Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Risk - If You Could Know the Outcome
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3  Send TopicPrint
Hot Topic (More than 10 Replies) Risk - If You Could Know the Outcome (Read 492 times)
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 9822
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Risk - If You Could Know the Outcome
May 6th, 2019 at 11:51am
Print Post  
I get that the libertarian stance on unnecessary risk is that I can't have a tiger because it risks you.

Jeff wrote on Apr 27th, 2019 at 7:14am:
I've changed my mind, you should never be permitted to have a tiger!


RubyHypatia wrote on Jun 25th, 2018 at 5:41pm:
Opp, yes it does matter what a gun or a dog or a tiger is good for.  There's a reason tigers are outlawed as pets, while dogs are not.  And there's a reason we're allowed to own guns.  The benefit of owning a tiger isn't worth the risk.  There is no benefit to owning a tiger like there is to owning a dog or gun.


SkyChief wrote on Dec 1st, 2017 at 1:26pm:
The reason(s) for owning a gun is quite different than the reason to own a tiger or a chicken.


SkyChief wrote on Dec 1st, 2017 at 1:26pm:
If government were to ban guns, it would take away our means of self-defense, and that would be immoral.   If government were to ban (ownership of) tigers, no rights were violated - it is not immoral.


But let's say I was keeping a tiger in secret and it died of old age after a long, full life.

Could I then still be punished for having risked others, even if those risks never eventuated?

If you find I have a tiger and it's still alive, the libertarian solution is to remove the tiger (or force me to do so) which removes the risk I impose on you. It's self-defence because risking you is aggression.

It's certainly as much self-defence to remove the tiger as shooting someone pointing a gun at your head. You don't know whether he's going to shoot you but he very well might - in other words, it's a risk - and you can act on that.

My question is about a scenario wherein you know the result that the risk never eventuated. Perhaps you discover that a man routinely pointed a loaded gun at your head when your back was turned, but that he's since gotten rid of the gun. Can you act in any way against him? Would that still fall under self-defence?

I'm asking the mod if this can be a moderated thread. Serious responses only please.
  

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
 
EWS
Libertarians Full Member
***
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 103
Location: Idaho
Joined: May 6th, 2019
Re: Risk - If You Could Know the Outcome
Reply #1 - May 6th, 2019 at 7:05pm
Print Post  
This is an interesting question. I have always found all Libertarians (myself included) to be somewhat hypocritical on things like this. 

On the one hand, maximum liberty. Do what you want and be happy as long as no one else is hurt.  On the other, even if you knew no one would get hurt, is it REASONABLE to take the risk?

I generally try to think of things in this manner. Every time I come across a situation that could have negative outcome, I ask myself what a reasonable person would do.  But even that can be misleading. Because reasonable people  in extreme situations can make very poor decisions. I mean how else would Hitler have gained such power if not for such things?

To answer your question, I would say this (I think I first heard it in some Wicca book somewhere): Do what you will, so it harm none.

Basically as long as you know no one will ever get hurt, then go ahead. Just be prepared to face any consequences if something does go wrong.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 43082
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Risk - If You Could Know the Outcome
Reply #2 - May 7th, 2019 at 8:25am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on May 6th, 2019 at 11:51am:
I get that the libertarian stance on unnecessary risk is that I can't have a tiger because it risks you.
It's not really a libertarian stance, not "pure" libertarian anyway.

I just said I don't think you should be allowed to have a tiger because you indicated that you would not accept responsibility if the tiger got loose and mauled or killed someone, you know, that it would be "aggression" to punish you by killing your tiger after it got loose and ate a few children in the neighborhood.

Here's a link to a good essay on freedom v. liberty. It's probably too subtle for you to understand, but it's a good place to buy ammo if you need some...

https://ammo.com/articles/freedom-liberty-difference-understanding-negative-vs-p...


  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 43082
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Risk - If You Could Know the Outcome
Reply #3 - May 7th, 2019 at 8:29am
Print Post  
EWS wrote on May 6th, 2019 at 7:05pm:
This is an interesting question. I have always found all Libertarians (myself included) to be somewhat hypocritical on things like this. 

