Freedom Of Association?

[NghtRppr]

Indeed, Libertarianism is not perfect.

Derp! I don't know when anyone claimed it was perfect. If so, they were mistaken. Libertarianism is just and also, even though that's enough for me, it implies an economic system which works better than any others, free trade.

But then neither was Marxism or any other artificial system of governance.

They're all not just but libertarianism is. Libertarianism is not Utopian though. If that's what you thought it was, that's just your own ignorance shining through. Read up, dummy.

[1714957757]

1714957757

[1714957757]

1714957757

[1714957757]

1714957757

[1714957757]

1714957757

[1714957757]

1714957757

[billyjoeallen]

What a terrible travesty of justice to be prevented from doing something you don't want to do in the first place.  That's like complaining that you can't get raped. This is your big killer argument? fail.

Let me make it easier for you. Suppose during a famine, a bunch of racist whites had a great farm. Now they would let everyone in to eat except negros, simply because
they hated them.

That doesn't make it easier at all. Even if I accept for the sake of argument your improbable scenario, you have to compare the outcome to some other outcome.  To avoid this problem (and yes, it is a problem), you create a larger problem, namely who decides who lives and who dies in a famine. If there's not enough to go around, then someone is going to die. Saving one person condemns another. Is there more justice when a white dies than when a black dies? You have the same problem either way, don't you.

Your critique seems to be that libertarianism doesn't solve a problem than other ideologies also don't solve. I agree, but that doesn't seem to be a very compelling criticism.

[myrkul]

How does Libertarianism deal with conflict?

• Arbitration (Pre-planned dispute resolution)
• Mediation (Unplanned dispute resolution)
• Castle doctrine (ad-hoc dispute resolution)

Does that answer your question?

[NghtRppr]

Anyway, I got shit to do, so I'll just leave you lot here waffling on about pathways and boundaries and property and all that pointless bullshit.

No you won't. Trolls never stay away from the lulz.

It looks like you called it. He left us for a whole hour. Haha, what a clown.

[bonker]

This is a slightly more thoughtful, but still suffers from "stuff" obsession. Freedom of Association has little to do with "stuff" or property and is a source of conflict that cannot be resolved with "stuff" or property.

Freedom of association comes down to property. If I'm in your store, I have limited my freedom of association because I have to interact with the people you allow into your store. If I'm on my own property, I have complete freedom of association because I can limit who enters my property.

The only property based solution is partition and segregation. Spiraling conflict is the natural result in any case. How does Libertarianism deal with conflict?.. It doesn't.

I agree that if you had people who generally believe that racism and sexism are unacceptable and you also had people who wished to practice those kinds of discrimination, conflict would be inevitable. I already explained exactly how that conflict would work -- the non-racist, non-sexist folks would likely isolate themselves from the racists and sexists.

If a bunch of racist people want to live together and be racists, that's fine. I'm willing to live and let live. I will despise them, refuse to deal with them, and refuse to deal with those who deal with them. But I'm willing to let them do that in exchange for them allowing me to have integrated water fountains even if they'd prefer separate ones.

At least the racists can't use the machinery of government to enforce segregation or discrimination, as has happened in pretty much every Democracy.

So your resolution is segregation? That is reasonable. However, I suspect that violence would be a exist in such a situation, would you agree?
Would there be a mechanism to keep the violence in check, or does it rest on the rationality and good will of a collection of redneck racists and
 their anti-racist counterparts?

[bonker]

How does Libertarianism deal with conflict?

• Arbitration (Pre-planned dispute resolution)
• Mediation (Unplanned dispute resolution)
• Castle doctrine (ad-hoc dispute resolution)

Does that answer your question?

Ahh negotiation! And if negotiation fails or break down? Who enforces what? In such a situation you don't have Libertarianism, you have anarchy and conflict.

The first real problem and the the whole thing caves in.

[bonker]

It looks like you called it. He left us for a whole hour. Haha, what a clown.

I had to answer a new poster, as I thought we might be able to resolve some the of the issues, but he was even more
stupid than the rest of you. Ho hum, back to kicking your myopic titbits into the debate gutter.

[JoelKatz]

So your resolution is segregation? That is reasonable.

That's the fallback when everything else breaks down. I don't think it will get that far in any realistic situation. Racists don't get any significant benefit from being racist. So if they start suffering significant costs, I think their racism is likely to yield. But yes, decent people will (and should) segregate themselves from recalcitrant racists.

However, I suspect that violence would be a exist in such a situation, would you agree?

I don't think it's likely. I think it's possible. The truly to-the-bone racists will be in the minority in any realistic situation, so if they're violent, they'll just get put in jail. Hopefully, the non-racist supermajority will see no need to resort to violence.

Would there be a mechanism to keep the violence in check, or does it rest on the rationality and good will of a collection of redneck racists and their anti-racist counterparts?

Reacting violently to other people's actions within their rights would be treated like violence in defiance of the law is in our society. It would be illegal and would result in civil forfeiture, jail time, and so on.

[NghtRppr]

I had to answer a new poster, as I thought we might be able to resolve some the of the issues, but he was even more stupid than the rest of you. Ho hum, back to kicking your myopic titbits into the debate gutter.

Work on your self-esteem so you won't have to constantly declare yourself the victor.

[myrkul]

How does Libertarianism deal with conflict?

• Arbitration (Pre-planned dispute resolution)
• Mediation (Unplanned dispute resolution)
• Castle doctrine (ad-hoc dispute resolution)

Does that answer your question?

Ahh negotiation! And if negotiation fails or break down? Who enforces what? In such a situation you don't have Libertarianism, you have anarchy and conflict.

The first real problem and the the whole thing caves in.

Uh... no.

[JoelKatz]

The first real problem and the the whole thing caves in.

Or people will work together to solve the problem since they all have an incentive to find a peaceful solution. You really have no idea which way it will go.

Your argument amounts to "I can think of a situation in which your system gives a sub-optimal solution". That's a good refutation of the person who claims that their system will provide perfect results in every situation. But nobody is making that argument.

In any event, Democracy can be much worse. In any situation where a majority of people wish to oppress a minority, Democracy creates a high risk that they will be able to use force to do so in a way that the system will generally recognize as legitimate. At least Libertarianism does not recognize that use of force as legitimate, though of course if enough people with the ability to exercise force wish to exercise force, no system can stop them.

The hope of Libertarians is that the "live and let live" philosophy would reduce the situations in which people would feel the need to use force. Much of the unrest in our society today centers around how government force will be used to control non-coercive associations between people.

[jgraham]

Would you as a grocery store be worried about any and all people as potential customers at any expense?  No, of course not.

What's your point?

Sorry I didn't hear you.  Are you agreeing with the statement or not?

Not every road will be a business. Interestingly enough I actually own sole rights to a private road right now.

Congratulations, why do I care about driving on your private road?

Are you equivocating here?  You personally do not but that's because you don't have property on the other side of it.  Other people do, right now there's a municipal order allowing them access.

Some shitty little dirt road on your property isn't the issue.

Hey! I got that thing paved a decade ago.  See if I do anything for you again

People building major roads that stretch far enough to get anywhere important will most likely be a business. Why else would people invest money in building a road from A to B (where A to B is a significant distance)?

So in other words you accept that it's feasible for a non-business to own a major road?

Actually they are both identical in one very specific respect.  They are both assuming that stating the idea is the same as solving the problem.

No. I've already explained that one is possible with current technology, it's just a matter of ironing out the details. Making tanks run on dirt isn't.

One is also a tank and the other is not.  They are still identical in the respect in which the analogy was used and I love that you pretty much demonstrate my point in your reply.

So what's the problem with using the term "fantasy land"?

The problem is that it's childish and only shows how pathetically frustrated you are that you can't attack the issue intellectually so you have to lash out like a whiny brat.

You are just too cute for words!  Seriously it's a creative, simple and easy-to-understand term which defines a portion of the issues rather well.  Your objection on the other hand I agree does show a degree of lashing out.  Unlike you, I limit myself to speculation as to the cause

[NghtRppr]

Sorry I didn't hear you.  Are you agreeing with the statement or not?

What's your point? I claimed that stores would assure access to a major highway and then you state the obvious viz. that they wouldn't assure access to every customer at any cost. How does that disprove my claim that stores would still assure access to a major highway? I'm assuming that you concede that point.

Are you equivocating here?  You personally do not but that's because you don't have property on the other side of it.  Other people do, right now there's a municipal order allowing them access.

Would any rational person have bought that property in the first place if they couldn't be guaranteed access to it at a reasonable price in the future? No.

So in other words you accept that it's feasible for a non-business to own a major road?

Of course it is. It's also feasible that everyone decides to kill themselves tomorrow at 2:33 PM -5 GMT. Just because something is possible doesn't mean it's probable. I take it that you concede my point that most roads will be owned by a business.

You are just too cute for words!

Thanks but I'm taken.

[jgraham]

Sorry I didn't hear you.  Are you agreeing with the statement or not?

What's your point? I claimed that stores would assure access to a major highway and then you state the obvious viz. that they wouldn't assure access to every customer at any cost. How does that disprove my claim that stores would still assure access to a major highway?

While this side-trip into your psyche is...amusing.  I'd say that you can't reasonably expect an answer if you will not provide them.  It's a simple question.  Yes or no will do. 

Are you equivocating here?  You personally do not but that's because you don't have property on the other side of it.  Other people do, right now there's a municipal order allowing them access.

Would any rational person have bought that property in the first place if they couldn't be guaranteed access to it at a reasonable price in the future? No.

Heavy on the prejudicial language there.  Define in his context how you are using "rational", "future" and "guaranteed".

So in other words you accept that it's feasible for a non-business to own a major road?

Of course it is. It's also feasible that everyone decides to kill themselves tomorrow at 2:33 PM -5 GMT. Just because something is possible doesn't mean it's probable.

Well firstly one of the senses of "feasible" means "likely" and/or "reasonable".  Even in it's stricter senses it generally isn't synonymous with the strictest sense of "possible".  So figure out what you are saying and get back to me.

I take it that you concede my point that most roads will be owned by a business.

I'm only a visitor to fantasy-land.  There's no reason for me to assume any of that.

You are just too cute for words!

Thanks but I'm taken.

...and this side-trip is just plain creepy.

[FredericBastiat]

Bigotry is not a "legal" crime.
Racism is not a "legal" crime.
Gender and age disrimination is not a "legal" crime.
Employment discrimination (depending on the contract covenants) is not a "legal" crime.
Segregation is not a "legal" crime.
Sexual orientation descrimination is not a "legal" crime.
Religious descrimination is not a "legal" crime.

Therefore, and obviously, exclusion and restriction of others from the use of one's private property is not a "legal" crime (regardless of the reasons).

List of "legal" crimes (rather short).

1) Murder and Injury.
2) Enslavement.
3) Theft.

Admittedly, most of the discrimination listed above is not nice, but that's a moral and religious concern not a legal one (take it up with your local ecclesiastical leader). We should all be kind, caring, charitable, loving, compassionate, empathetic and considerate. You just can't force such things as they don't fall into the category of "legal" crimes for which restitution can be demanded.

[jgraham]

Bigotry is not a "legal" crime.
Racism is not a "legal" crime.
Gender and age disrimination is not a "legal" crime.
Employment discrimination (depending on the contract covenants) is not a "legal" crime.
Segregation is not a "legal" crime.
Sexual orientation descrimination is not a "legal" crime.
Religious descrimination is not a "legal" crime.

Therefore, and obviously, exclusion and restriction of others from the use of one's private property is not a "legal" crime (regardless of the reasons).

List of "legal" crimes (rather short).

1) Murder and Injury.
2) Enslavement.
3) Theft.

Admittedly, most of the discrimination listed above is not nice, but that's a moral and religious concern not a legal one (take it up with your local ecclesiastical leader). We should all be kind, caring, charitable, loving, compassionate, empathetic and considerate. You just can't force such things as they don't fall into the category of "legal" crimes for which restitution can be demanded.

Can you define what you mean by "legal crime" here.

[FredericBastiat]

List of "legal" crimes (rather short).

1) Murder and Injury.
2) Enslavement.
3) Theft.

Do you need a definition for murder, injury, enslavement and theft? That's kinda funny. Oh wait a minute, lemme go get a hammer, gun and bulldozer (I forgot, and a cage). I'll be right on over...

[jgraham]

List of "legal" crimes (rather short).

1) Murder and Injury.
2) Enslavement.
3) Theft.

Do you need a definition for murder, injury, enslavement and theft?.

Ok so "legal crime" in the sense you are using it has no meaning outside of something that qualifies as murder, injury, enslavement and theft?  Right?

Oh wait a minute, lemme go get a hammer, gun and bulldozer. I'll be right on over..

Not tonight I have a headache.

[FredericBastiat]

I guess you could say there are 2 types of offenses. Mental and physical.

If you're going to allow mental offenses to become legal issues then you might as well open Pandora's Box. Because anything could be interpreted as offensive. There could be no end to the number of laws that one could write.

On the other hand, if we only consider the physical domain (physics of force), then you narrow the playing field considerably.

I personally prefer simplicity.

[JoelKatz]

I guess you could say there are 2 types of offenses. Mental and physical.

If you're going to allow mental offenses to become legal issues then you might as well open Pandora's Box. Because anything could be interpreted as offensive. There could be no end to the number of laws that one could write.

On the other hand, if we only consider the physical domain (physics of force), then you narrow the playing field considerably.

I personally prefer simplicity.

This sounds very attractive, but it's really not that simple. I eat a banana. Is that force? Well, not if it's my banana. But yes if it's your banana.

I don't give you $100. Is that force? Well, if you believe in enforceable contracts and I agree to give you $100, that's going to have to be considered force. Unless you don't believe in enforceable contracts, which seems to pretty much doom the concept of a modern industrial society which requires long-term investments and legally-enforceable agreements.