Libertarians: Are public parks hurting your freedom?

RGacky3 said:

libertarians always talk about economic issues, like socialism vrs Capitalism, as if it's an issue of freedom, I never Got that, I have a ton more freedom living in a country with public heathcare than I do where I'm beholdant to private for profit healthcare companies, or where I have a say through my union or through co-determination in my workplace rather than having none.

But libertarians, are the fact that public parks exist and are not privitized somehow taking away from your "freedom?" Why or why not?

Click to expand...

reaL libertarians shouldnt reject the privitization of the cemeteries

because this ideology is just a lovely version of wild capitalism:mrgreen:

RGacky3 said:

going up to kiss a girl and her not allowing it, yet you doing it anyway is assualt .... no property rights invovled, no "ownership" concepts, it's straight up assault.

Whipping someone is also assault, there is no ownership issue or property issues at stake ... because you're harming a person.

The reason I'm being a stickler for this is that for many libertarians they take "self ownership" as the starting poing to argue for property laws, but it's a non starter, since self-ownership is a incoherant concept.

Click to expand...

Okay, so instead of saying that a person has the right to control his own body, we can say a person has the right to not be assaulted. I think it's less accurate, but I'm fine with that. This would mean that I have to amend my original statement to something like:

I don't dislike property rights. I hold that every person has the right to employ his private property in any way he sees fit so long as in so doing he does not uninvitedly change the physical integrity of another person's body or property. I further hold that all interpersonal exchanges and all exchanges of property titles between private owners are to be voluntary (contractual).

Federalist said:

Okay, so instead of saying that a person has the right to control his own body, we can say a person has the right to not be assaulted. I think it's less accurate, but I'm fine with that. This would mean that I have to amend my original statement to something like:

I don't dislike property rights. I hold that every person has the right to employ his private property in any way he sees fit so long as in so doing he does not uninvitedly change the physical integrity of another person's body or property. I further hold that all interpersonal exchanges and all exchanges of property titles between private owners are to be voluntary (contractual).

Click to expand...

right, but in that statement, property is assumed ... so it's like defending monarchy by saying "the monarch has the right to make rules over his kingdom." That isn't an arugment for something, it assumes what your trying to argue, it's begging the question.

RGacky3 said:

right, but in that statement, property is assumed ... so it's like defending monarchy by saying "the monarch has the right to make rules over his kingdom." That isn't an arugment for something, it assumes what your trying to argue, it's begging the question.

Click to expand...

The concept of ownership is nothing more than the societal rules regarding who has the right to control the use of any rivalrous good. You and I both assume that there will be rules governing who may use what goods. Thus, we both presuppose the concept of ownership. We simply argue for different rules regarding ownership. I want all transfers of ownership to be voluntary and consensual. You want the government to be able to take ownership of what it wants.

Federalist said:

The concept of ownership is nothing more than the societal rules regarding who has the right to control the use of any rivalrous good. You and I both assume that there will be rules governing who may use what goods. Thus, we both presuppose the concept of ownership. We simply argue for different rules regarding ownership. I want all transfers of ownership to be voluntary and consensual. You want the government to be able to take ownership of what it wants.

Click to expand...

That's nonsense, The difference is what can be taken as private ownership, and what belongs to the commons .... I don't want the government to take ownership of whatever it wants, I want certain things to be in the commons, and others private, what you're arguing for is that anything can be taken as private ownership.

the thing we are debateing over is what those rules are .... what are the societal rules regarding who has the right to control what, not what happens after that's decided.

RGacky3 said:

That's nonsense, The difference is what can be taken as private ownership, and what belongs to the commons .... I don't want the government to take ownership of whatever it wants, I want certain things to be in the commons, and others private, what you're arguing for is that anything can be taken as private ownership.

Click to expand...

I don't want anything to be taken. I think the rule should be that everything should stay with its current owner unless or until that owner voluntarily transfers ownership to someone else.

the thing we are debateing over is what those rules are .... what are the societal rules regarding who has the right to control what, not what happens after that's decided.

Click to expand...

Yes, and I suggest that the rule should be that the current owner of a thing ought to remain the owner unless or until he voluntarily transfers ownership to someone else. If you agree with this, then we have no area of disagreement at all. But I thought that you were in favor of the the government taking goods through force. Perhaps I was mistaken.

