http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/95539/I have to say, I haven’t seen a lot of evidence of this. But hey, there’s a lot to fear from those spooky libertarians — they’re trying to take over the government . . . and then leave you alone!
And The Worst Part Is They Want To Leave You Alone
And The Worst Part Is They Want To Leave You Alone
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Well, they have a point you know. *Understand, the system we use now (which mostly works most of the time) is based on not leaving people alone. You pay taxes, you get policed, etc. Good or bad, this is what people know and expect.
Libertarians want to be left alone, but don't want to move from their homes. Non-libertarians (whatever you want to call them) don't want to be left alone, but don't want to move from their homes. These systems are mutually exclusive - they can't operate in the same area at the same time. Somebody's going to be unhappy. So it's possible, and reasonable, for non-libertarians to dislike the idea of libertarians getting into power and dismantling their government.
Though I'd also like to point out that the linked page has a note on it that it's likely the article is a piece of astroturf, and hence garbage.
*Edited for Redundant sentence that repeated itself
Libertarians want to be left alone, but don't want to move from their homes. Non-libertarians (whatever you want to call them) don't want to be left alone, but don't want to move from their homes. These systems are mutually exclusive - they can't operate in the same area at the same time. Somebody's going to be unhappy. So it's possible, and reasonable, for non-libertarians to dislike the idea of libertarians getting into power and dismantling their government.
Though I'd also like to point out that the linked page has a note on it that it's likely the article is a piece of astroturf, and hence garbage.
*Edited for Redundant sentence that repeated itself
The Tragedy of the Green.
So where do you draw the line? Can't one person's freedom infringe upon the life/liberty of another?
The rub of libertarianism is, of course the tragedy of the green.
Demanding Everyone pay health insurance is one thing; It's nobody's business.
Buying little Aaron in a 4 ton vehicle that he may become popular with the other high school kids infringes on the safety space of everyone --- That's a e problem of the common green manifested. There are a lot of such manifestations, all of course, promoted by libertarians all in the name of freedom.
The rub of libertarianism is, of course the tragedy of the green.
Demanding Everyone pay health insurance is one thing; It's nobody's business.
Buying little Aaron in a 4 ton vehicle that he may become popular with the other high school kids infringes on the safety space of everyone --- That's a e problem of the common green manifested. There are a lot of such manifestations, all of course, promoted by libertarians all in the name of freedom.
The tragedy of the green is that no one owns it. Owned property is generally treated better than government property. Some one is thinking of how to maximize return while maintaining value. With government property the interest in maintaining value is gone. The incentive there is: "I'm going to take as much as I can before the other guys ruin it all".
This has been so thoroughly discussed over the years I'm surprised you haven't heard of it.
This has been so thoroughly discussed over the years I'm surprised you haven't heard of it.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
TDPerk, it can't work that way. As an example, what happens when one of the Libertarians(L) starts violating the patents of the non-libertarian(NL)? The NL system says the person gets fined, then arrested if he doesn't stop. The L system says he can go ahead. Either the guy gets fined, and it's really NL, or he doesn't, and it's L.
Re: The Tragedy of the Green.
At the border of each state. The entire point of having a union of states is so that each one can govern itself the way the voting populace wants, while guaranteeing the basic liberties outlined as off limits in the Constitution.. So a libertarian state could emerge, and peope from other places that want to live that way could relocate there. The problem we have is when the people from other states want to enforce how they want everyone to live on those who want otherwise. Thats how we get the overreaching federal government we are left with now.Helius wrote:So where do you draw the line? .
What did I say that indicated to you I haven't heard of the tragedy of the green?MSimon wrote:The tragedy of the green is that no one owns it. Owned property is generally treated better than government property. Some one is thinking of how to maximize return while maintaining value. With government property the interest in maintaining value is gone. The incentive there is: "I'm going to take as much as I can before the other guys ruin it all".
This has been so thoroughly discussed over the years I'm surprised you haven't heard of it.
I am pointing out that the tragedy of the green principle inhabits many domains, beyond property. The property domain is the example that relates the principle, that the exercising one person's unrestricted options can infringe on another person's legitimate pursuit of safety, wealth and general happiness. The example I gave was that the domain of "safety space" on public highways is subject to the principle of "the tragedy of the common green". A person may feel safe driving a locomotive sized vehicle on public highways, but that gain in safety for him, reduces the safety for others on the same public roadway.
The principle defined by the "tragedy of the green" points to where the line should be drawn in restricting freedom. Freedom isn't open ended; You can't put a bullet in your neighbor's head because it suits you. So clearly there must be limits to freedom, so isn't the principle of "the common green" the principle that points to such restrictions on freedom?
Helius,
Nice bunch of straw men you got there. Do they vote?
As to safety - perhaps you would prefer a two highway system. One for 18 wheelers and trucks and another one for roller skates. Or maybe three or fours systems.
Or maybe you should just ride the bus. To avoid getting hit by one.
Yeah. Life is unfair. To you. And with the right kind of laws and armies of enforcers you can be made safe in the face of all eventualities.
