• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Libertarians: Are public parks hurting your freedom?

RGacky3

DP Veteran
Joined
May 8, 2012
Messages
9,570
Reaction score
1,493
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
libertarians always talk about economic issues, like socialism vrs Capitalism, as if it's an issue of freedom, I never Got that, I have a ton more freedom living in a country with public heathcare than I do where I'm beholdant to private for profit healthcare companies, or where I have a say through my union or through co-determination in my workplace rather than having none.

But libertarians, are the fact that public parks exist and are not privitized somehow taking away from your "freedom?" Why or why not?
 

HumanBeing

Well-known member
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
761
Reaction score
358
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
libertarians always talk about economic issues, like socialism vrs Capitalism, as if it's an issue of freedom, I never Got that, I have a ton more freedom living in a country with public heathcare than I do where I'm beholdant to private for profit healthcare companies, or where I have a say through my union or through co-determination in my workplace rather than having none.

But libertarians, are the fact that public parks exist and are not privitized somehow taking away from your "freedom?" Why or why not?
1. You don't get more freedom from artificial monopolization of industries. Ever.

2. It depends on whether you're a modern American libertarian who thinks the state should get to own everything or a classical libertarian who believes that libertarianism and statism are mutually exclusive. Personally I don't see it as an assault on my freedom, but I do see it as an ethically illegitimate attempt by the state to claim ownership of land by means of force and violence.
 

RGacky3

DP Veteran
Joined
May 8, 2012
Messages
9,570
Reaction score
1,493
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
1. You don't get more freedom from artificial monopolization of industries. Ever.

2. It depends on whether you're a modern American libertarian who thinks the state should get to own everything or a classical libertarian who believes that libertarianism and statism are mutually exclusive. Personally I don't see it as an assault on my freedom, but I do see it as an ethically illegitimate attempt by the state to claim ownership of land by means of force and violence.
Its not always the state, it can be the community, the city, whatever.

Also isn't EVERY claim of ownership of land (mainly private) a claim by means for force and violence (from the state), difference is one is the commons, it isn't "ownership" perse, no one owns it, it's the commons, protected from private control, private park ownership is protected by state violence, it STOPS freedom since now ... you can't go to that piece of land.
 

HumanBeing

Well-known member
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
761
Reaction score
358
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
isn't EVERY claim of ownership of land (mainly private) a claim by means for force and violence (from the state)
No. My claim to ownership of my house comes from a voluntary transaction I made with it's previous owner, no use of force was involved, same goes for most of my neighbors (though not all as I live in Cambodia, so after the Khmer Rouge fled to the jungles and people returned to Phnom Penh, there were some arguments about who had owned what beforehand). I'm willing to bet all of your neighbours entered into a voluntary transaction as the basis for their claim to ownership of their land too. I think what you're talking about is enforcement of ownership. Yes, that all comes from the state, but only because the state claims a monopoly over enforcement of ownership. If they would let me hire my own police to enforce my claim of ownership (if disputed, which is relatively rare in most modern nations), I'd be happy to do so.
 

mak2

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 16, 2012
Messages
12,050
Reaction score
5,716
Location
Indiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
My grandparents land was deeded by the govt from the Indians prior to the civil war. I am sure the Native Americans did not hand over the land to the white man iwthout some form of coersion. How does Libertians deal with the whole concept of owning land? Looks to me like under their philosophy the Native Americans should get it all back and do with it as they wish.
No. My claim to ownership of my house comes from a voluntary transaction I made with it's previous owner, no use of force was involved, same goes for most of my neighbors (though not all as I live in Cambodia, so after the Khmer Rouge fled to the jungles and people returned to Phnom Penh, there were some arguments about who had owned what beforehand). I'm willing to bet all of your neighbours entered into a voluntary transaction as the basis for their claim to ownership of their land too. I think what you're talking about is enforcement of ownership. Yes, that all comes from the state, but only because the state claims a monopoly over enforcement of ownership. If they would let me hire my own police to enforce my claim of ownership (if disputed, which is relatively rare in most modern nations), I'd be happy to do so.
 

