earth that allows Jews to become citizens, and none allow women to vote. Very few of them allow anyone to vote.
Israel has been under constant attack from their neighbors, but has tried to reason with them, tried to broker deals, has made concessions, and has gone above and beyond the call of duty when it comes to reaching out a hand in friendship, but the response is always the same. The hand they extend in friendship is cut off.
Things became really clear in 1996 when the Israeli government offered all the land they won in 1967 back to the so-called "Palestinians" and offered them everything they wanted other than automatic citizenship to Israel through the "right of return". Israel said they'd even work with the UN to declare "Palestine" to be an actual country. All they had to do was not kill any Jews for 2 weeks. They couldn't do it.
Israel had exhausted all reasonable actions to make peace. It became readily apparent that they didn't want peace, they only wanted to kill Jews.
You can't reason with people who are without reason and don't recognize your right to live. The Arab nations have some of the worst human rights records on earth and are all worse than Israel. You can't make deals with those who have spent the last 60 years shaking your hand while stabbing you in the back with the other hand.
No other country would have been as patient, understanding, and kind-hearted as the peace loving Israelis. No other nation would allow themselves to have women and children targeted for murder for 60 years without just destroying those who attack them once and for all.
Israel is very powerful, and isn't interested in conquest. They easily have the military might to defeat every other nation in the middle-east and to take all of their land if that was their aim, but they haven't done that. All they want is to live in peace on their own land without having their racist neighbors blowing up their women and children. The fact that Israel is as strong as it is, without just destroying those who have been attacking them for the last 60 years is a testament to their desire for peace.
If Mexicans started blowing up women and children in American malls, bus stops, movie theaters, etc. because they used to own a lot of it, do you really think America should make concessions and deals for 60 years before we just destroy them and take all of Mexico? Do you really think we should say, "Ok, we'll give you Arizona back, but you can't have Texas or California? (I wish they'd take Texas back)
Do you think we should ask the UN for permission to defend ourselves? Do you really think we should worry about the opinions of those in other nations if they call us monsters for defending ourselves? Should we just allow them to blow up our women and children if they happen to run back and hide among Mexican women and children?
This analogy is flawed though because Mexico actually did own the southwest part of America, while the so-called Palestinians never owned anything to begin with.
Define safe.
If you decide to open a sewage treatment plant or nuclear waste reprocessing facility on you land, will you post a bond against possible damage to my land, or the air and water I breathe?
If not, is it fair for the community to shoulder the burden of cleanup when there is an incident?
I find it ironic that conservatives are so in favor of tort reform, when civil action is the only way to enforce the libertarian notion that people and businesses should be held responsible for their actions.
Setting a half million dollar cap on a 5 million dollar cleanup is essentially corporate welfare in that everyone else is assuming the burden of the actions of an individual or business.
If land is won by governments in wars, it is honestly acquired land every bit as much as if it were purchased or given to them as a gift. This is especially true if the country that wins the land did not start the aggression in the first place. This is because you can keep only what you, or your agent (for instance security guards or even a government) can defend for you.
So, by extension,
If I come up behind you and sucker punch you (government of me waging war on government of you) and take your wallet, keys, then by extension house and chattel it is all OK?
Cool! I'll be right over. Oh wait. No, that doesn't seem right to me. I must not be a libertarian.
Uh,...don't forget;
This is because you can keep only what you, or your agent (for instance security guards or even a government) can defend for you.
Good luck with that. :rolleyes:
The UK generously decided to split the land in half
Depends on who you ask. From what I've read, the British were only too happy to leave Palestine when their UN mandate ended...especially given that some Jews started using terrorism to force the British out (e.g. the King David Hotel explosion).
Define safe.
If you decide to open a sewage treatment plant or nuclear waste reprocessing facility on you land, will you post a bond against possible damage to my land, or the air and water I breathe?
If not, is it fair for the community to shoulder the burden of cleanup when there is an incident?
I find it ironic that conservatives are so in favor of tort reform, when civil action is the only way to enforce the libertarian notion that people and businesses should be held responsible for their actions.
Setting a half million dollar cap on a 5 million dollar cleanup is essentially corporate welfare in that everyone else is assuming the burden of the actions of an individual or business.
It doesn't matter if I want to open a porno theater across from an elementary school, a sewage treatment plant, a nuclear material's processing plant, a coal mine, or a garbage dump. I'm responsible for any damages I cause. I don't have to pay for damages I haven't caused so a bond is out of the question. Why should I have my money tied up in bonds when I can have it earning serious money for me? Unless you can prove that I've caused damage
(which I wouldn't because I'm a libertarian), you have no rights when it comes to what I do with my own land regardless of the proximity of your land. Neither does any government at any level. Any laws they make to the contrary are illigitimate.
Uh,...don't forget;
This is because you can keep only what you, or your agent (for instance security guards or even a government) can defend for you.
Good luck with that.
Luckily our government was originally built with the protection of private property in mind. A nation is only as free as it recognizes the sanctity of private ownership to be. The government's job here is to defend the private property of the weak so they can keep it even if they are unable to defend it on their own. I certainly don't agree with the strong victimizing the weak. It's just the way things have been during all of recorded humanity.
Sadly, our government is moving away from defending private property and is now helping private businesses to steal it from citizens.
I was thinking if 3foot took your, "wallet, keys, then by extension house and chattel", the government would be the least of his problems. :lol:
Can you outrun a .357 Magnum?
OK, so instead of sucker punching someone, I'd just shoot them. Does might make right?
Can you outrun a .357 Magnum?
I can outrun a .357 magnum, but can I outrun a .357.357.357 magnum?
Historically? Yes.
Well, I knew that part. what about morally or ethically? Are we up to our own interpretaion of this? what happens when two libertarians don't agree upon points of dogma, do they just "duke it out"?
I'm not being sarcastic, I am very curious about the libertarian party especially since I despise all the other parties. I've only heard about libertarians in vague and innuendo ridden terms.
Where can I find out more?
I am very curious about the libertarian party especially since I despise all the other parties.
I just vote for
any third party. I don't even care what they stand for, I'm just opting out of the ping-pong game.
I can outrun him. ;)
Then you're not seizing
and holding his house and chattel. :headshake
It's getting more and more complicated...
Historically? Yes.
So Libertarianism is another instance of "whoever has the biggest guns owns everything"?
Does this theory include any capturing and ravishing of maidens?
I think Radar's original point has totally flipped over on its back and died like a cockroach.
So Libertarianism is another instance of "whoever has the biggest guns owns everything"?
No. It's whomever has the biggest guns is the most secure in their honestly aquired property. Libertarians don't support imperialism, foreign military interventionism, or any other initiation of force, especially for political gain or social engineering.
If you've got enough guns, people can't take your land. If they've got more guns than you, chances are they can and there's nothing you can do about it.
Maybe the conversation just took a horrible wrong turn somewhere?
If you've got enough guns, people can't take your land. If they've got more guns than you, chances are they can and there's nothing you can do about it.
And then it's theirs.
So whoever has the biggest guns owns everything.
So instead of investing in a 401-K, I should be building a stockpile of black market assault rifles?
And then it's theirs.
So whoever has the biggest guns owns everything.
Not necessarily so. There are lots of people who have less guns than the guy with the most guns, and they could combine their guns together to take down the guy with the most guns. This prevents any one person (or country) from having everything.
Power is constantly shifting.
So what youre saying is...
...
...israel has the right to the land, but if the terrorists get powerful enough to take it then tough shit for israel?
That's right. Has it ever been any other way? :question:
Pretty much.... though they'd have to have more guns than Israel and America which isn't likely since the U.S. military budget is larger than the next 20 largest military spenders combined. Israel is the 12th largest military spender.
And this...is...the main part of being...Libertarian...?
I have to say...this really doesn't sound like a new idea...
Actually the root of all libertarianism comes down to a couple of principles.
1. Self ownership - You own yourself and nobody else has any claim on your body or the fruits of your labor. Our property is an extension of ourselves. We have the right to defend ourselves, our rights, and our property with any level of force needed (including deadly force)
2. Personal Responsibility - While you're free to make your own decisions, you are responsible for those decisions and can't expect others to pay for your mistakes.
3. Non-Aggression Principle - Nobody has the right to use force other than in thier own defense, or in the defense of those who hire you as an agent. This means it's never ok to start aggression against someone else, but it's always ok to use aggression in your defense. When it comes to nations, it's never ok to start wars or practice military interventionism. It's not ok to take sides in disputes, to arm other nations, to use our military to defend other nations or to "liberate" oppressed people, etc.
3. Non-Aggression Principle - ... When it comes to nations, it's never ok to start wars...
Unless you think you can take their land?
[HTML]or in the defense of those who hire you as an agent. [/HTML]
[HTML]It's not ok to take sides in disputes, to arm other nations[/HTML]
So individuals can be hired but not nations?:confused:
So individuals can be hired but not nations?:confused:
Yes. You can't hire a nation because that is an act of aggression against the citizens and soldiers of that nation. Their resources and lives will be claimed by the government you've hired. Generally, libertarians acknowlege the right of the nation to defend itself but do not extend that right to defending so-called allies. (Besides whose constitution has our military personel sworn to uphold and protect?) Radar is acknowleging the reality that the US will defend Israel but that reality does not fit in libertarian theory.
Unless you think you can take their land?
If you start wars with the intent of taking land, or for any reason that is not defending your own nation from a direct and imminent attack, you're not a libertarian.
[HTML]or in the defense of those who hire you as an agent. [/HTML]
[HTML]It's not ok to take sides in disputes, to arm other nations[/HTML]
So individuals can be hired but not nations?:confused:
That's right. Private individuals can appoint other private individuals as protectors, but since the military is paid for by ALL citizens, it's illigitimate to use a military to defend another nation. For instance, let's say Italy and Ireland went to war for some reason
(Italy would lose) and the American military joined in the dispute on one side or the other.
If the military helped the Italians, all of the Irish people in America would be paying to murder their own families despite their own wishes, and vice versa if the situation were turned around.
The only time war is legitimate is when your own country is directly attacked BY ANOTHER COUNTRY, and even then, only when war is formally declared, and then only against the nation who attacked you.
Starting wars is also the ultimate act of aggression, and it unnecessarily places the lives of Americans in danger, and it violates the U.S. Constitution.
Yes. You can't hire a nation because that is an act of aggression against the citizens and soldiers of that nation. Their resources and lives will be claimed by the government you've hired. Generally, libertarians acknowlege the right of the nation to defend itself but do not extend that right to defending so-called allies. (Besides whose constitution has our military personel sworn to uphold and protect?) Radar is acknowleging the reality that the US will defend Israel but that reality does not fit in libertarian theory.
Griff gets it. I don't think America should take any side in this or any other foreign dispute, or send any money OR WEAPONS to any other country in foreign aid.
Unless you can prove that I've caused damage (which I wouldn't because I'm a libertarian), you have no rights when it comes to what I do with my own land regardless of the proximity of your land.
Interesting. So, if I open a shooting range on my land and bullets happen to fall on your land, causing damage, I would be responsible?
What about indirect damages? Someone mentioned a poorly located strip club, if you attact customers that harm my customers or drive them away I have a very strong intrest in shutting you down. Even lowering the desirability of my location is damage in my mind.
Yeah, I think we've done this one before.
If I shoot my high-powered rifle on my land, and the bullet enters your house through a wall, missing your head by an inch, am I responsible for anything other than repairing the hole?
And what if the windows are open? Let's say I shoot a bullet with my high powered rifle through one open window, past your forehead, then next to your wife's ear, and just miss the top of your kid's head before exiting through the other open window and landing in a lake down the street, am I all cool as far as libertarians go?
And what if the windows are open? Let's say I shoot a bullet with my high powered rifle through one open window, past your forehead, then next to your wife's ear, and just miss the top of your kid's head before exiting through the other open window and landing in a lake down the street, am I all cool as far as libertarians go?
No -- the owner of that lake is going to require compensation for introducing lead into his water supply.
I forgot to mention that I own the lake. ;)
Really? That's a damn fine shootin' lake. You may want to consider taking the blocking house by force so you can own that property and have a clear shot.
And what if the windows are open? Let's say I shoot a bullet with my high powered rifle through one open window, past your forehead, then next to your wife's ear, and just miss the top of your kid's head before exiting through the other open window and landing in a lake down the street, am I all cool as far as libertarians go?
As far as libertarians go, we believe you have the right to do anything you want as long as your actions don't physically harm or endanger non-consenting others or their property, or infringe upon their rights.
