Journal spun's Journal: Libertianism Failure Diagram 11
Consider the simplified case of three property owners, A, B, and C. Here's what their property looks like:
AAA
ABC
CCC
Now, A and C make an agreement not to buy any of Bs goods or sell anything to B. B doesn't own enough land to support him and all his family living there. He doesn't have enough land for an airport, or a helicopter. A and C won't let him on their property, and they won't let anyone else deliver anything to him over their property either. B and his family starve to death, then A and C split his land between themselves.
Please, explain how this scenario or more complex variants of it would not be commonplace in a true libertarian system. "Force" is more complex than libertarian philosophy likes to admit.
From this post, just wanted to save it because I think it distills much of the objection I have towards libertarianism into a succinct argument, and if anyone can refute the premise, it would go a long way towards convincing me that libertarianism isn't morally bankrupt.
Also this, from the same thread:
The real ideological difference lies in what qualifies as "hitting first," and also what qualifies as "freedom." For instance, should people be free to own more real estate than they themselves can work, and charge rent for said real estate? If people have that freedom, is it "hitting first" for them to withhold food from workers who have no other means of support than working for them at whatever wage they offer?
In a system with total individual freedom and strong property rights, what is to keep the most ruthless from leveraging the power that accumulated wealth has to influence markets, and using that power to keep other people dependent on them? Is economic coercion "hitting first?"
If people do have the right to own more land than they themselves can work, then isn't it also a freedom for a group of people to, say, call themselves "The United States of America" and make up some rules regarding what others can do with "The United States of America's" land? After all, isn't that really nothing more than land owned by a group of individuals?
There is a lot of difference in ideology even amongst people who subscribe to the ideals of freedom and not hitting first. So much so that different camps within that group all seriously question the other sides' commitment to those ideals. You know, the whole rift between individualist anarchism and social anarchism.
Oh, and happy Troll Tuesday everybody!
Silly liberal! (Score:2)
There ain't no such thing as property (Score:1)
I watched Lost for a while, and one of the themes of lost is use of resources because we are here. i.e. the Survivors of Oceanic 815 ended up on a tropical island, someone _elses_ tropical island. But that did not enter their minds when they are trying to survi
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Libertarianism (Score:2)
The puzzle you pose makes for interesting game theory, but in real American (or even world) politics we are no where near facing such situations.
Instead of the scenario you pose, more realistically, a and b are on the
Re: (Score:2)
Missed the part... (Score:2)
One of the problems that always strikes me with the pure libertarian ideal is that no provision is made for those who aren't able to compete for whatever reason, and at the same time, it's assumed that their inability to gain an economic advantage is prima facie evidence that they're unfit, and will starve rather than give a more typical aggressive response.
People tend not to passively st
Re: (Score:2)
Violence is the natural human response to having too many humans and not enough positions in society for all of them. It's a fairly efficient way of keeping overpopulation in check. So if we want to reduce violence we need to ensure there is a place in society for all humans.
Sitting
Re: (Score:1)