HumanBeing

Well-known member
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
761
Reaction score
358
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
My grandparents land was deeded by the govt from the Indians prior to the civil war. I am sure the Native Americans did not hand over the land to the white man iwthout some form of coersion. How does Libertians deal with the whole concept of owning land? Looks to me like under their philosophy the Native Americans should get it all back and do with it as they wish.
"There can be no justice on stolen land"

How do you feel about Palestinians and Israel? >.>

(also, just for the record, I'm not anti American, nor am I saying America should give all its land back to the natives, I'm anti state in general, and don't know what kind of state the natives had going on for themselves though I doubt it was any more peaceful than yours)
 

Canell

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2011
Messages
3,851
Reaction score
1,170
Location
EUSSR
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Do you mean "city parks" or grand parks like Yellowstone?
 

mak2

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 16, 2012
Messages
12,050
Reaction score
5,716
Location
Indiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I ahve a very limited knowledge about Indian culture, but I beleive they treated the land as if it was community property. Honestly, I dont know exactly how I feel about the Palestinians, I was always a far right winger and believed as they believe (very pro Israel) it is something I should read and think more about.
"There can be no justice on stolen land"

How do you feel about Palestinians and Israel? >.>

(also, just for the record, I'm not anti American, nor am I saying America should give all its land back to the natives, I'm anti state in general, and don't know what kind of state the natives had going on for themselves though I doubt it was any more peaceful than yours)
 

HumanBeing

Well-known member
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
761
Reaction score
358
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I ahve a very limited knowledge about Indian culture, but I beleive they treated the land as if it was community property. Honestly, I dont know exactly how I feel about the Palestinians, I was always a far right winger and believed as they believe (very pro Israel) it is something I should read and think more about.
Hrm, commies eh? I'd be tempted to say it serves them right, but that would be a bit extreme. My point was, Americans who aren't ashamed of their nation's history with regards to the natives pretty much have to be against the idea that Palestinians still have any legitimate claim to a nation of their own. Anything else would be hypocrisy.

I also don't have a clear cut view on it.
 

soot

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 3, 2013
Messages
4,308
Reaction score
2,530
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
My point was, Americans who aren't ashamed of their nation's history with regards to the natives pretty much have to be against the idea that Palestinians still have any legitimate claim to a nation of their own.
What defines a claim as legitimate?

Above it seems that you were getting at legitimacy being predicated on an agreement backed by threat of violence (and by extension the implicity of actual violence, if necessary).

If we think about this further I think it's pretty plain that violence or the threat of violence precedes the agreement, or maybe better, establishes an environment in which an agreement has some rational basis.

If, through the threat of violence or the use of violence, the Palestinians can arrive at some agreement whereby they are capable of establishing an actual state why would theirs be any different, any less legitimate, than any other legitimate ownership of property?

If your intention was simply and superficially to say that the Palestinians don't have any historic or "Biblical" claim to the land then of course I agree. But history isn't the sole arbiter of legitimacy.
 

HumanBeing

Well-known member
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
761
Reaction score
358
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
What defines a claim as legitimate?

Above it seems that you were getting at legitimacy being predicated on an agreement backed by threat of violence (and by extension the implicity of actual violence, if necessary).

If we think about this further I think it's pretty plain that violence or the threat of violence precedes the agreement, or maybe better, establishes an environment in which an agreement has some rational basis.

If, through the threat of violence or the use of violence, the Palestinians can arrive at some agreement whereby they are capable of establishing an actual state why would theirs be any different, any less legitimate, than any other legitimate ownership of property?

If your intention was simply and superficially to say that the Palestinians don't have any historic or "Biblical" claim to the land then of course I agree. But history isn't the sole arbiter of legitimacy.
If you mean "legitimate" in the context I used it in that you quoted me on, I meant in the "non-hypocritical". If Palestinian people are entitled to a nation of their own, then so are native Americans. Like I said, I don't actually have a clear view on that either way, but I do believe in being consistent so if I form a view, it will be the same for both :)
 

soot

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 3, 2013
Messages
4,308
Reaction score
2,530
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
If you mean "legitimate" in the context I used it in that you quoted me on, I meant in the "non-hypocritical". If Palestinian people are entitled to a nation of their own, then so are native Americans. Like I said, I don't actually have a clear view on that either way, but I do believe in being consistent so if I form a view, it will be the same for both :)
I believe in consistency too. And understand that I'm not "challenging" you, just kinda going along with the conversation.

For my own part, I'm sort of in the "might makes right" camp. Not necessarially as an ideal but more out of pragmatisim and reality.

It is my opinion that if the Native Americans could wrest control of some section of my country (or the country in its entirety for that matter) through force of arms and consequently establish a state upon it, it would be a "legitimate" state.

Same for the Palestinians, or anyone really.
 

HumanBeing

Well-known member
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
761
Reaction score
358
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I believe in consistency too. And understand that I'm not "challenging" you, just kinda going along with the conversation.

For my own part, I'm sort of in the "might makes right" camp. Not necessarially as an ideal but more out of pragmatisim and reality.

It is my opinion that if the Native Americans could wrest control of some section of my country (or the country in its entirety for that matter) through force of arms and consequently establish a state upon it, it would be a "legitimate" state.

Same for the Palestinians, or anyone really.
I believe in the NAP. That means in theory, Palestinians can claim to be justified in attacking Israel because Israel initiated aggression against them by literally wiping their homeland off the map. Likewise, I guess in the interests of consistency, I wouldn't have an ethical objection against native Americans fighting a war to reclaim America. I'm not sure if I'd feel the same way if that was actually a realistic possibility though. It doesn't seem like the surviving native Americans have quite the same level of determination as Hezbollah ;)
 
Last edited:

RGacky3

DP Veteran
Joined
May 8, 2012
Messages
9,570
Reaction score
1,493
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
No. My claim to ownership of my house comes from a voluntary transaction I made with it's previous owner, no use of force was involved, same goes for most of my neighbors (though not all as I live in Cambodia, so after the Khmer Rouge fled to the jungles and people returned to Phnom Penh, there were some arguments about who had owned what beforehand). I'm willing to bet all of your neighbours entered into a voluntary transaction as the basis for their claim to ownership of their land too. I think what you're talking about is enforcement of ownership. Yes, that all comes from the state, but only because the state claims a monopoly over enforcement of ownership. If they would let me hire my own police to enforce my claim of ownership (if disputed, which is relatively rare in most modern nations), I'd be happy to do so.
No, your assuming its owned to begin with, land that isn't owned, becomes owned and stays owned through government grants and threat of state violence.
 

RGacky3

DP Veteran
Joined
May 8, 2012
Messages
9,570
Reaction score
1,493
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
I believe in the NAP. That means in theory, Palestinians can claim to be justified in attacking Israel because Israel initiated aggression against them by literally wiping their homeland off the map. Likewise, I guess in the interests of consistency, I wouldn't have an ethical obligation against native Americans fighting a war to reclaim America. I'm not sure if I'd feel the same way if that was actually a realistic possibility though. It doesn't seem like the surviving native Americans have quite the same level of determination as Hezbollah ;)
If a community fences around an area and says "this is public property" and if you try to stop people from accessing it you get in trouble, a violation of the NAP.

But if an individual fences an area in a community and says "this is MY property" and if anyone tries to access it the police will come and arrest you not a violation?

Be consistant here.
 

HumanBeing

Well-known member
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
761
Reaction score
358
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
land that isn't owned, becomes owned and stays owned through government grants and threat of state violence.
It doesn't have to be that way. It can become owned through logic, reason, and civil discussion. Just because our ancestors were apes, doesn't mean we have to continue living like them :)
 

HumanBeing

Well-known member
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
761
Reaction score
358
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
If a community fences around an area and says "this is public property" and if you try to stop people from accessing it you get in trouble, a violation of the NAP.