Merely pointing a high powered rifle through your window in the direction of other people is an assault. It is a crime as it endangers the person, property, or rights of a non-consenting other. The person with the rifle should do serious jail time.
See, this is why libertarians don't have more power in the government.
Too many different versions, too much confusion, too much disagreement...
Too many different versions, too much confusion, too much disagreement...
[SIZE="3"]
Not enough guns![/SIZE]
Okay, seriously, my question:
If I setup a shooting range on my property and your property is downrange and I hit a window, I'm responsible and owe damages. You can't stop me from setting up a shooting range on my property, but my actions affected you and you can prove it.
If I setup a coal burning powerplant on my property, you cannot stop me nor can you pass any laws preventing it. The smoke from the burning coal may drift high over your property, but the mercury from that smoke can pollute your rivers, streams, lakes, and oceans. The damage caused can be widespread and affect many people in many countries: Food supplies can be contaminated, pollution can destroy crops, ocean waters and the life in them thousands of miles away can be impacted. The output causes damage both in terms of property and in terms of human life.
Yet, it is not your land and you have no ownership of it. I am not trespassing on your land. The land and power plant belong to me, not to you. I can do with them as I please. Proof of indirect damage is difficult and you cannot force me to test the plant emissions. How does the theory of libertarian land ownership handle this?
So reckless endangerment is assault.
Can I drive drunk as long as I get the job done?
There are no "versions" of libertarianism; there is only libertarianism. ALL libertarianism is all based on the 3 things I mentioned, and is exactly as I have stated. It's consistent and it makes sense.
Okay, seriously, my question:
If I setup a shooting range on my property and your property is downrange and I hit a window, I'm responsible and owe damages. You can't stop me from setting up a shooting range on my property, but my actions affected you and you can prove it.
If I setup a coal burning powerplant on my property, you cannot stop me nor can you pass any laws preventing it. The smoke from the burning coal may drift high over your property, but the mercury from that smoke can pollute your rivers, streams, lakes, and oceans. The damage caused can be widespread and affect many people in many countries: Food supplies can be contaminated, pollution can destroy crops, ocean waters and the life in them thousands of miles away can be impacted. The output causes damage both in terms of property and in terms of human life.
Yet, it is not your land and you have no ownership of it. I am not trespassing on your land. The land and power plant belong to me, not to you. I can do with them as I please. Proof of indirect damage is difficult and you cannot force me to test the plant emissions. How does the theory of libertarian land ownership handle this?
Pollution is trespassing, and endangerment of property and people. It is a crime and everyone who does it should be held criminally and financially liable for any damages that can be measurably and directly related to what is done. Laws can be made to shut down places that endanger others or infringe upon their rights. If someone sets up a firing range, they are endangering you if they have not taken steps to ensure that there isn't a single bullet that leaves their property and enters onto yours or even goes in your general direction.
If you can prove a broken window happened, you can also prove you were endangered, and can legitimately shut down the range, collect damages including punative damages.
If you can't prove damages, you're not entitled to anything.
Pollution is trespassing, and endangerment of property and people. It is a crime and everyone who does it should be held criminally and financially liable for any damages that can be measurably and directly related to what is done.
Ah, thank you for clearing this up. Does this mean that environmental regulations do not have to be in conflict with these ideals?
It means the government has no authority to make regulations on business. But people do have the right to take you to court even without them, if they can prove that you've harmed them, endangered them, or damaged their property.
It means the government has no authority to make regulations on business. But people do have the right to take you to court even without them, if they can prove that you've harmed them, endangered them, or damaged their property.
Okay, so you polluted my river, and I take you to court. The judge decides you are criminally liable for my kid's cancer and my kidney failure.
Does the judge just get to decide how much it's worth? Is it straight-up medical bills and no punitive damages, since that's all that's "measurable?" What if a different judge thinks it's worth more? Perhaps it's okay if the government issued some guidelines as to how much various forms of endangerment are worth, with regards to both financial damages and criminal sentencing?
Guidelines... what's another word for legally-binding guidelines? Oh yeah, regulations on business.
So...I can run a very harmful business as long as I get away with it?
Okay, so you polluted my river, and I take you to court. The judge decides you are criminally liable for my kid's cancer and my kidney failure.
Does the judge just get to decide how much it's worth? Is it straight-up medical bills and no punitive damages, since that's all that's "measurable?" What if a different judge thinks it's worth more? Perhaps it's okay if the government issued some guidelines as to how much various forms of endangerment are worth, with regards to both financial damages and criminal sentencing?
Guidelines... what's another word for legally-binding guidelines? Oh yeah, regulations on business.
I believe juries recommend punative damages, but judges have the final say. It would be best if each situation were judged on a case-by-case basis. Someone whose lawn dies due to pollution obviously has less damages than someone whose children die.
Whether or not one judge would give more than another is irrelevant. Judges are given discretion and they should retain it. There should be no guidelines.
Also, regulations are not guidelines. They are laws. Guidelines are merely suggestions. The U.S. government is not given any authority to regulate business. It can regulate interstate commerce (buying and selling over state lines) but not what products a business may sell, where they can do business within a state, how many products they may manufacture, what safety features they must or must not include, etc.
If you can't prove damages, you're not entitled to anything.
OK. I understand that.
How does Libertarianism feel about limitations on the use of a property? For example, if a wealthy individual were able to buy a historic old building that is a national treasure, but in private hands, like Mount Vernon, should they be allowed to bulldoze it to put up a monument to Pauly Shore? Or can a libertarian government designate a building as "historic" or "protected" and limit what you can do with it?
So...I can run a very harmful business as long as I get away with it?
It's not a very smart way to do business. It's criminal and you'll eventually get caught. Not very many investors would be interested in a company that practices criminal behavior. Any criminal can do what they can get away with until they get caught. Regulations don't change this.
OK. I understand that.
How does Libertarianism feel about limitations on the use of a property? For example, if a wealthy individual were able to buy a historic old building that is a national treasure, but in private hands, like Mount Vernon, should they be allowed to bulldoze it to put up a monument to Pauly Shore? Or can a libertarian government designate a building as "historic" or "protected" and limit what you can do with it?
Yes, if someone were to purchase Mount Vernon and wanted to bulldoze it to the ground to put up a Pauly Shore monument, they should be allowed to do so. Nobody else has any say in what they do with their own property...even when it's stupid.
What if I cannot afford to fight you in court? Very often it's almost impossible for individuals to launch a suit because a large business has the money to tie up procedings and outlast you. You would have to ban private legal representation and channel everything through the government, good luck.
If you can't fight in court on a legitimate case, you aren't trying very hard. There are thousands upon thousands of lawyers who would work on contingency or even pro-bono in a pollution case that killed kids or some other such thing.
Back to property rights.
Can a property owner build a building any way they want to? We have building codes now that restrict how a property owner can wire their house. Under Libertarianism, can anyone wire their house any way they want to? If their creative wiring harms others, only then will they be taken to court and the problem addressed?
If so, I agree with 9th Engineer that this will put a burden on the courts and on those who need representation in court.
It means the government has no authority to make regulations on business. But people do have the right to take you to court even without them, if they can prove that you've harmed them, endangered them, or damaged their property.
I'm a little confused on this. You said the government has no authority to make regulations on business, but you also said:
Pollution is trespassing, and endangerment of property and people. It is a crime and everyone who does it should be held criminally and financially liable for any damages that can be measurably and directly related to what is done.
So, polluting is a crime, but the government has no ability to make a law stating so? It is only a law in the sense that a judge is likely to rule in favor of the person affected by the pollution? Why would a law banning pollution be considered wrong?
Back to property rights.
Can a property owner build a building any way they want to? We have building codes now that restrict how a property owner can wire their house. Under Libertarianism, can anyone wire their house any way they want to? If their creative wiring harms others, only then will they be taken to court and the problem addressed?
If so, I agree with 9th Engineer that this will put a burden on the courts and on those who need representation in court.
If you want to hire a cheap guy with no training, you get what you pay for. If they are creative with their wiring and it damages your house or surrounding houses or endangers people, they are criminally liable and financially liable.
The courts are tied up right now with drug cases. Those would be gone under libertarianism, so there's plenty of room for new cases and for tort reform.
You would have to have a completely private healthcare system if you removed all legal restrictions on drugs, it costs more to care for them than to lock them up. I suppose a cornerstone of libertarianism would be private healthcare though, if your wiring burns your house down and you need medical treatment you couldn't ask me to pay for it.
Is it just me or does this all sound similar to what we have now, only you have to wait until AFTER some idiot damages you to press charges.
I'm a little confused on this. You said the government has no authority to make regulations on business, but you also said:
So, polluting is a crime, but the government has no ability to make a law stating so? It is only a law in the sense that a judge is likely to rule in favor of the person affected by the pollution? Why would a law banning pollution be considered wrong?
There doesn't have to be a law against pollution. There are already laws against trespass and against endangering others or their property. If you can prove that your property or person was physically harmed or endangered due to the actions of another, they have committed a crime against you and are liable for it. If you can prove that I leaked mercury into the groundwater which resulted in your kids being mentally retarded, I am liable for punative damages, as well as being criminally liable for endangering others.
All of the laws against smoking in public are also ridiculous. There has not been a single speck of evidence to suggest that second hand smoke (especially outdoors) has caused a single case of cancer in the entire history of the world.
So...I can run a very harmful business as long as I get away with it?
It's not a very smart way to do business. It's criminal and you'll eventually get caught. Not very many investors would be interested in a company that practices criminal behavior. Any criminal can do what they can get away with until they get caught. Regulations don't change this.
But as long as I can stay profitable there isn't any reason I can't run a business that harms a few people, right? I disagree that, in reality, investors would care whether I am harming people, if I can make money for them. I don't believe that the free market itself presents any deterent mechanism whatsoever to the harm of individuals.
To paraphrase Clodfobble: what's another word for "deterent mechanisms"
???You would have to have a completely private healthcare system if you removed all legal restrictions on drugs, it costs more to care for them than to lock them up. I suppose a cornerstone of libertarianism would be private healthcare though, if your wiring burns your house down and you need medical treatment you couldn't ask me to pay for it.
Is it just me or does this all sound similar to what we have now, only you have to wait until AFTER some idiot damages you to press charges.
Nobody is entitled to anything simply based on their need. That includes food, shelter, clothing, education, money, or medical care. That being said, if government were completely out of medicine (a libertarian ideal), healthcare would be so cheap and so available, we'd still have housecalls by doctors at affordable prices. Even those who are extremely poor would find it much easier to get care.
If I need healthcare, it's ok for me to ASK you to pay for it, but not for me to DEMAND it, or to reach into your pocket using armed thugs (government) to take your money by force to pay for it. With government out of healthcare, the costs would be so low that people could afford to give more money to charity, and more free clinics could open up, or organizations willing to help out those in need could pay for any medical needs.
But as long as I can stay profitable there isn't any reason I can't run a business that harms a few people, right? I disagree that, in reality, investors would care whether I am harming people, if I can make money for them. I don't believe that the free market itself presents any deterent mechanism whatsoever to the harm of individuals.
To paraphrase Clodfobble: what's another word for "deterent mechanisms" ???
Of course investors would care. Investors are human beings. They would care, especially if it meant they might lose their investment in the future if such actions were discovered. The free market absolutely makes businesses MORE accountable than they are with regulations, and gives the ULTIMATE means to keep businesses honest ... dollars and cents. People won't buy products from businesses that are harming people. The business will close and people will buy from those who are more ethical and responsible. Other businesses will WILLINGLY raise the quality of their goods, safety, worker conditions, etc. to avoid the same fate.
This is what ended child labor... not unions. When people speak with dollars, it is far more effective than any law. Businesses are in business to make a profit, and there is no long term profit in dishonesty or in harming people.
I disagree. You can make more money if you don't care about hurting people. Money talks.
Question(s):
What about schools? Courts? Who pays for them? Taxes? Contributions? Would everything be privatized? How would uniformity and standards of treatment be determined?
How would the transportation infrastructure be handled? Under current law, if the government needs property for a road or other government need, they can seize it under Eminent Domain rights. This would seem to be a direct conflict with Libertarian beliefs. But without it, roads, airports, and railways would seem to be nearly impossible to build in any sort of efficient manner.
Stormie
There are some things that would not be private. Everything specifically mentioned in the U.S. Constitution is a valid part of government and can be paid for without a single penny of income taxes using the tariffs and excise taxes we already collect. We'd just have to get rid of every part of government NOT mentioned in the Constitution.
Does it surprise you to know we had schools, courts, roads, and a military before income taxes were collected? In fact with the exception of roads, all of these were better before income taxes were collected than they are now.
Roads are mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, so are a judicial system, legislature, post office, etc. These are legitimate functions of government.
Schools on the other hand are far too important to put in the hands of government and have steadily gotten worse and worse since Reagan created the department of education.
Eminent domain is not legitimate, and libertarians would do away with it entirely through a Constitutional amendment. Without eminent domain, we'd still have roads, airports, railways, etc. The only difference is people could ask a lot more for their land and most likely would. Given the expense of building these things, the costs wouldn't go up dramatically based on this.
I disagree. You can make more money if you don't care about hurting people. Money talks.
Consumers care, and so do investors.
Consumers are notorious for preferring cheaper products.
Can I drive drunk as long as I get the job done?
If consumers were aware that a baby seat was killing babies, do you think they'd buy it just because it was on sale? Do you think people put a $10 savings above the safety of their children? I don't.
Nike is one of the most socially responsible companies on earth. They give jobs to people in other countries that would die of starvation without their help, yet there are some foolish people who accuse them of exploitation or other such nonsense.
If Wal-Mart found out they were selling fur lined clothing that was the fur of dogs, they would immediately stop selling that product even if there were no complaints logged from consumers yet. They would do this because they know what will happen when consumers find out. They know it will cost them money and consumers will protest and will boycott them.
There is no long term profit in doing business unethically.
Consumers do want low prices, but not if they know people are being
Can I drive drunk as long as I get the job done?
Driving drunk falls under the catagory of endangering non-consenting others and their property. This is an actual crime, so no.
There is no long term profit in doing business unethically.
I think you're in fairy-tale land on that one.
Sorry, I can't think of a better way to say that.
Nike is one of the most socially responsible companies on earth. They give jobs to people in other countries that would die of starvation without their help, yet there are some foolish people who accuse them of exploitation or other such nonsense.
Oh? Care to cite which countries?
Malaysia, Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Philippines, Korea, etc.
Taiwan? I can definitely say that Taiwanese wouldnt be starving without Nike. Korea likewise.
The unskilled workers who take jobs at Nike might, but I'll give you those two.
Hair splitting is alive and well in the cellar I see...
...This is what ended child labor... not unions. When people speak with dollars, it is far more effective than any law. Businesses are in business to make a profit, and there is no long term profit in dishonesty or in harming people.
Riiiiight. So they move to the Far East where there are no child labor laws.
Nike is one of the most socially responsible companies on earth. They give jobs to people in other countries that would die of starvation without their help, yet there are some foolish people who accuse them of exploitation or other such nonsense.
You do realize that the reason Nike, Coca Cola, Phillips Van-Heusen, Levi Strauss and other large manufacturers utilize Far Eastern countries (instead of say, Europe) for their manufactoring is because there are very few if any laws there to protect the laborers? The governments of those poor countries condone physical abuse, child labor, excessive working hours, pitiful working conditions, unauthorized withdrawals from their paychecks or refusing to pay the employees at all? Any attempt by these employees to unionize or organize is quickly squashed, even by assassins if necessary, in order to continue to operate at minimal costs. These companies are not there out of the goodness of their hearts or to 'help', they are there to get the maximum product for the least cost. It has nothing to do with being socially responsible.
You say that investors care, that unethical behavior is not profitable in the long run, but I beg to differ. We don't care. We want our stock dividends and our pretty Nike shoes at reasonable costs. As long as the manner in which they produce these products doesn't affect US directly, most people turn a blind eye to unethical behavior.
Would these people starve without these jobs? Maybe. So abusing another human being is justified if they will tolerate it in order to survive?
Stormie
Would these people starve without these jobs? Maybe.
I've yet to read any study that concludes anything other than a plummeting quality of life
after large corporations setup shop in developing countries and began employing locals for cheap labor. "Starving"? No. They may have not have made much/any money prior to the introduction of cheap labor, but it is often the case that they did not need it and their community/culture didn't rely on it.
After the introduction of the shop, though, they suddenly require money to survive thanks to the change in the local market. Not only that, but they have to work much harder and many more hours to achieve a similar life to what what they had before. I won't touch the topic of how to correctly handle this situation, but it is absolutely false to summarize the introduction of cheap labor shops into developing nations as "saving that population from starving".
There is no long term profit in doing business unethically.
When your belief system clashes with reality, guess which one is wrong?
Riiiiight. So they move to the Far East where there are no child labor laws.
I was referring to child labor in America. And eventually since these people are getting a taste of the freedom, money, and prosperity capitalism brings, they will eventually get there too.
You do realize that the reason Nike, Coca Cola, Phillips Van-Heusen, Levi Strauss and other large manufacturers utilize Far Eastern countries (instead of say, Europe) for their manufactoring is because there are very few if any laws there to protect the laborers?
You do realize that your entire last statement is completely false and is actually completely unrelated at all to the reasons they do business in Asia rather than Europe. The real reason is because labor costs are cheaper there. They pay people the going rate of salary (and sometimes a bit more) to produce their goods. They are also giving people opportunity to work that they wouldn't have without these companies. They are literally saving families from starving to death.
The governments of those poor countries condone physical abuse, child labor, excessive working hours, pitiful working conditions, unauthorized withdrawals from their paychecks or refusing to pay the employees at all? Any attempt by these employees to unionize or organize is quickly squashed, even by assassins if necessary, in order to continue to operate at minimal costs.
Not one of these people has a gun to their head. They willingly take these jobs knowing the conditions. Nobody is forcing them to stay. They can leave if they don't like it. They are paid exactly what they are worth; not a penny more or less. It's also a good thing they don't unionize. Unions suck, and have done nothing good for workers or for business. In fact, unions are why many people don't have jobs and why many businesses close down or go elsewhere.
These companies are not there out of the goodness of their hearts or to 'help', they are there to get the maximum product for the least cost. It has nothing to do with being socially responsible.
Nobody said they were there out of the goodness of their heart. They are there to make the maximum profit they can for their investors....people like housewives, mechanics, computer network administrators, secretaries, doctors, lawyers, nurses, grocery store clerks, etc. Luckily, making a healthy profit does not mean they aren't helping people out too. They are giving people opportunity they would not have otherwise. They are following the laws of the country they are in, they are not abusing anyone, they are not forcing anyone to stay or to apply for work. They are offering a fair salary for the work that is being done in the location for the job.
Nike is making a profit because they are fiscally responsible to their investors, and giving jobs to poor people because they are a socially responsible company that cares about those in need.
You say that investors care, that unethical behavior is not profitable in the long run, but I beg to differ. We don't care. We want our stock dividends and our pretty Nike shoes at reasonable costs. As long as the manner in which they produce these products doesn't affect US directly, most people turn a blind eye to unethical behavior.
Some people will turn a blind eye to misdeeds. Nike isn't responsible for any, but if they were, some people would turn away. If Nike were enslaving children and beating them when they worked slowly and locking them up so they couldn't escape, you can bet your ass the first people to say something would be the investors, and they'd demand that it stop immediately. The consumers would do the same. If you say otherwise, you only prove your own ignorance and inability to grasp reality.
Would these people starve without these jobs? Maybe. So abusing another human being is justified if they will tolerate it in order to survive?
Stormie
Nobody who works for Nike is being abused, exploited, or harmed by Nike. None of them are lied to. None of them are forced to apply or forced to stay. When they took the job, they agreed that the pay was what their labor was worth, and the conditions were acceptable. Otherwise they wouldn't have taken the job.
[quote=Radar]
There is no long term profit in doing business unethically.
When your belief system clashes with reality, guess which one is wrong?
[/QUOTE]
I guess it's a good thing my belief system doesn't clash with reality in the slightest. I didn't give you my opinion about there being no long term profit in doing business unethically, I stated a fact.
All of the laws against smoking in public are also ridiculous. There has not been a single speck of evidence to suggest that second hand smoke (especially outdoors) has caused a single case of cancer in the entire history of the world.
Frankly, I'm not worried about my health from second hand smoke. I can't stand the stench which clings to my clothes. I want to be able to go out and have a drink at a bar and come home and not need to have my jacket dry cleaned.
Your right to swing your fist or smoke in a public place ends at the tip of my nose. To expect me to approach every smoker in a bar and get them to pony up their share of my dry cleaning bill is ludicrous and impractical. I don't oppose smoking sections or smoking bars.
For what it's worth I also object to over perfumed and cologned people, and especially to stinky magazines, i.e. the ones with perfume samples. They really hurt my nose, it is like someone shining an extremely bright light in my eyes, it is physically painful.
Would a libertarian society have any laws, and if so, how would it be decided what they were?
I didn't give you my opinion about there being no long term profit in doing business unethically, I stated a fact.
Fact: 99% of American business owners are named Jimmy. I stated a fact. Mine had numbers in it, which makes it double-true.
Frankly, I'm not worried about my health from second hand smoke. I can't stand the stench which clings to my clothes. I want to be able to go out and have a drink at a bar and come home and not need to have my jacket dry cleaned.
Your right to swing your fist or smoke in a public place ends at the tip of my nose. To expect me to approach every smoker in a bar and get them to pony up their share of my dry cleaning bill is ludicrous and impractical. I don't oppose smoking sections or smoking bars.
For what it's worth I also object to over perfumed and cologned people, and especially to stinky magazines, i.e. the ones with perfume samples. They really hurt my nose, it is like someone shining an extremely bright light in my eyes, it is physically painful.
Would a libertarian society have any laws, and if so, how would it be decided what they were?
Whether or not you personally like it is irrelevant. Your right to keep your nose away from smoke is just fine with me. It means you have a responsibility not to bring your nose into smokey areas. The right of people to smoke does not have a limit at the tip of your nose.
If you go into a bar, you know the bar will have smoke in it before you enter. If you don't want to be around smoke, nobody is forcing you to go into the bar. Likewise, nobody is forcing anyone to apply to work in a smokey bar.
Telling someone they can't smoke in a bar is like telling someone they can't read in a library. The owner of the bar, and nobody else, has legitimate say in the matter. If the owner wants a smoke free bar, he'll get more non-smokers. If he wants to allow smoking in his bar, nobody has any legitimate complaints when they go in and breathe in smoke.
Be sure to keep your face out of my fisty areas...
joking, joking. I just wanted to say "fisty areas".
Businesses are in business to make a profit, and there is no long term profit in dishonesty or in harming people.
Like
slavery, then. Nobody was harmed by slavery, were they, and nobody profited either? And I don't just mean the reletively recent incidence of African slavery in the United States, or the current, thriving practice of sexual slavery in Thailand (and elsewhere) - I mean the pervasive historical tendency of human beings to enslave other human beings.
Nobody is harmed by this ??? Nobody profits from this ???
[SIZE="1"]I'll throw you a life-line, though: go off on a semantical tangent focused on the qualifier "long term" . . . [/SIZE]
Mentioning slavery only shows your own ignorance.
None of the people working for any of these companies is a slave. Slaves didn't apply for the work, weren't paid money in compensation, and weren't allowed to leave anytime they want. The people working for Nike aren't beaten when they don't work, and aren't bought and sold.
As far as long term profit goes, let's discuss slavery in America since it was the most recent. In the short term it was profitable, but in the long run, they lost the lives of most of their men, had their cities burned down, and lost just about everything.
Let's look at American business. Ethics violations have cost Boeing BILLIONS of dollars in lost revenue and work. How much do you think Enron or MCI stock is worth today? Why are they worthless? Because there is no long term profit in unethical business.
Compare this to truly ethical and socially responble businesses like Wal-Mart, Microsoft, Siemens, etc. who employ millions and bring high quality and affordable products to the masses, while at the same time making a decent amount of profit.
Be sure to keep your face out of my fisty areas...
joking, joking. I just wanted to say "fisty areas".
The term "fisty area" brings up a horror show of mental images. Thanks for that.
Mentioning slavery only shows your own ignorance.
None of the people working for any of these companies is a slave. Slaves didn't apply for the work, weren't paid money in compensation, and weren't allowed to leave anytime they want. The people working for Nike aren't beaten when they don't work, and aren't bought and sold.
Compare this to truly ethical and socially responble businesses like Wal-Mart, Microsoft, Siemens, etc. who employ millions and bring high quality and affordable products to the masses, while at the same time making a decent amount of profit.
Maybe you think this is ethical and socially responsible?
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=13550
And this isn't slavery?
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=13514
I am an accountant and financial analyst so my business is your business's bottom line. I work with and for some of the largest real estate developers and investment holding companies in the US. I know damn well that it is possible to be financially successful without resorting to some of the practices certain corporations do.
Stormie
Mentioning slavery only shows your own ignorance. None of the people working for any of these companies is a slave.
No, it shows your lack of reading comprehension. I didn't make that comparison. I was referring to literal slavery.
Slaves didn't apply for the work, weren't paid money in compensation, and weren't allowed to leave anytime they want.
Yes, slavery is a business practice, common throughout history, where people are harmed and a profit is made.
It disproves your flawed theory that you cannot make a profit by harming people.
As far as long term profit goes, let's discuss slavery in America since it was the most recent. In the short term it was profitable, but in the long run, they lost the lives of most of their men, had their cities burned down, and lost just about everything.
People were harmed, and a profit was made. In the long term, regardless of the outcome, those people were still harmed - you can't undo the harm.
Harming people is profitable. It always has been, and it always will be. That is an easily demonstrated reality.
Let's look at American business.
Let's just go ahead and look at all of recorded history.
Maybe you think this is ethical and socially responsible? http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=13550
And this isn't slavery? http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=13514
I am an accountant and financial analyst so my business is your business's bottom line. I work with and for some of the largest real estate developers and investment holding companies in the US. I know damn well that it is possible to be financially successful without resorting to some of the practices certain corporations do.
Stormie
Do you honestly expect me to respond to lies and propaganda spread by socialists as though they had even the slightest bit of truth to them? Also, even if these things were true, the companies mentioned like Wal-Mart, Kohls, etc. are not doing them. Some local company in a third world country is.
Eventually they will be shut down, because the FACT is, there is no long term profit in doing business unethically.
It does seem much more "factual" in all-caps.
No, it shows your lack of reading comprehension. I didn't make that comparison. I was referring to literal slavery.
Yes, slavery is a business practice, common throughout history, where people are harmed and a profit is made.
It disproves your flawed theory that you cannot make a profit by harming people.
People were harmed, and a profit was made. In the long term, regardless of the outcome, those people were still harmed - you can't undo the harm.
Harming people is profitable. It always has been, and it always will be. That is an easily demonstrated reality.
Let's just go ahead and look at all of recorded history.
I have no problem reading all of recorded history, because it proves me to be correct. It proves that there is no long term profitibility in doing business unethically. It wasn't profitable for the South, it wasn't profitable for Enron, It wasn't profitable for MCI, and the list goes on and on.
They all went down in flames, because the public became aware of their dishonesty as always happens.
Also, I didn't say you can't make a profit by harming people. I said there is no LONG TERM profit in doing business unethically, which is a fact.
It does seem much more "factual" in all-caps.
It doesn't matter how I type it, it's as factual as is your existence.
I said there is no LONG TERM profit in doing business unethically, which is a fact.
So it really all boils down to semantics. Nothing lasts forever, or "long term" as you say.
That should be a great comfort to the people who are harmed by unethical businesses.
I have no problem reading all of recorded history, because it proves me to be correct. It proves that there is no long term profitibility in doing business unethically.
Heh, so "long term" is measured in centuries?
Be sure to keep your face out of my fisty areas...
joking, joking. I just wanted to say "fisty areas".
Don't say that in a queer bar. :lol2:
The crux of the matter lies in the timely exposure of the alleged abuses. Many people will, given the knowlege and power to do so, avoid doing business with companies they find morally reprehensible. For example, I always prefer to buy from a company that operates completely within the US as opposed to ones that manufacture in Indonesia or China because its often impossible to uncover abusive labor practices in those places. You can't ignore plain middle class apathy though, I doubt that a big enough chunk of WalMart shoppers would boycott them due to unfair business. Many people just don't care anymore. Put everything together and unethical business can be easily whitewashed with a good enough PR campaign and media control.
Heh, so "long term" is measured in centuries?
How long of a period were Enron or MCI in business? How long of that period were they operating unethically?
So, in your theory, it doesn't matter that people were harmed, just that it will eventually get brought to light. Of course, the harm isn't undone, so there is no real-life value for the actual human beings affected. And, of course, since you have to wait until provable harm has already been done before you can do anything about it, your system doesn't provide any protection for the common man. There will always be unethical business practices, there will always be greed, and it may not pay off in the "long term" but that doesn't mean people won't get hurt in the meantime. Allowing business to run rampant is a plan that guarantees unethical practices.
Whether or not you personally like it is irrelevant. Your right to keep your nose away from smoke is just fine with me. It means you have a responsibility not to bring your nose into smokey areas. The right of people to smoke does not have a limit at the tip of your nose.
If you go into a bar, you know the bar will have smoke in it before you enter. If you don't want to be around smoke, nobody is forcing you to go into the bar. Likewise, nobody is forcing anyone to apply to work in a smokey bar.
Telling someone they can't smoke in a bar is like telling someone they can't read in a library. The owner of the bar, and nobody else, has legitimate say in the matter. If the owner wants a smoke free bar, he'll get more non-smokers. If he wants to allow smoking in his bar, nobody has any legitimate complaints when they go in and breathe in smoke.
As to your first point, this is fine in a private establishment, but why should either the smoker or non smoker have preference in a public place? Suppose I like to go around and spritz cadvaerase or skunk musk into the air? Obviously if the bar owner doesn't object, I'm fine, but if you are walking down the street and I do it, then T.S.? Right?
Your second point makes sense to me also.
Your third point I feel the analogy breaks down because the function of a library is reading, research, borrowing books. The purpose of a bar is serving drinks. Food and entertainment may be secondary and smoking I'd say is ancillary. A closer analogy may be a library with a copy machine, and using the copier. (Which can conveniently introduce copyright infringement tangent possibilities into the thread)
Regarding that third point, does the business owner necessarily have an obligation to define the primary activities of his establishment? I go to an Anime store that has an arcade in the back, they sell comics, collectibles, they design custom cosplay outfits. I just go there to rent movies. There isn't really a primary purpose, it's unique to each customer.
How long of a period were Enron or MCI in business? How long of that period were they operating unethically?
I was referring to your casual dismissal of slavery. It was quite profitable for the South for centuries, and in other parts of the world for even longer.