Federalist said:

I don't want anything to be taken. I think the rule should be that everything should stay with its current owner unless or until that owner voluntarily transfers ownership to someone else.

Click to expand...

Property begins with stuff being taken from the commons .... and continues due to the state institution of property.

Yes, and I suggest that the rule should be that the current owner of a thing ought to remain the owner unless or until he voluntarily transfers ownership to someone else. If you agree with this, then we have no area of disagreement at all. But I thought that you were in favor of the the government taking goods through force. Perhaps I was mistaken.

Click to expand...

I'm talking about the fundemental philosophy of property, i.e. what makes property property, what makes ownership valid ... if you're just saying "that's the way it is now, so lets deal with it," that's a different issue.

RGacky3 said:

Property begins with stuff being taken from the commons .... and continues due to the state institution of property.

I'm talking about the fundemental philosophy of property, i.e. what makes property property, what makes ownership valid ... if you're just saying "that's the way it is now, so lets deal with it," that's a different issue.

Click to expand...

The fundamental concept of ownership is for society to set rules saying who has the right to use any particular rivalrous good. You want a set of rules, as do I. We both want property. We just have different ideas about what the rules should be.

I prefer a set of rules that says 1) all currently owned goods continue to be owned by their current owners unless or until they voluntarily transfer ownership to someone else, and 2) any good that is currently unused by anyone can become owned by the first person to begin making use of that particular good. (I am unaware of any unclaimed goods, so this rule is less relevant right now.)

It appears that you want the government to be able to take people's property without their consent (as in eminent domain or collecting taxes to buy and maintan a park). That is the objection I have to your proposed rules, it allows the government to take goods that other people's own.

Federalist said:

The fundamental concept of ownership is for society to set rules saying who has the right to use any particular rivalrous good. You want a set of rules, as do I. We both want property. We just have different ideas about what the rules should be.

I prefer a set of rules that says 1) all currently owned goods continue to be owned by their current owners unless or until they voluntarily transfer ownership to someone else, and 2) any good that is currently unused by anyone can become owned by the first person to begin making use of that particular good. (I am unaware of any unclaimed goods, so this rule is less relevant right now.)

It appears that you want the government to be able to take people's property without their consent (as in eminent domain or collecting taxes to buy and maintan a park). That is the objection I have to your proposed rules, it allows the government to take goods that other people's own.

Click to expand...

No here's the difference, I don't think you need rules for everything, for many things they can be part of the commons, or be much more loose.

"all current" isn't a rule, it isn't a philosophical position, it's assuming that the ownership is valid in the first place which is the whole question we're discussing.

The set of rules you're talking about requires the state to enforce. Do you see my problem with your rule? It's mainly with the "all current owned goods" part, it's assuming what we're trying to argue ... I'ts like someone arguing the rights of the state by simply quoting the constitution ...

RGacky3 said:

No here's the difference, I don't think you need rules for everything, for many things they can be part of the commons, or be much more loose.

"all current" isn't a rule, it isn't a philosophical position, it's assuming that the ownership is valid in the first place which is the whole question we're discussing.

Click to expand...

I think we have to assume that every rivalrous good has some owner, some entity with exclusive control over that good. The owner could be an individual, a private group, or the government. I think we're both assuming ownership. For example, the commons you describe would be owned by the community rather than by any individual.

If you are thinking of any rivalrous good that ISN'T owned by either an individual(s) or the government, please let me know what it is.

The set of rules you're talking about requires the state to enforce.

Click to expand...

I agree that the rules of property, like all societal rules, need to be enforced. Just as your rules regarding the commons need to be enforced.

Do you see my problem with your rule? It's mainly with the "all current owned goods" part, it's assuming what we're trying to argue ... I'ts like someone arguing the rights of the state by simply quoting the constitution ...

Click to expand...

I don't see the problem, actually, or why you think I'm assuming what we're trying to argue. Every rivalrous good in the US is currently owned by either some individuals or by the government right now. I am not assuming this. This is a fact. (Unless you can point me to some unowned land somewhere in the US...)

I am simply suggesting that, from this point forward, we adopt the rule that all title transfers should be voluntary and contractual. If you don't like this rule, feel free to offer an alternative proposal.