I'd prefer more liberty and am willing to take my chances. Living in fear was NEVER my style. Envy never appealed to me either. Or whining about the unfairness of it all. But I may have been influenced by my experiences growing up. I used to deliver groceries to a woman who had to live flat on her back due to polio. She was one of the nicest most cheerful people I have ever met. I figured if she could face life cheerfully under such circumstances I had absolutely nothing to complain about.
Nice bunch of straw men you got there. Do they vote?
As to safety - perhaps you would prefer a two highway system. One for 18 wheelers and trucks and another one for roller skates. Or maybe three or fours systems.
Or maybe you should just ride the bus. To avoid getting hit by one.
Yeah. Life is unfair. To you. And with the right kind of laws and armies of enforcers you can be made safe in the face of all eventualities.
I'd prefer more liberty and am willing to take my chances. Living in fear was NEVER my style. Envy never appealed to me either. Or whining about the unfairness of it all. But I may have been influenced by my experiences growing up. I used to deliver groceries to a woman who had to live flat on her back due to polio. She was one of the nicest most cheerful people I have ever met. I figured if she could face life cheerfully under such circumstances I had absolutely nothing to complain about.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Simon, Helius makes a good point. There's a limit to freedom, or else you have pure anarchy.
Come to think of it, I know you believe in limits to freedom, because we had an argument recently about what you should do to countries that don't like you. They aren't free to come over and start blowing up your buildings, are they?
So, I know you agree about that. The difference in viewpoints must be where you place the line. Again, Helius has a good point - we don't let little timmy drive massive trucks, because he doesn't know how, and he's likely to kill people if he tries. So it's somewhere past that point.
Come on, you should know all about this, since you claim to be an engineer. Engineers optimize. Figure out where the sweet spot is, where people have liberty and the casualty rate is low. Maybe we're not in the right spot now, but we ain't that far off, either.
Helius never said he wants to be watched over and protected 24/7 - you are placing arguments in his mouth. Stop doing that. It damages your creditability a lot more than it does his.
Yup, life is unfair. To you, too. You want absolute freedom, but you can't have it.
Ok, now that's just too much. Simon, you spend half your time on this board telling us all how the military should operate, and how much better it would be if Obama hadn't been elected, and how the government should work - you don't stop complaining. Neither do I, of course, but I admit it.
Come to think of it, I know you believe in limits to freedom, because we had an argument recently about what you should do to countries that don't like you. They aren't free to come over and start blowing up your buildings, are they?
So, I know you agree about that. The difference in viewpoints must be where you place the line. Again, Helius has a good point - we don't let little timmy drive massive trucks, because he doesn't know how, and he's likely to kill people if he tries. So it's somewhere past that point.
Come on, you should know all about this, since you claim to be an engineer. Engineers optimize. Figure out where the sweet spot is, where people have liberty and the casualty rate is low. Maybe we're not in the right spot now, but we ain't that far off, either.
Helius never said he wants to be watched over and protected 24/7 - you are placing arguments in his mouth. Stop doing that. It damages your creditability a lot more than it does his.
Yup, life is unfair. To you, too. You want absolute freedom, but you can't have it.
Ok, now that's just too much. Simon, you spend half your time on this board telling us all how the military should operate, and how much better it would be if Obama hadn't been elected, and how the government should work - you don't stop complaining. Neither do I, of course, but I admit it.
You know, I've never actually heard a Libertarian demand absolute freedom, at least in the form that non-libertarians seem to fear. Most talk of limiting government intrusion and "your freedom to swing your fist stops at my nose". Most Liberarians are highly into personal responsibility, self direction, and that sort of thing. Libertarians are autarchs, not generally anarchs. They want self governance, not "NO" governance, and moreso not "others" governance. Libertarians tend to make good neigbors.JohnSmith wrote: Yup, life is unfair. To you, too. You want absolute freedom, but you can't have it.
JohnSmith,
Nice bunch of straw men you got there. Do they vote?
Nice bunch of straw men you got there. Do they vote?
That man was once elected the President of the US and fought a war with the jihadis (the term used in his day). And those jihadis didn't even attack the US. I doubt if he could get elected in the US today. Pity.1791 Dec. 23. "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." (to Archibald Stuart, B.22.436) - Thomas Jefferson
http://www.monticello.org/reports/quotes/liberty.html
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
MSimon wrote:Helius,
Nice bunch of straw men you got there. Do they vote?
As to safety - perhaps you would prefer a two highway system. One for 18 wheelers and trucks and another one for roller skates. Or maybe three or fours systems.
Isn't your above quote a classic straw man? Pretty funny.
I also get a *huge* kick out of your quote:
In that quote, Thomas Jefferson is *Clearly* addressing where the limits of freedom should be drawn. LOL.1791 Dec. 23. "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." (to Archibald Stuart, B.22.436) - Thomas Jefferson
Like anything else Simon, As John Smith points out, it's about optimization. Back to my original point: Isn't the principles surrounding the tragedy of the green a great place to start in defining the limits and the optimization of freedom? [/url]