Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Drunk Driving in a Libertarian World - Yea or Nay?
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8  Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Drunk Driving in a Libertarian World - Yea or Nay? (Read 2823 times)
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 40114
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Drunk Driving in a Libertarian World - Yea or Nay?
Reply #60 - Jan 1st, 2019 at 4:55pm
Print Post  
Little Big Man wrote on Jan 1st, 2019 at 4:35pm:
Good point!

Did you resurrect the mandatory insurance thread just to catch "libertarians" being inconsistent?
I oppose mandatory insurance and approve of people being arrested for erratic driving, drunk or whatever.

You think I'm being inconsistent?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 9046
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: Drunk Driving in a Libertarian World - Yea or Nay?
Reply #61 - Jan 1st, 2019 at 5:18pm
Print Post  
Little Big Man wrote on Jan 1st, 2019 at 4:35pm:
Did you resurrect the mandatory insurance thread just to catch "libertarians" being inconsistent?  If so, well done.


Thanks, but I only resurrected this one. Kaz resurrected the other.

I think I have a good point about the NAP being open to such a wide range of interpretations that it's basically useless.

Jeff changes his stance every time a new topic comes up, cites the NAP (with a new interpretation) and wins every time.

That's great for Jeff but it's not a foundation you can build a functional society on. People need to know if they're going to be punished for something before they do it.

Jeff wrote on Jan 1st, 2019 at 4:34pm:
You didn't notice me talking about erratic driving and reckless endangerment?

Get real lizard.


Here's what you said on the issue of it being endangerment: It's not possible to stop people from being negligent. Punish them when it happens.

This is what you said, and this is what I said you said.

Jeff wrote on Aug 24th, 2014 at 5:16pm:
My 'solution', from my libertarian viewpoint, is that anyone who causes harm to another person because of negligence, should be held liable.
Negligence of all sorts has been a subject of our common law for centuries. (You didn't know that?) Drunk driving is negligent behavior. It's impossible to keep people from being negligent. The best that can be done is to make the punishment fit the damages. This requires juries of peers, unless you just ran over somebodies mail box, in which case, you pay for it, and fix the damage to the lawn too, if there is any.
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kaz
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Minarchist

Posts: 6948
Location: Kazmania
Joined: Jun 6th, 2017
Re: Drunk Driving in a Libertarian World - Yea or Nay?
Reply #62 - Jan 1st, 2019 at 7:12pm
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Jan 1st, 2019 at 5:18pm:
I think I have a good point about the NAP being open to such a wide range of interpretations that it's basically useless


There is only one definition of NAP.  You cannot initiate aggression unless there is a direct threat to your person or property.

You can't have mandatory taxes, the police cannot arrest anyone, court sentences cannot be enforced, you can't put anyone in prison, the military cannot even defend the country because it's impossible to fire military weapons because of bystanders, you can't build roads, you can't restrict the airwaves, you can't have generally recognized land ownership, you can't do anything that isn't voluntary.

Explain how you can believe in NAP and not be an anarchist
  

Contest winner:  I predicted Kaz' meltdown
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kaz
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Minarchist

Posts: 6948
Location: Kazmania
Joined: Jun 6th, 2017
Re: Drunk Driving in a Libertarian World - Yea or Nay?
Reply #63 - Jan 1st, 2019 at 10:04pm
Print Post  
kaz wrote on Jan 1st, 2019 at 7:12pm:
There is only one definition of NAP.  You cannot initiate aggression unless there is a direct threat to your person or property.

You can't have mandatory taxes, the police cannot arrest anyone, court sentences cannot be enforced, you can't put anyone in prison, the military cannot even defend the country because it's impossible to fire military weapons because of bystanders, you can't build roads, you can't restrict the airwaves, you can't have generally recognized land ownership, you can't do anything that isn't voluntary.

Explain how you can believe in NAP and not be an anarchist


Opposition:  {crickets ...}
  

Contest winner:  I predicted Kaz' meltdown
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 9046
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: Drunk Driving in a Libertarian World - Yea or Nay?
Reply #64 - Jan 2nd, 2019 at 1:52am
Print Post  
kaz wrote on Jan 1st, 2019 at 7:12pm:
There is only one definition of NAP.  You cannot initiate aggression unless there is a direct threat to your person or property.

You can't have mandatory taxes, the police cannot arrest anyone, court sentences cannot be enforced, you can't put anyone in prison, the military cannot even defend the country because it's impossible to fire military weapons because of bystanders, you can't build roads, you can't restrict the airwaves, you can't have generally recognized land ownership, you can't do anything that isn't voluntary.

Explain how you can believe in NAP and not be an anarchist


I don't think you can. I think you're right.

Personally, I just think *I* should follow the NAP, which just means I can't kill, can't steal, can't vote, and I have to lie to my boss and say I just want the day off if I get jury duty.

I also think that when it comes to interpreting the NAP, in any given situation, it becomes incredibly vague.
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 40114
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Drunk Driving in a Libertarian World - Yea or Nay?
Reply #65 - Jan 2nd, 2019 at 7:34am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Jan 1st, 2019 at 5:18pm:
I think I have a good point about the NAP being open to such a wide range of interpretations that it's basically useless.