Federalist said:

I think we have to assume that every rivalrous good has some owner, some entity with exclusive control over that good. The owner could be an individual, a private group, or the government. I think we're both assuming ownership. For example, the commons you describe would be owned by the community rather than by any individual.

If you are thinking of any rivalrous good that ISN'T owned by either an individual(s) or the government, please let me know what it is.

Click to expand...

Pre-Capitalist societies had land that was without exclusive control, that includes the produce of the land, common property .... and so on.

I agree that the rules of property, like all societal rules, need to be enforced. Just as your rules regarding the commons need to be enforced.

Click to expand...

You don't need rules regarding the commons other than stopping assault .... commons are the natural state of things.

If you have a park that's part of the commons, if someone ones to make it his own private property he has to stop other people from getting access to it, which would entail threats and assault.

I don't see the problem, actually, or why you think I'm assuming what we're trying to argue. Every rivalrous good in the US is currently owned by either some individuals or by the government right now. I am not assuming this. This is a fact. (Unless you can point me to some unowned land somewhere in the US...)

I am simply suggesting that, from this point forward, we adopt the rule that all title transfers should be voluntary and contractual. If you don't like this rule, feel free to offer an alternative proposal.

Click to expand...

Things owned by A government "there is no THE government, you have city, state federal and so on," are sometimes considered government property, and sometimes considered the commons, infact it's the same with some private property, corporations are private properties that are actually state entities.

Of coarse all title translfers should be voluntary and contractual. BUT, certain things belong in the commons, and those thing should not and cannot be privately owned, and if they currently are, that ownership is illigitimate (just like slavery was illigitimate).

RGacky3 said:

Pre-Capitalist societies had land that was without exclusive control, that includes the produce of the land, common property .... and so on.

You don't need rules regarding the commons other than stopping assault .... commons are the natural state of things.

If you have a park that's part of the commons, if someone ones to make it his own private property he has to stop other people from getting access to it, which would entail threats and assault.

Things owned by A government "there is no THE government, you have city, state federal and so on," are sometimes considered government property, and sometimes considered the commons, infact it's the same with some private property, corporations are private properties that are actually state entities.

Of coarse all title translfers should be voluntary and contractual.

Click to expand...

Taxation is a non-voluntary transfer of ownership from individuals to the government.

BUT, certain things belong in the commons, and those thing should not and cannot be privately owned, and if they currently are, that ownership is illigitimate (just like slavery was illigitimate).

Click to expand...

So what goods would you like to see taken from private owners and placed in the commons?

Federalist said:

Taxation is a non-voluntary transfer of ownership from individuals to the government.

Click to expand...

Property is a non-voluntary transfer of ownership from the commons to an individual, by the state, my point is, taxation exists because property is made by the state, and exists due to the legal framework from the state.

So what goods would you like to see taken from private owners and placed in the commons?

Click to expand...

health insurance for one, but you don't have to take any property for that. Banking.

Other things could be energy, or if they are private institutions they should be treated as the commons, i.e. it's a public service not a private for profit institution.

RGacky3 said:

Property is a non-voluntary transfer of ownership from the commons to an individual, by the state, my point is, taxation exists because property is made by the state, and exists due to the legal framework from the state.

health insurance for one, but you don't have to take any property for that. Banking.

Other things could be energy, or if they are private institutions they should be treated as the commons, i.e. it's a public service not a private for profit institution.

Click to expand...

How can healthcare be in the commons? Unlike land, which is a natural material, healthcare is simply an action performed by people. How can a person's actions be freely accessible to all members of society? You can't even be sure anyone will act to care for anyone's health.

Federalist said:

How can healthcare be in the commons? Unlike land, which is a natural material, healthcare is simply an action performed by people. How can a person's actions be freely accessible to all members of society? You can't even be sure anyone will act to care for anyone's health.

Click to expand...

Financing healthcare, basically, if your in healthcare, your going into a not for profit institution.

RGacky3 said:

Financing healthcare, basically, if your in healthcare, your going into a not for profit institution.

Click to expand...

And what if some particular individual opts to care for other people's health as a profit-making endeavor?

Federalist said:

And what if some particular individual opts to care for other people's health as a profit-making endeavor?

Click to expand...

By all means, you can try if you'd like ...