Why is This Minority Group so Violent?

[Shadow Wolf]

Our friend described libertarians in general as allowing upstream pollution.
Tis a mistake to presume that we favor doing anything we want, so long
as it's on our land. He ignores our awareness of the problem that water
on that land travels downstream.
Does any libertarian argue that pollution of neighbor's water is a right?

The only example I'm aware of is young Nozick, who tried to argue for a ridiculously minimal state (the book reminded me of why I left the anarchist camp, because there are just too many problems and concerns that can't be reconciled or addressed), which was so poorly constructed that old Nozick would mention his earlier work was heavily flawed. Maybe Rand, but given her status as a fiction author rather than philosopher I haven't studied her as much.

 

[Revoltingest]

The only example I'm aware of is young Nozick, who tried to argue for a ridiculously minimal state (the book reminded me of why I left the anarchist camp, because there are just too many problems and concerns that can't be reconciled or addressed), which was so poorly constructed that old Nozick would mention his earlier work was heavily flawed. Maybe Rand, but given her status as a fiction author rather than philosopher I haven't studied her as much.

My advice...
Stick to Rand's fiction.
It's awkward enuf.
But the other stuff is impenetrable.

I'm a capital "L" Libertarian because it's all about being as libertarian
as practical in the kinds of societies that humans form. Minarchy
sounds wonderful in theory (Where have I heard "in theory" before?).
But it's socially & politically impossible. So I see minarchy as a
desired direction, not a goal. It'll never go all the way, but
"somewhat libertarian" is better than "not libertarian".

 

[Shadow Wolf]

My advice...
Stick to Rand's fiction.
It's awkward enuf.

The main reason I haven't read much Rand is she goes on and on and on and on, and on and on and on and on. For a philosophy-based fiction author, I'd much rather read Chuck Palahniuk, who manages to say far more with far less. I'd also rather read primary sources than Rand, because the primary sources are often shorter.

But the other stuff is impenetrable.

I have read a decent amount of the other stuff. It's how I know when a Lefty (or Righty) isn't too informed about Libertarianism (unless they mention names to explain where they got that idea from).

 

[Nakosis]

Ideally the government should be us -- the people. "The Government" should be a co-op, not an oligarchy of corporate special interests.

Right, exactly. This is the libertarian position, we should govern ourselves.

Libertarian? Options include back to the Pleistocene and Somalia.

Sure, if these places have a system of private property protection, freedom of politics, freedom of economic pursuit and a policy of non-violence. These are systemic requirements of a libertarian state.

 

[Nakosis]

So your upstream neighbor raises pigs on one shore of the river and uses copious fertilizer, insecticides and herbicides on his cornfields on the other. You fish in that river, and your kids swim in it. As a libertarian, you support his freedom to use his land as he wants, but his freedom is negatively impacting you. With no coercive authority, what options do you have to resolve this?

Private property. A neighbor cannot negatively impact my private property. Unless of course I agree with that impact. Or property held in common such as a river that many people use. Private property is a fundamental principle of libertarianism. Whereas our legal system allows for eminent domain, were the government can basically steal property and make use of it according to it's own needs. The government can take property and turn it into a trash dump, a nuclear waste facility, turn farm lands into super highways or shopping malls.

 

[Valjean]

Private property. A neighbor cannot negatively impact my private property. Unless of course I agree with that impact. Or property held in common such as a river that many people use. Private property is a fundamental principle of libertarianism. Whereas our legal system allows for eminent domain, were the government can basically steal property and make use of it according to it's own needs. The government can take property and turn it into a trash dump, a nuclear waste facility, turn farm lands into super highways or shopping malls.

I suspect we're largely in agreement.
My point is, one individual should not be allowed to exploit or harm another, but without some sort of co-operative alliance, with coercive power, what's to stop scoundrels and sociopaths from exploiting their neighbors?
Without some centralized, preferably co-operative authority, history shows that society stratifies into a small aristocracy dominating an exploited majority.
How's a society of perfect freedom and equality going to deal with human nature?

 

[Nakosis]

I suspect we're largely in agreement.
My point is, one individual should not be allowed to exploit or harm another, but without some sort of co-operative alliance, with coercive power, what's to stop scoundrels and sociopaths from exploiting their neighbors?
Without some centralized, preferably co-operative authority, history shows that society stratifies into a small aristocracy dominating an exploited majority.
How's a society of perfect freedom and equality going to deal with human nature?

Can't have perfect freedom, but maybe reasonable freedom. I don't want no government, I want reasonable government. The US is seen as one of the more reasonable government in this study. The argument is between reasonable and unreasonable government not complete government control and a complete lack of government.