Jeff changes his stance every time a new topic comes up, cites the NAP (with a new interpretation) and wins every time.

That's great for Jeff but it's not a foundation you can build a functional society on. People need to know if they're going to be punished for something before they do it.


Here's what you said on the issue of it being endangerment: It's not possible to stop people from being negligent. Punish them when it happens.




I said people should be held liable when their negligence causes harm to others.

That is not inconsistent with the principle that it's wrong to initiate aggression.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 40114
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Drunk Driving in a Libertarian World - Yea or Nay?
Reply #66 - Jan 2nd, 2019 at 7:43am
Print Post  
kaz wrote on Jan 1st, 2019 at 7:12pm:
There is only one definition of NAP.  You cannot initiate aggression unless there is a direct threat to your person or property.

You can't have mandatory taxes, the police cannot arrest anyone, court sentences cannot be enforced, you can't put anyone in prison, the military cannot even defend the country because it's impossible to fire military weapons because of bystanders, you can't build roads, you can't restrict the airwaves, you can't have generally recognized land ownership, you can't do anything that isn't voluntary.

Explain how you can believe in NAP and not be an anarchist
Arresting people for aggression is a response to the aggression that they initiate. Think of it as self defense by proxy.

Legally collected taxes are not aggression.

Neither is defending the country against aggression begun by someone else.

Property rights, including property rights in the airwaves (which we should have) should be defended against aggression.

Recognized property rights are certainly something that property owners have a right to defend against theft or trespass, and the best known way to do it is to have a limited government funded by legal taxes that provides police and courts (and yes, the registration of deeds to real property) so that we can live in a civilized society.

The NAP simply does not require anarchy. Not only that, viewing the NAP properly argues that anarchy must be prevented in order to prevent the widespread and unpunished initiation of aggression.

BTW, Ayn Rand wrote a very good short argument for the necessity of having property rights in airwaves titled The Property Status of Airwaves published in The Objectivist Newsletter, April 1964 and re-printed in her book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kaz
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Minarchist

Posts: 6948
Location: Kazmania
Joined: Jun 6th, 2017
Re: Drunk Driving in a Libertarian World - Yea or Nay?
Reply #67 - Jan 2nd, 2019 at 8:10am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Jan 2nd, 2019 at 1:52am:
I don't think you can. I think you're right


Thank you

The Opposition wrote on Jan 2nd, 2019 at 1:52am:
Personally, I just think *I* should follow the NAP, which just means I can't kill, can't steal, can't vote, and I have to lie to my boss and say I just want the day off if I get jury duty.

I also think that when it comes to interpreting the NAP, in any given situation, it becomes incredibly vague.


NAP is not vague, people don't know what they hell they are talking about when they claim to believe in it.

Morons like Jeff think NAP means you can retaliate later or preempt aggression or confiscate property without consent (taxes) for the common good.  That isn't NAP, it's his made up definition.  Those all directly violate NAP.

This is really my point and why I bang on NAP.  Libertarians all the time like the way it sounds without grasping what it actually means.  If the world would follow NAP, I'd be in.   But the world is a dangerous place and claiming you're not going to preemptively defend yourself from aggression and courts are going to work on a voluntary basis and there are not going to be any compulsory taxes is a combination of ignorance and stupidity.

But hey, it sounds good.  Another reason I can't commit to the Libertarian Party.  Libertarians want publicity more than results
  

Contest winner:  I predicted Kaz' meltdown
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 40114
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Drunk Driving in a Libertarian World - Yea or Nay?
Reply #68 - Jan 2nd, 2019 at 8:16am
Print Post  
kaz wrote on Jan 2nd, 2019 at 8:10am:
Morons like Jeff think NAP means you can retaliate later or preempt aggression or confiscate property without consent (taxes) for the common good. 
It's what the NAP doesn't say that I'm talking about. It doesn't say self defense is forbidden or that restitution for damage you cause is forbidden or that legally authorized taxation for authorized purposes is theft.

These are things that morons read into the NAP without any justification at all.

My right to self defense precedes the formulation of the NAP, which says only that it's wrong to initiate aggression.

And yes, if you run towards me with a knife while screaming threats, I will preemptively shoot you. The NAP will not be violated by me when I do that. You violated the NAP by posing an immediate threat to my life and safety.

The common law, being a pretty good follower of the NAP and libertarian ideas in general will support my action in shooting you to save my life.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Little Big Man
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 5477
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Drunk Driving in a Libertarian World - Yea or Nay?
Reply #69 - Jan 2nd, 2019 at 9:07am
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Jan 2nd, 2019 at 7:43am:
Arresting people for aggression is a response to the aggression that they initiate. Think of it as self defense by proxy.


That's exactly right, Jeff.  I have a right to defend myself, which in turn gives me the right to authorize a police force or a private security force to defend me.  Just as you said, self defense by proxy.

Quote:
Legally collected taxes are not aggression.


So, collecting taxes is what by proxy? 

  

Snarky no more!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Drunk Driving in a Libertarian World - Yea or Nay?
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy