Libertarians Are the New Communists

[Henrin]

I don't accept the concept of self-ownership. Owning a human, including oneself, is as foolish an idea as owning the wind or DNA

So why do you get to control access to your body?

 

[sangha]

Legally you can own your DNA. Don't try owning what you flush down the toilet, that gets messy, in more ways than one.

I'm not so sure about that. I believe that you have the right to keep your DNA private.

But I could be wrong about that

 

[TiredOfLife]

Slave owners did not care much for the self-ownership concept either.

Women, children, slaves, animals. Pretty much all Property under English Common Law. It's why you couldn't rape your wife even when you did. You owned her and she had consented.

 

[sangha]

Slave owners did not care much for the self-ownership concept either.

They also, like libertarians, believed that businesses should be allowed to practice racial discrimination

 

[Federalist]

Not if the property is a public accommodation. Then, the owner is limited when it comes to decisions about how the land can be accessed

And libertarians disagree that it is ethical to initiate aggression against landowners in order to limit their decisions about who can access their land. As was stated earlier, libertarians oppose the initiation of aggression against the property of others.

 

[TiredOfLife]

I'm not so sure about that. I believe that you have the right to keep your DNA private.

But I could be wrong about that

You can try to keep it private, that's pretty hard actually. But you can Own it legally. Plan on a fight if you try however.

 

[Henrin]

They also, like libertarians, believed that businesses should be allowed to practice racial discrimination

Which if you understood human rights you would understand how stupid this post of yours is.

 

[TiredOfLife]

So why do you get to control access to your body?

Get arrested and let us know how that works out for you.

 

[sangha]

And libertarians disagree that it is ethical to initiate aggression against landowners in order to limit their decisions about who can access their land. As was stated earlier, libertarians oppose the initiation of aggression against the property of others.

And libertarians are free to have their own opinions about the matter.

But they aren't free to have their own facts.

Refusing to serve someone solely because they are black is an initiation of aggression

 

[Federalist]

And libertarians are free to have their own opinions about the matter.

But they aren't free to have their own facts.

Refusing to serve someone solely because they are black is an initiation of aggression

Not really. It is not an attack on their person or property. Ignoring someone does not constitute aggression against them.

 

[Harshaw]

Most libertarians oppose virtually all environmental regulations. My argument is that you do not have a right to dump toxins in the air, in the ground or river because that air, ground water and river water is shared by others. By poisoning shared resources you have taken away other property owner's right to access those resources.

Apparently my original post blew right over your head, then, because I referred to trespass to land, trespass to chattels, negligent torts, and strict liability, all of which serve penalize "pollution" and punish, if necessary, deleterious effects.

 

[sangha]

Not really. It is not an attack on their person or property. Ignoring someone does not constitute aggression against them.

It is an act of aggression. Being a libertarian does not mean you get to make up your own definitions of words.

 

[Federalist]

It is an act of aggression. Being a libertarian does not mean you get to make up your own definitions of words.

So you seriously regard ignoring someone an act of aggression? Being a statist doesn't mean you get to make up your own definitions of words.

 

[Hard Truth]

Morality:

"Once one accepts the principle of self-ownership, what's moral and immoral becomes self-evident. Murder is immoral because it violates private property. Rape and theft are also immoral -- they also violate private property. Here's an important question: Would rape become morally acceptable if Congress passed a law legalizing it? You say: "What's wrong with you, Williams? Rape is immoral plain and simple, no matter what Congress says or does!" If you take that position, isn't it just as immoral when Congress legalizes the taking of one person's earnings to give to another? Surely if a private person took money from one person and gave it to another, we'd deem it theft and, as such, immoral. Does the same act become moral when Congress takes people's money to give to farmers, airline companies or an impoverished family? No, it's still theft, but with an important difference: It's legal, and participants aren't jailed." Walter Williams

Taxes are the price we pay for the benefits we derive from government. When the people collectively consider it a public benefit to give money to specific others, the specific decision may or not be a good one, but the necessary overall presumption for supporting the contined existence of the government is that most such decisions are fairly reasonable. Otherwise, it is time to eliminate that government.

Their are many benefits to a stable government and many risks in eliminating or replacing it. At this time in the USA, the benefits of our government overall outweigh the cost. Libertarians are so focused on their theoreticaly ideal government that they fail to recognize the real world benefits of government which come at a fairly reasonable cost.

 

[Hard Truth]

Apparently my original post blew right over your head, then, because I referred to trespass to land, trespass to chattels, negligent torts, and strict liability, all of which serve penalize "pollution" and punish, if necessary, deleterious effects.

I don't believe that lawsuits are the only appropriate way to end or prevent acts by property owners that harm others. In fact, they are among the least effective methods in many types of situations.

 

[sangha]

So you seriously regard ignoring someone an act of aggression? Being a statist doesn't mean you get to make up your own definitions of words.

A public accommodation is required to serve the public so refusing to serve someone is an act of aggression.

 

[Federalist]

A public accommodation is required to serve the public so refusing to serve someone is an act of aggression.

So just to be clear, you are saying that ignoring someone is an act of aggression.

 

[sangha]

So just to be clear, you are saying that ignoring someone is an act of aggression.

Just be clear, "No"

 

[Federalist]

Just be clear, "No"

But earlier you said that ignoring a person's request to engage in trade constituted aggression. So which is it? If a person enters a store and the proprietor ignores his request to engage in trade, is the proprietor initiating aggression against the customer?

 

[TurtleDude]

The U.S came pretty close since the birth....

say what????

 

[sangha]

But earlier you said that ignoring a person's request to engage in trade constituted aggression. So which is it? If a person enters a store and the proprietor ignores his request to engage in trade, is the proprietor initiating aggression against the customer?

A public accommodation is not a person

How many times must this be explained to you?

 

[TurtleDude]

A public accommodation is required to serve the public so refusing to serve someone is an act of aggression.

nah that is silly. the only aggression is the government forcing a shopkeeper to serve someone

 

[TiredOfLife]

nah that is silly. the only aggression is the government forcing a shopkeeper to serve someone

Neither are aggression. They are just an attempt to get along.

 

[Harshaw]

I don't believe that lawsuits are the only appropriate way to end or prevent acts by property owners that harm others. In fact, they are among the least effective methods in many types of situations.

I'm sure you have hard data on that.

Not that it even matters, because it's your argument that libertarians would just let eeeeeevil corporations pollute, which is just flatly stupid.

 

[Henrin]

A public accommodation is not a person

How many times must this be explained to you?

How many times do we need to tell you that business is owned by a person or persons and they have the right to control access and use of their their property.