But if an individual fences an area in a community and says "this is MY property" and if anyone tries to access it the police will come and arrest you not a violation?

Be consistant here.
You're assuming that private property is a violation of the NAP. There is some debate about that, but generally people who support the NAP are "private property anarchists" of various strains.
 

RGacky3

DP Veteran
Joined
May 8, 2012
Messages
9,570
Reaction score
1,493
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
It doesn't have to be that way. It can become owned through logic, reason, and civil discussion. Just because our ancestors were apes, doesn't mean we have to continue living like them :)
Except its NEVER EVER EVER been done that way, but if you're saying mutualism, i.e. the community gets to decide (democratically) what is treated and private or public property, I absolutely agree.

You're assuming that private property is a violation of the NAP. There is some debate about that, but generally people who support the NAP are "private property anarchists" of various strains.
There arn't that many private property anarchists, and I'd say the ones that exist are confused, and I'm not assuming private property is a violation, I gave an argument for it, at least if you claim that public property is a violation, it's impossible to argue that private property is not.
 

HumanBeing

Well-known member
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
761
Reaction score
358
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Except its NEVER EVER EVER been done that way
Sure it has. Going to war is often mutually disastrous and working out diplomatic solutions can be a much better idea for all involved. I believe in Voluntaryism, which doesn't exclude the idea of some forms of mutualism, but doesn't exactly embrace it either. A community consists of individuals.
 

RGacky3

DP Veteran
Joined
May 8, 2012
Messages
9,570
Reaction score
1,493
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
government == the state
No ... It doesn't, you can have all sorts of governance styles, you can have neighborhood councils, which are technically a form of government, but not at all a state.
 

RGacky3

DP Veteran
Joined
May 8, 2012
Messages
9,570
Reaction score
1,493
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
Sure it has. Going to war is often mutually disastrous and working out diplomatic solutions can be a much better idea for all involved. I believe in Voluntaryism, which doesn't exclude the idea of some forms of mutualism, but doesn't exactly embrace it either. A community consists of individuals.
No it hasn't, property has NEVER been created, land has NEVER been turned into property through discourse, it's always been through violence and the threat of violence.

If you're a mutualist, then fine, but mutualist's doesn't not believe in the fundemental right of property.

laying claim to a swath of land and saying you and you alone are allowed to have access to it, is just like claiming to be the king of france, it's useless and arbitrary without the threat of violence.
 

ARealConservative

cookies crumble
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2006
Messages
14,518
Reaction score
3,438
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
No ... It doesn't, you can have all sorts of governance styles, you can have neighborhood councils, which are technically a form of government, but not at all a state.
If it a sovereign political power, it is a state in the context of this discussion.

The community and the city meets the definition of state
 

Un biased

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2013
Messages
1,642
Reaction score
522
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
libertarians always talk about economic issues, like socialism vrs Capitalism, as if it's an issue of freedom, I never Got that, I have a ton more freedom living in a country with public heathcare than I do where I'm beholdant to private for profit healthcare companies, or where I have a say through my union or through co-determination in my workplace rather than having none.

But libertarians, are the fact that public parks exist and are not privitized somehow taking away from your "freedom?" Why or why not?
The state does not own it the public does but when it tries to control it theirs a issue it is a neutral area .
 

MoSurveyor

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
10,016
Reaction score
3,900
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
No. My claim to ownership of my house comes from a voluntary transaction I made with it's previous owner, no use of force was involved, same goes for most of my neighbors (though not all as I live in Cambodia, so after the Khmer Rouge fled to the jungles and people returned to Phnom Penh, there were some arguments about who had owned what beforehand). I'm willing to bet all of your neighbours entered into a voluntary transaction as the basis for their claim to ownership of their land too. I think what you're talking about is enforcement of ownership. Yes, that all comes from the state, but only because the state claims a monopoly over enforcement of ownership. If they would let me hire my own police to enforce my claim of ownership (if disputed, which is relatively rare in most modern nations), I'd be happy to do so.
Plenty of private security forces in America. :)
 
Top Bottom