On the one hand, maximum liberty. Do what you want and be happy as long as no one else is hurt.  On the other, even if you knew no one would get hurt, is it REASONABLE to take the risk?

I generally try to think of things in this manner. Every time I come across a situation that could have negative outcome, I ask myself what a reasonable person would do.  But even that can be misleading. Because reasonable people  in extreme situations can make very poor decisions. I mean how else would Hitler have gained such power if not for such things?

To answer your question, I would say this (I think I first heard it in some Wicca book somewhere): Do what you will, so it harm none.

Basically as long as you know no one will ever get hurt, then go ahead. Just be prepared to face any consequences if something does go wrong.
Good post. It's just the part about knowing no one will ever get hurt that's problematic, mainly because it's impossible to know.

As you seem to know, reason is crucial to making these kinds of decisions.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 9822
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: Risk - If You Could Know the Outcome
Reply #4 - May 7th, 2019 at 9:51am
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on May 7th, 2019 at 8:25am:
you indicated that you would not accept responsibility if the tiger got loose and mauled or killed someone,


I would accept responsibility. I never said otherwise. Does it make a difference?

Anyway that wasn't my question. No libertarian believes I should be able to have a tiger. That was established by the quotes I provided.

My question is about the case where the risk was taken and never eventuated.
  

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: 43082
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Risk - If You Could Know the Outcome
Reply #5 - May 7th, 2019 at 3:03pm
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on May 7th, 2019 at 9:51am:
Anyway that wasn't my question. No libertarian believes I should be able to have a tiger. That was established by the quotes I provided.

"No libertarian"? You're such a card! Grin
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 43082
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Risk - If You Could Know the Outcome
Reply #6 - May 7th, 2019 at 3:05pm
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on May 7th, 2019 at 9:51am:
My question is about the case where the risk was taken and never eventuated.
So if you drive at 120mph through a residential neighborhood, and you don't run into any pedestrians or children at play, there is no harm done so you shouldn't be punished?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Mariner Bob
Junior Member
**
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 27
Location: South Carolina
Joined: Jan 27th, 2017
Re: Risk - If You Could Know the Outcome
Reply #7 - May 7th, 2019 at 3:44pm
Print Post  
"No libertarian believes I should be able to have a tiger."

I do. I always believe in special occasions. For example, you live on an island 25 miles off shore and you own it.  Since tigers are cats and cats don't like water, and you have basically a 25 mile wide moat around your place, what business would it be to anyone, libertarian or not?  Just remember to put up signs, tiger sanctuary, visitors will be eaten.   Smiley
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 43082
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Risk - If You Could Know the Outcome
Reply #8 - May 7th, 2019 at 4:16pm
Print Post  
Mariner Bob wrote on May 7th, 2019 at 3:44pm:
"No libertarian believes I should be able to have a tiger."

I do. I always believe in special occasions. For example, you live on an island 25 miles off shore and you own it.  Since tigers are cats and cats don't like water, and you have basically a 25 mile wide moat around your place, what business would it be to anyone, libertarian or not?  Just remember to put up signs, tiger sanctuary, visitors will be eaten.   Smiley
It could have a chicken there too!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 9822
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: Risk - If You Could Know the Outcome
Reply #9 - May 8th, 2019 at 8:58pm
Print Post  
Mariner Bob wrote on May 7th, 2019 at 3:44pm:
"No libertarian believes I should be able to have a tiger."

I do. I always believe in special occasions. For example, you live on an island 25 miles off shore and you own it.  Since tigers are cats and cats don't like water, and you have basically a 25 mile wide moat around your place, what business would it be to anyone, libertarian or not?  Just remember to put up signs, tiger sanctuary, visitors will be eaten.   Smiley


Actually tigers do like water.

But anyway, your contention is that if the tiger provably can't hurt anyone else, I'm allowed to have it, correct?
  

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
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Risk - If You Could Know the Outcome
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy