What drives people towards libertarianism?

Post Reply New Topic

amending the U.S. Constitution is a rather slow and difficult process. If 13 states objected to a revision of the 1 st amendment then it would fail.

ruveyn

We don't want to start changing the constitution according to whatever's in vogue at the time.....

'stealing' is a little harsh. Don't rich people also rely on ambulances, police and fire brigade?

'Thou shalt not steal' is Old Testament morality.

Regardless of the origin it's still good policy unless you like being stolen from....

The preachers who taught us the ten commandments never followed that morality but expe3cted us to.

The main appeal of libertarianism is that it seems to have a clear answer for everything, but actually there are a few weak points in the armour. Probably fewer weak points than other political philosophies, but I think they are much more significant weak points. Here are a few of my favourite ones:

- In a libertarian society, should you be allowed to sign a contract which turns you into the permanent property of someone else (i.e. a slave)?

- In a libertarian society, are children free agents who should be allowed to sign contracts and sue their parents? Or are they the property of their parents? Or are they the property of the state? If they are some sort of property, then at what age do they become free agents? And why at this particular age? (This one hits particularly hard, because I've noticed that many libertarians like to home-school their children into becoming good little libertarian clones.)

- Suppose that greenhouse gas emissions are driving climate change, and that climate change will lead to widespread disaster. (Libertarians usually don't believe this, because it poses a big problem for their philosophy. But suppose that it is true! After all, a political philosophy ought to have an answer for this sort of hypothetical.) How does a libertarian society respond to this issue? Who owes what to who? What violation of the non-aggression principle is taking place?

I guess it'd be that I'm sick of people bossing me around if I'm not harming anyone (libertarianism is one of the closest to that, though small "L" liberal would work the same). Selfish reasons, but then, so are yours; the difference is I don't want to boss you around either.

People and their collective bossy-boots; dealt with that drivel since preschool.

If you can renege on that contract at any time, then yes. People sign 'contracts' like that all in the time in the hardline BDSM world - consensual slavery and all that. But the principle of it is that, generally, it is not considered to be permanent and that the 'slave' can back out at any time if they feel the need to. They have to allow that, otherwise it turns into abuse and the other parties are breaking the law.

But, otherwise, no. You cannot permanently hold yourself over to someone else, because you are essentially signing your life away. And, personally, I would be against certain, suicidal (or near-suicidal) forms of extreme masochism. I'm not a doctrinaire libertarian and I believe that there are certain - extreme - cases where people have to be protected from themselves. That limit is generally a lot further away than most people would suggest, but I'm not going to suggest that consensual cannibalism should be legal.



I'd suggest that around about 16 or 18 is a good age, as it gives people the ability to use their time as children in order to grow up and see how the world works, test boundaries and so on without fully having to pay for their actions as harshly as they might in the adult world. The Danes, for instance, consider the age of majority to be 15, more or less. The idea is to make people culpable for their actions as soon as most people are ready. You can never get it exactly right for each child, but there has to be a ballpark age to cover everyone. It works in much the same way as restrictive film certificates.

You might as well ask whether people with senile dementia and who can't look after themselves or the extremely mentally ill are free agents. With the exception of certain protected groups (and people with severe, crippling learning difficulties), people should generally be allowed their freedom to go their own way. They can have other people look after their affairs, but the general idea is that they are in charge.



Because it is nonsense.



The libertarian response is that it's essentially inevitable and no amount of state pilfering or rearranging the deckchairs will fix it.

Yes, it is a slow and difficult process but the process is constitutionally possible is all I am saying. Again, your correct if 13 states do object it would fail. Yes, it is very minute but the minuteness does exist. This is what I am saying. Your posting though came across as ironclad and wasn't subject to change at all.

Not my problem. Libertarians aren't looking to "allow" you to do things. If two people want to voluntarily enter and agreement like that, it has nothing to do with me.


This would be up to the society. What you do with your kids isn't my problem.

Your side notes detract from your argument. All children are indoctrinated. You're trying to add emotional value by saying that it's unfortunate that children are getting indoctrinated with a viewpoint that you don't agree with.


First, you are again making side notes that don't have bearing on your argument. The effect on the libertarian philosophy has nothing to do with the belief in climate change theory. They are independent of each other. You are trying to discredit libertarianism by suggesting that libertarians deny scientific evidence in order to justify their belief system. If you were intending to argue this, let me know and I'll be happy to address it separately.

Assuming that we do have an impact on our global climate, it will get progressively worse until it becomes an important enough issue for someone to capitalize on it. This already happens right now through groups in society who make buying decisions based on their evaluation of a company's "green" policies. Companies implement these policies and market them in order to increase their profitability.

As we consume more and more resources on this planet, we're going to have an increasing interest in space exploration.

None of this has anything to do with "non-aggression". The planet is a resource to be consumed.