Libertarian land ownership theory - Page 5

glatt · 08-09-2006, 01:47 PM

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.

Kitsune · 08-09-2006, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radar

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:

Quote:

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?

Radar · 08-09-2006, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glatt

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.

9th Engineer · 08-09-2006, 02:10 PM

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.

Radar · 08-09-2006, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kitsune

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.

Flint · 08-09-2006, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flint

So...I can run a very harmful business as long as I get away with it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radar

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" ???

Radar · 08-09-2006, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

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.

Radar · 08-09-2006, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flint

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.

Flint · 08-09-2006, 02:31 PM

I disagree. You can make more money if you don't care about hurting people. Money talks.

Stormieweather · 08-09-2006, 02:35 PM

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

Radar · 08-09-2006, 02:49 PM

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.

Radar · 08-09-2006, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flint

I disagree. You can make more money if you don't care about hurting people. Money talks.

Consumers care, and so do investors.

Flint · 08-09-2006, 03:09 PM

Consumers are notorious for preferring cheaper products.

Undertoad · 08-09-2006, 03:13 PM

Can I drive drunk as long as I get the job done?

Radar · 08-09-2006, 03:18 PM

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

08-09-2006, 02:10 PM	#64
9th Engineer Bioengineer and aspiring lawer Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Pittsburgh Posts: 872	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. __________________ The most valuable renewable resource is stupidity.

08-09-2006, 02:31 PM	#69
Flint Snowflake Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Dystopia Posts: 13,136	I disagree. You can make more money if you don't care about hurting people. Money talks. __________________ **************** There's a level of facility that everyone needs to accomplish, and from there it's a matter of deciding for yourself how important ultra-facility is to your expression. ... I found, like Joseph Campbell said, if you just follow whatever gives you a little joy or excitement or awe, then you're on the right track. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Terry Bozzio**

08-09-2006, 02:35 PM	#70
Stormieweather Wearing her bitch boots Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Floriduh Posts: 1,181	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 __________________ "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." - Mahatma Gandhi

08-09-2006, 02:49 PM	#71
Radar Constitutional Scholar Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Ocala, FL Posts: 4,006	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'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death." - George Carlin

08-09-2006, 03:09 PM	#73
Flint Snowflake Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Dystopia Posts: 13,136	Consumers are notorious for preferring cheaper products. __________________ **************** There's a level of facility that everyone needs to accomplish, and from there it's a matter of deciding for yourself how important ultra-facility is to your expression. ... I found, like Joseph Campbell said, if you just follow whatever gives you a little joy or excitement or awe, then you're on the right track. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Terry Bozzio**

08-09-2006, 01:47 PM	#61
glatt ™ Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Arlington, VA Posts: 27,717	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.

08-09-2006, 03:13 PM	#74
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	Can I drive drunk as long as I get the job done?

08-09-2006, 03:18 PM	#75
Radar Constitutional Scholar Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Ocala, FL Posts: 4,006	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 __________________ "I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death." - George Carlin

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode