How do you respond to this anti- libertarian logic?

[rational thinker]

The problem lies in this: when given free reign, people will do what is most appropriate for themselves, ignoring the needs of the whole. The most obvious thing, when given a shared pasture, is to put as many of your cows on it as you can, and everyone else will be doing the same thing, and now it is stripped and bare, and useless to everyone. This is why I feel that we should be bound to do the more important thing for everyone... not on all subjects, mind you, but on at least some. Public smoking bans, greenhouse gas emission reductions, etc. And if it needs to be written into law in order for people to go along with it, so be it. Same thing goes, for a certain extent, to regulations, healthcare, etc.

So basically I guess this guy is asking that being a libertarian means that you believe that people should be free as long as it does not impede on other people's abilities to be free. So, you could say that public smoking impedes on others freedoms to breathe without intoxicating themselves.

[Conza88]

So basically I guess this guy is asking that being a libertarian means that you believe that people should be free as long as it does not impede on other people's abilities to be free. So, you could say that public smoking impedes on others freedoms to breathe without intoxicating themselves.

It is a non-sequitur. Tradgedy of the commons is what he is referring to - SIMPLE: get rid of the commons.

Privatize the public land. Homesteading principles >.<

It's like if you share a milk shake - you drink it faster than if you FULLY owned it.

He goes OK, but instead of logically concluding - opposite of public = private.

He goes, let's keep it PUBLIC - just coercively force people to comply, micromanage - social engineer.

"not on all subjects, mind you"

He has no regard for PRINCIPLES then... :rolleyes:

"And if it needs to be written into law in order for people to go along with it, so be it."

And if they don't?! :rolleyes:

Which is not JUST, is NOT law...

*shrugs* Depends who the person is, as to how much time I would bother with them.

[Truth Warrior]

One of the inescapable prices of going out in public is just putting up with the annoying habits and behaviors of others and the world.<IMHO>

[Number19]

My discussion is always (unless I'm being pragmatic) centered on the MORALITY of using force to compel and control. I point out that if the use of force is morally acceptable ( and I'm speaking of the "initiation" of force ) by some - usually defined as the government - to advance the "public good", then Pandora's Box has been opened. I also occasionally use the Star Wars analogy : the use of Force is part of the "Dark Side".

I make the case that this is the defining difference between "libertarians" and most others : we believe that the initiation of force is morally wrong under all circumstances. Mankind will never end war, or have lasting peace, as long as the belief is held that the use of force to achieve political goals is morally acceptable.

It's the ages old argument of Good vs Evil; and the use of force is evil.

[emazur]

In a free society, ownership is the key. People would own their own pastures, and if they stripped it bare, under a libertarian society they couldn't go groveling to the government to bail them out. Therefore they would have strong incentive not to strip their pasture bare lest they they the cattle they own die (or they could own 2 pastures - strip one bare, move cattle to other pasture, and regrew original pasture. rinse and repeat).
The slaughter of the buffalo to near extinction during the westward expansion can't be thought of as a "free society", it should be thought of as an anarchist society and there were no laws to define property or the animals on said property.
There are plenty of examples of how when the government decides to "give" someone the rights to use a resource (such as a forest), the people who gain this temporary government entitlement strip it bare b/c they have no ownership and therefore have every incentive to strip it of all resources while they can before government takes back or transfers that temporary entitlement.
There are groups who have purchased land (I believe Sierra Club is one such group who does this) for the sake of preserving the resources and wildlife. When they do this, issues such as stripping resources and poaching drop dramatically. I can't think of specific instances where this has happened - someone else will have to chime in

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

His argument hinges on the notion that people are generally up to no good when left to their devices.

I wholeheartedly agree, and that's exactly why I'm an anarcholibertarian. Abolishing the state prevents bad people from gaining a soapbox of power that allows them to legally use aggression against citizens, without ever changing the general policy towards citizen vs. citizen aggression.

Remember Rome. Great things indeed can be done with state power, but eventually those seats reopen for hideous people to take them and twist their intent. Only free market prosperity lasts.

[Truth Warrior]

What percentage of the US population is or ever has been incarcerated?

[hypnagogue]

Point out to him that his example is in fact an argument against socialism. What field is that which everyone owns within a Libertarian system? It does not exist. His is an example of what goes wrong when everyone is given free reign over all resources, ie. everything is everyone's.

Demonstrate to him a Libertarian model of the same subject.

"There is a field for grazing. One man purchases one half, another purchases the other. The first man is rash and greedy and overtaxes the land. He produces many cows for a few years. He makes immediate money. The second man is wise and manages his grazing to protect his investment. He produces fewer cows over those few years. The first man's field is now barren. Neither can he raise cows nor can he sell the land for a good price. The second man's field is still green. He can live modestly for the rest of his days."

That is a more accurate scenario.

[newyearsrevolution08]

So, you could say that public smoking impedes on others freedoms to breathe without intoxicating themselves.

Impedes on their freedom to breath? Are you serious... that is this guys rebuttal....


well then we should sue the federal government who owns the land that has fires every summer because that impedes my ability to breath as well.

We here in the central valley should be able to sue the bay area and l.a. for their smog that we have to deal with over here.

I love it, they have this ONE argument. I would suggest asking him, besides SMOKING what other issues would come from allowing people to be "Free"? I doubt this guy would have ANYTHING else besides his one smoking argument.

I would however also state, that tobacco GROWN from the ground and smoked doesn't contain the MAN MADE bullshit that actually harms a person and what he odds are is complaining about.

So who should we be mad at, the person smoking the man made "enhanced" tobacco, the tobacco companies or the guy crying over smoke when he should be complaining about REAL pollution that is going on around him.

KNit Pickin Political People are fun to play with BUT you can never please them.'


Ask him if alcohol should be banned due to the many deaths it causes each day, same for cigarettes in general. I would also suggest that free living includes being able to indulge in what you want including fatty foods. Those are very harmful to us "as a whole" and that too should be made illegal.

We also shouldn't stop there either, we should have a size requirement for people to have to stick to or they will be fined, maybe have a 2 child limit per household because if we have more we would be polluting the air around us even more and that too wouldn't be great for "the rest of us".

Then ask him when he is moving to china, because he would feel more at home there. He can be told how to live, act, breath until his hearts content and then see if he wishes he had freedom to live as he pleased.

[Truth Warrior]

Where do logging companies "clear cut"? Answer, on the lands temporarily leased from the governments. :p :rolleyes:

[newyearsrevolution08]

Where do logging companies "clear cut"? Answer, on the lands temporarily leased from the governments. :p :rolleyes:

Oregon right?