Freedom Of Association?

[NghtRppr]

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.

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

In other words, you've got nothing.

[JoelKatz]

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.

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.

[bonker]

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?

[NghtRppr]

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.

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?

[JoelKatz]

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.

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.

[bonker]

[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]

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.

[myrkul]

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

[NghtRppr]

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.

[bonker]

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]

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.

[myrkul]

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.

[bonker]

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]

Until you can reasonably and consistently address racial and religious conflicts

The answer to every conflict ever: MYOB.

[ascent]

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?

[bonker]

Until you can reasonably and consistently address racial and religious conflicts

The answer to every conflict ever: MYOB.

This is what I mean by the term "childish muse".

Ok, what happens when obnoxious members of your society refuse to MYOB? What do you actually DO?

[NghtRppr]

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

It's already been addressed. You lost the argument by admitting that I have the right to control my private property however I see fit.

The fact you keep attaching negative labels and generally being a sarcastic douche only shows how intellectually bankrupt your philosophy is.

Ok, what happens when obnoxious members of your society refuse to MYOB? What do you actually DO?

Kick down my front door and see what happens. Depending on how scared you make me, there might be a loud noise followed by eternal nothingness or I might just crack your skull a little.

[ascent]

It's already been addressed. You lost the argument by admitting that I have the right to control my private property however I see fit.

In other words, you can decide to put a fence up where my driveway leads out of my property?

[JoelKatz]

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.

Right, because we all know that when you oppress homos and negroes, they respond with violence. That's why we have anti-discrimination laws in the United States.

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?

You are free to create any mechanism you would like, and you won't have to worry about the government stopping you.

[NghtRppr]

It's already been addressed. You lost the argument by admitting that I have the right to control my private property however I see fit.

In other words, you can decide to put a fence up where my driveway leads out of my property?

If you were dumb enough to buy property next to my property without ensuring that you also bought access rights to get off your property, yes. However, that would rarely ever happen. A builder wants to sell houses. A road owner wants people to use his roads. These two would naturally come to an arrangement so that it would be possible. However, there might be a few cases where some idiot like yourself bought land he can't get on or off without a helicopter, in which case, too damn bad. Maybe you won't be such a drooling moron in the future.