• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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?

It's pretty simple. Anything run by the government reduces freedom because the government is intent on increasing its power and control over the public. It does that by reducing choice. That has been going on since the constitution was developed. The private sector provides choice, the government has no competition. Your healthcare comments are pretty silly. Obamacare reduces your choices, forces you into taking actions and even increases the cost of healthcare for everyone as a side benefit. It's OK to support it but not OK to suggest that it increases your freedom because that is false.

So are private institutions .... also not all governments are the same, a loose neighborhood assembally, is a whole lot different than North Korea.

I'd say coca-cola vrs pepsi is a rediculous "choice," I'd much rather have actual democratic say and oversight over what is in my soda.

No one mentioned Obamacare, I'm against obamacare, I'm talking actual public healthcare.
 
So are private institutions .... also not all governments are the same, a loose neighborhood assembally, is a whole lot different than North Korea.

I'd say coca-cola vrs pepsi is a rediculous "choice," I'd much rather have actual democratic say and oversight over what is in my soda.

No one mentioned Obamacare, I'm against obamacare, I'm talking actual public healthcare.

Private enterprise is constrained by customer desires and competition. Government answers to no one.
 
I disagree that property exists only in so far as a state exists. People can agree upon a system of resource ownership without allowing any particular group of individuals to initiate violence against others. In other words, it is possible for people to establish a system of law that precludes a "state".

If people are estabilishing a system of law that is binding to people that don't agree with it, that IS a state ...

Also property has NEVER been estabilished without a state ...

Yes of course we ARE our own body. However, when I say that a person owns his physical body, I only mean to say that each person is the one who may control his own physical body. Nobody else may do so.

That's a given ... only your brain can control your body ...

A state (people who may initiate violence) is not necessary. Only a system of establishing ownership over unclaimed resources and a system for recording ownership claims. Deeds can be recorded without the need for a state (people who may initiate violence).

No you need the state ... if I come across a land and write myself a paper saying that it's mine, that is about as usefull as me crowning myself the king of france ... it's as good as whoever believes me ... for me to have ACTUAL ownership, you need a state to enforce it and say "this area belongs to such and such, and my army will enforce it."

I don't agree it's ad hoc. I think it's a reasonable way to establish ownership of heretofore unclaimed resources.

It's Ad Hoc, because it's based on nothing, it doesn't establish ownership all it does is create a theoretical framework, for which future law COULD be based on ... it's not an actual working principle, it's hypothetical.

Okay. But it is still unacceptable for other people to exercise control over one's body. If you don't want to call that ownership, fine, call it whatever you want. But ownership denotes the right of exclusive use, so I find it reasonable to say that each of us owns (has the right of exclusive use) of our physical body. But again, if you can come up with a better way to express that idea, please let me know.

You cannot sell your own body, no one else can REALLY own your body, since it's controlled by your mind ... it's not ownership, it's agency, you ARE your body.

Then people would regard them as having committed a crime or tort and the victim would be legally justified to pursue legal action.

How? Crime according to who?

Of course, I don't have the right to other people property. However, I can buy widgets, bolts, and dongles from other people, if that is agreeable to them. Then the title to those items would transfer to me and I would become the legal owner.

I have the widgets, dongles, and bolts because someone else gave them to me (transferred the title to me). The fact that someone then bolts the widget to the dongle does not mean that they are still not my property. I still am unclear exactly what items are being confiscated.

So your ONLY imput was the fact that you own capital ... and because of that you get 100% of the output of labor ... thats my point.

But if you think a community can come together and say "this plot of land belongs to bob" could'nt they come together and say "this plot of land is the commons" and wouldn't the latter create MORE freedom for everyone?
 
Private enterprise is constrained by customer desires and competition. Government answers to no one.

government answers to the people, i.e. democracy ...

Private enterprise isn't constrained by consumers ... and more than since most people have no choice but to gain their living from private enterprise and only get the means of survival from private enterprise, since they own the land and capital.

I have more say over my healthcare in a public system than I do in a private, in the private sytem I am beholdand to the private insurance company that can deny my at anytime.
 
government answers to the people, i.e. democracy ...

I disagree. Government gets put into power by the people. It certainly doesn't answer to them. I think that's a fairy tale.

Private enterprise isn't constrained by consumers ... and more than since most people have no choice but to gain their living from private enterprise and only get the means of survival from private enterprise, since they own the land and capital.

If private enterprise doesn't deliver what its customers want, what happens? Think it through. All wealth derives from business profits, yours, mine, the government's - all of it.

I have more say over my healthcare in a public system than I do in a private, in the private sytem I am beholdand to the private insurance company that can deny my at anytime.

How do you have more say? I'm on public healthcare - medicare. I've been denied services by the government. I was denied a PET scan after cancer surgery to determine if I was clear of cancer. I paid for it myself. I was never denied services by an insurance company.
 
I disagree. Government gets put into power by the people. It certainly doesn't answer to them. I think that's a fairy tale.

Not all governments are made equaly .... in a democratic system (not like what exists in the US), it DOES answer to the people.

If private enterprise doesn't deliver what its customers want, what happens? Think it through. All wealth derives from business profits, yours, mine, the government's - all of it.

