And The Worst Part Is They Want To Leave You Alone

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

And The Worst Part Is They Want To Leave You Alone

Post by MSimon »

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!
http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/95539/
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

kurt9
Posts: 588
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:14 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon, USA

Post by kurt9 »

The source article is hilarious! Yes, a movement and political ideology that believes in leaving people alone is such the horror of horrors!

JohnSmith
Posts: 161
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 3:04 pm
Location: University

Post by JohnSmith »

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

TDPerk
Posts: 976
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:55 pm
Location: Northern Shen. Valley, VA
Contact:

Post by TDPerk »

"Non-libertarians (whatever you want to call them) don't want to be left alone, but don't want to move from their homes."

So they contract to bother each other and leave everyone else alone.
molon labe
montani semper liberi
para fides paternae patria

Helius
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 9:48 pm
Location: Syracuse, New York

The Tragedy of the Green.

Post by Helius »

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.

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

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.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

JohnSmith
Posts: 161
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 3:04 pm
Location: University

Post by JohnSmith »

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.

EricF
Posts: 204
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2008 2:52 pm
Location: Pell City, Alabama

Re: The Tragedy of the Green.

Post by EricF »

Helius wrote:So where do you draw the line? .
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
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 9:48 pm
Location: Syracuse, New York

Post by Helius »

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.
What did I say that indicated to you I haven't heard of the tragedy of the green?

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?

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

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.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

And I'm not even going to address your bullet comment. It has nothing to do with liberty.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

JohnSmith
Posts: 161
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 3:04 pm
Location: University

Post by JohnSmith »

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.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6179
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Post by KitemanSA »

JohnSmith wrote: Yup, life is unfair. To you, too. You want absolute freedom, but you can't have 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.

MSimon
Posts: 14334
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

JohnSmith,

Nice bunch of straw men you got there. Do they vote?
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
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.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Helius
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 9:48 pm
Location: Syracuse, New York

Post by Helius »

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:
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
In that quote, Thomas Jefferson is *Clearly* addressing where the limits of freedom should be drawn. LOL.

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]

Post Reply