So, in your theory, it doesn't matter that people were harmed, just that it will eventually get brought to light. Of course, the harm isn't undone, so there is no real-life value for the actual human beings affected. And, of course, since you have to wait until provable harm has already been done before you can do anything about it, your system doesn't provide any protection for the common man. There will always be unethical business practices, there will always be greed, and it may not pay off in the "long term" but that doesn't mean people won't get hurt in the meantime. Allowing business to run rampant is a plan that guarantees unethical practices.
Greed is not unethical. Greed is also subjective. Who determines how much is enough for one person? I say we each determine that for ourselves. There will always be the extremely low percentage of people
(less than 1%) who do business unethically, and the overwhelming majority who don't.
If someone dies, you can't bring them back. When someone is harmed, you can't unharm them. You can only see to it that those who did the harm are brought to justice. The common man is protected somewhat from being harmed because those who practice business unethically
(meaning they steal, trespass, commit fraud, or are directly responsible for physical harm to unconsenting people) will be publically brought to justice and this will serve to deter others who would commit these types of crimes.
Actually the best way to keep business ethical is to remove 100% of all government influence on the markets. It means getting rid of any government oversite of business, getting rid of all government regulations, getting rid of unconstitutional government agencies like the FDA, FTC, and others, and having business be completely and totally unhampered by government.
Government is what allows many businesses to get away with unethical behavior.
I was referring to your casual dismissal of slavery. It was quite profitable for the South for centuries, and in other parts of the world for even longer.
It wasn't profitable in the Southern States for centuries. The USA didn't even exist for a century before a war was fought to keep the South from leaving the union and ending slavery.
Any slavery that happened before America existed is irrelevant because it wasn't considered unethical back then. A slave was considered to be livestock, not a person.
Radar,
I checked the link to your website and I like what I saw re: your thougths on various issues. I checke d the links to Libertarian party HQ and I'll research there before hassling you on this thread. Thanks for taking the time to come up with thoughtful answers to everyone's questions wihtout getting all worked up.
If someone is unethical they will practice unethical business regardless of the existence of laws regarding said business or not.
Again and forever, a bar, business or restaurant is not public property... it is privately owned property, in regards to the smoking issue.
The state has no place dictating what an owner wants done on his, or her, own property.
If you don't like smoke, don't shop there... go to a non-smoking business.
Even in public property, smoking should be ok as long as people don't leave cigarette butts on the ground. The public doesn't own the air. Nobody owns it. If someone is outside smoking, and you don't like it, you're free to take a few steps away so you don't smell the smoke.
As far as being unethical goes, the same is true of any crimes. If someone is a criminal and they want to commit a crime, laws won't stop them; but they will punish them. For those who are just considering doing something unethical, hopefully they will take the laws and punishment into consideration before doing it.
Any slavery that happened before America existed is irrelevant because it wasn't considered unethical back then.
Ha!
It wasn't considered unethical by whom? The slaveowners? That was true even for some time
after the civil war. Abolitionists? That was true before the US was founded. The slaves? I bet it was always considered unethical by most of them. The founding of the US was neither the beginning nor the end of any phase in the history of slavery.
The public doesn't own the air. Nobody owns it.
So if I want to build a Biomass (read: shit-burning) furnace on my property, I can pump cow shit smoke across the city cause the public doesnt own the air?
That's right. But if they can somehow prove that the smoke from your shit burning furnace is causing harm to others, you'll have to shut it down. My guess is there would be more than a few businesses with lost revenue who could take you to civil court. If it caused health risks, you could be taken to criminal court for trespass.
Second-hand smoke has never been proven to cause any danger or damage to anyone.
I'm all for biomass energy; especially utilizing hemp, but if it were discovered that it harmed people, I'd willingly stop using it.
Ha!
It wasn't considered unethical by whom? The slaveowners? That was true even for some time after the civil war. Abolitionists? That was true before the US was founded. The slaves? I bet it was always considered unethical by most of them. The founding of the US was neither the beginning nor the end of any phase in the history of slavery.
It wasn't considered unethical by the vast majority of the population... (aka those who weren't slaves and weren't considered to be anymore human than other livestock).
The founding of the United States is important in this discussion because it is the beginning of the scope of time I'm discussing. I'm not going to discuss ancient Egypt or any other historical examples before the founding of America because the general non-slave population at those times didn't consider slavery to be wrong. As soon as it was generally accepted that slavery was wrong, it ended. As soon as it was discovered that Enron and MCI were committing fraud, they were shut down.
So it's sort of a tautology. When enough people oppose something to stop it, that is the point at which it becomes unethical.
If people think it's ok, they won't be angry about it or be up in arms about it. If the same situation is presented in a manner that openly and clearly presents the wrong of the situation in a non-threatening way (such as the civil rights movement), the public will get behind the idea, and will do something about it.
Until what is being done is recognized as wrong, it will continue forever. But as soon as it's "discovered" as being wrong and is brought to the public, the public takes steps and the wrongdoing ends as it did with slavery, with the treatment of blacks in the South, with women's suffrage, and even more quickly with businesses acting unethically.
Radar,
I checked the link to your website and I like what I saw re: your thougths on various issues. I checke d the links to Libertarian party HQ and I'll research there before hassling you on this thread. Thanks for taking the time to come up with thoughtful answers to everyone's questions wihtout getting all worked up.
Yeah but, but....I kind of miss the old firebrand. Now he sounds all diplomatic and shit....like a politician. Getting married must have tamed him. :lol2:
Around here we have a "right to farm life" law, the upshot of it is farmers are going to spread manure on their fields and it will stink, the roosters are gonna make noise and the goats will too. If that doesn't fit in with your plans you can move back to Park Slope in Brooklyn.
Sadly, it goes the other way in California. There used to be farms everywhere down here, and developers started buying farmland, building homes, and the people in the homes knew they were moving next to other farms, yet they complain to the local town council or get elected to it and then create idiotic laws fining people for normal farm smells, noises, etc.
Yeah but, but....I kind of miss the old firebrand. Now he sounds all diplomatic and shit....like a politician. Getting married must have tamed him. :lol2:
heh heh heh
I guess I’m getting older and more mellow. My belly is still full of rage and hate, but I’m too tired to fight everyone.
I guess I’m getting older and more mellow. My belly is still full of rage and hate, but I’m too tired to fight everyone.
Choose your battles!
Congratulations, you're ready to be a parent.:D