What the customer wan'ts .. its not that simple ... when customers have limited funds they can't demand that much, they have eto take what they can afford, the rich can.

Also ALL wealth doesn't come from buisiness profits, you have public industry, and public inventions and infastructure that make it possible for private buisiness to exist.

How do you have more say? I'm on public healthcare - medicare. I've been denied services by the government. I was denied a PET scan after cancer surgery to determine if I was clear of cancer. I paid for it myself. I was never denied services by an insurance company.

We can compare medicare to private systems, nad which one works better ....

clue, medicare works better, and people are more satisfied with medicare, even though the cost is artificially high since it's only old people on it, it's STILL better, more efficient, and better service overall.

But hey, stop being on medicare, you're hurting your freedom, go into the marketplace and find a private insurer.
 
If people are estabilishing a system of law that is binding to people that don't agree with it, that IS a state ...

I disagree. A state is an organization that maintains a monopoly on force within a given territory over which it claims ultimate legal jurisdiction. People can agree upon a system of resource ownership without such an organization.
 
I disagree. A state is an organization that maintains a monopoly on force within a given territory over which it claims ultimate legal jurisdiction. People can agree upon a system of resource ownership without such an organization.

How the hell is what you described NOT private property?
 
So your ONLY imput was the fact that you own capital ... and because of that you get 100% of the output of labor ... thats my point.

I'm not following you here. You have a bunch of widgets, bolts, and dongles. They belong to you. You pay me to bolt the widgets to the dongles. After I've bolted all the widgets to the dongles, they still belong to you. I don't see what is being confiscated. You owned the parts beforehand, so why would you not own the parts afterwards?
 
How the hell is what you described NOT private property?

Because private property is not an organization? Not sure what you're getting at here, frankly.
 
Because private property is not an organization? Not sure what you're getting at here, frankly.

Yes it is ... a company, an estate ... is an organization, what you described as a "state" is EXACTLY, what you would support in the guise of private landed property.
 
I'm not following you here. You have a bunch of widgets, bolts, and dongles. They belong to you. You pay me to bolt the widgets to the dongles. After I've bolted all the widgets to the dongles, they still belong to you. I don't see what is being confiscated. You owned the parts beforehand, so why would you not own the parts afterwards?

I'm not going to get into it here, you're assuming the primacy of ownership as opposed to labor, and where ownership comes from, but that can be for a different thread, I want to focus on private vrs public property or the commons and it's relation to the notion of "freedom."
 
Yes it is ... a company, an estate ... is an organization, what you described as a "state" is EXACTLY, what you would support in the guise of private landed property.

But a state claims ultimate legal jurisdiction. A person owning a plot of land does not do so.
 
But a state claims ultimate legal jurisdiction. A person owning a plot of land does not do so.

Oh absolutely a person owning a plot of land does as well, does the person owning the plot of land not have the right to dictate what does and what does not happen on his land?
 
Oh absolutely a person owning a plot of land does as well, does the person owning the plot of land not have the right to dictate what does and what does not happen on his land?

No. Not really. As one example, he may not imprison or torture people just because they are on his land. All he may do is allow or deny access to his property. That doesn't make him the ultimate legal authority.
 
No. Not really. As one example, he may not imprison or torture people just because they are on his land. All he may do is allow or deny access to his property. That doesn't make him the ultimate legal authority.

What makes him not able to imprison a person on his land?
 
What makes him not able to imprison a person on his land?

I suppose he COULD do so, but I don't think people would accept it as legitimate.
 
I suppose he COULD do so, but I don't think people would accept it as legitimate.

so is public perception of legitimacy the difference?

I mean private prisons DO exist, debtor prisons and so on, infact that's what feudalism basically was.
 
so is public perception of legitimacy the difference?

Yeah, the big difference is that the state claims ultimate legal jurisdiction, while a person that owns a piece of property does not.
 
Yeah, the big difference is that the state claims ultimate legal jurisdiction, while a person that owns a piece of property does not.

The reason that person doesn't is because the law doesn't allow him to ... before that law property onwers most certainly did, hell thats essencially what monarchies are.
 
The reason that person doesn't is because the law doesn't allow him to ... before that law property onwers most certainly did, hell thats essencially what monarchies are.

Yes, I agree. The law doesn't allow it. That's what makes a guy owning a house different from a state.
 
Yes, I agree. The law doesn't allow it. That's what makes a guy owning a house different from a state.

The law .... put in place by the state ... there is nothing intrinsic in property that doesn't allow it however.
 
The law .... put in place by the state ... there is nothing intrinsic in property that doesn't allow it however.

The law put in place by the people yes. People don't allow it.
 
The law put in place by the people yes. People don't allow it.

Ok ... so we're getting down to the bottom, we have a democratic government, and that democratic government decides this plot of land is the commons ... doesn't that INCREASE your freedom, than if that plot of land is given in a grant to bob?
 
Ok ... so we're getting down to the bottom, we have a democratic government, and that democratic government decides this plot of land is the commons ... doesn't that INCREASE your freedom, than if that plot of land is given in a grant to bob?

It strikes me as very anti-freedom that there is a group of people arbitrarily taking land and giving it to people. If someone wants a piece of land, they should buy a piece of land from its current owner.
 
Back
Top Bottom