Libertarianism

We have an inherent RIGHT to travel, the government has tricked us into accepting a "license" aka "privilege" to drive and we are entrapped via contract law by registering our vehicles with a title -- really all you need is the MSO (Manufacturer Statement of Origin) the TRUE "title" of property ownership.

For more information on these concepts, see Michael Badnarik's Constitution Course:
http://www.constitutionpreservation.org/

You could see more clearly if you took off that tinfoil hat.

Yes, you have the right to travel.

You do not, however, inherently have the right to use a motor vehicle on a government owned road.

For example, one can drive a truck on a private farm once they reach the pedals. Similarly, you can walk along a government road without a license.

It's their road, so you have to play by their rules.

---

On topic: A real calculator (that appears to match the scientific one in Leopard) is a very welcome addition.

You have a right to travel, but not necessarily the right to own a car.

I'm a longtime supporter of Libertarian thought, but Badnarik pushes it sometimes. His arguments are too flaky for my unrestrained support.

Actually, it was better stated earlier when it was said you have a right to own a car, and a right to travel.
But using roads owned by someone else, in this case the government, you need a provledge to be granted to you. (a license)

A farmer can own a car, without any registration or government intervention.\\
You have a right to own a car.
An unregistered, unlicensed car. (In most or all states of the US)
You can own it, and your 10 year old kid can drive all over the farm, sometimes hundreds of miles a week. (pickup trucks and cars, not just tractors)

But to go out on the road between your fields, or the main road to town, you must be granted that privledge through the licensing process of the governemnt and the vehicle must pass the registration and fit for travel inspection details of your governement.

And if you don't like the deal, don't drive on their roads.

This is actually the closest thing to what Apple is doing.
Hey, if you don't like the registration fee and process you must go through to get the privledge to ride on their information superhighway using their onramp and offramp to their customers, go pay the fees Rimm charges.....

This is not a right, it's a privledge.
If you don't like it.... excersize your "Right" to travel for free by walking away.
(or excersize your privledge granted to you to drive away on roads you don't own)

You have NO IDEA what you're talking about.
You apparently don't understand what is required under law, and the difference between a right and a privledge.
If you did understand what a certificate of title is, and what the registration process is, and how they are different from each other and of course how and why they are NOT required for anyone doing business, then you would probably be much happier and sleep better in your cacoon.

And of course, if you want access to the publicly owned property for your own private property, you have to play with the rules for the privledge.
But in no way, is anyone compelling you to follow any of those "rules" unless you decide it's in your best interest. And if you complain it shouldn't have to be this way to be in your best interest, well that's your problem not a "lack of rights under the constitution".

For the record, it's spelled "privilege".

Certainly not an easy word to spell.

Eye No.

This thread makes me feel as if someone knocked me out and I woke up in a smokey room full of bickering.

Where am I? What's going on? Who are you people?

Looks like it was moved out of another thread about iPhones or something.

It was only said better if you happen to agree with it.

Actually, the requirement of a license can be considered to be the equivalent of the purchase of a car. Without the license, all you can do with that car, is garage it, unless you can afford a chauffeur.

It's not the argument that the roads are owned by the government. all roads, except those on private property are public. Even those going through private property may be considered to be semi-public, in that the property (and road owners) may be required to allow ride throughs.

Licenses are required as proof of the ability to drive, and understand the rules.


This is all pretty much what I'm saying.

I realize news may be slow to reach some parts, but the rights vs. privileges distinction hasn't been a part of due process analysis for over 40 years.

FWIW:

1. libertyforall is clearly a bot
2. I have no idea what this thread is about.

The thinking machines have finally arrived and are putting out a global smackdown.

I wonder if we could start a thread that numerous bots would post to and end up having a conversation with themselves. Hmm....

Anyway, lib's assumptions are simple wrong. A *true* libertarian will simply buy a strip of land between his current place and his destination, build a fence around it, and drive on that strip without having a license for himself or his car.

And then the government would take it by eminent domain because it's in the public's "best interest." The cycle continues.

A true libertarian is really an anarchist. After all, to refuse to impede your own liberty, you must impede that of others. As they won't allow that to happen, you will clash.

It can't work in reality. Only democratic governments can allow even the semblance of libertarianism to exist.

The early years of the USA were damn close to anarchy. Until Wilson, the USA was, by today's standards, a libertarian country. Anarchy can certainly work, though, it's just that life would be different.

Moreover, mankind is in the middle of a "blip" right now. It has been roughly 200 years since it has been impossible to set off in search of new land and new hopes. From the time pre-humans left Africa until the 19th century, man has developed himself into a sort of natural state in sync with the libertarian ideal. In another 200 or so years, I can only hope that there are expats establishing colonies on far-off worlds, bringing back exploration, defiance, and independence into the human cultural mainstream. Our current society is the irregular, unnatural one.

Not exactly. Libertarianism still involves government, there is still a national defense, for example. The role of the federal government is greatly reduced in favor of state's rights and individuals are much more responsible for their actions. Therefore a libertarian is a libertarian and an anarchist is an anarchist. There is some cross-over, of course, and according to Wikipedia the more anarchic viewpoint is more prevalent outside the US.

No we weren't. Not even then. There were quite a few laws that people were required to follow.

Of course, if you decided to move to somewhere out of the mainstream of society, you could get away from some of those laws, but even there, there were the "laws" of society you had to go by.

You wouldn't want to live in a state of anarchy. That's why it's called what it is. No laws, no rules, everyone out for themselves. Society can't exist that way.

There was never a libertarian society. Every society had its rules. The older ones had far more rules that were very strictly enforced than the ones we have today.

Going back to tribal societies, the oldest ones, you see the strictest rules of all. The slightest deviation and you're out, one way or the other. No eccentrics allowed.

You could do it by becoming a hermit.

That's a nice view, but in reality it would never work. Over time, there would be more laws passed, because of the need.

There is no such thing as utopia. Only in books. Several tried to start utopian societies, and they all failed. Libertarianism is just another one. It ignores the realities of life. Who pays for the government? Who enforces those payments? Who forces the states to follow the national rules. How does one run for office? How is that paid for. How does one ensure the fairness of the system? How does one recruit for a police force? How are you going to force people to serve when needed? Where does the money come from to pay for all of it?

How do you enforce the integrity of the airwaves? The safety of the food supply? The medical profession? Drugs and other medical instrumentation and implanted substances? The honesty of business, banks, and others? How do you find out if business is playing by the "rules". What about accounting?

How do you redress grievances? How do you ensure that people who shouldn't drive are not allowed on the road, endangering others? What about pilots. Boaters?

There are many more questions like that, and they are not answered.

All these answers and more are addressed here, and here.

Everytime I hear the blanket statement, "it won't work", I laugh. It's a philosophy based on human nature, it's not communism or anarchism or a direct democracy.

I'm familiar with that. Very unrealistic. They really don't explain exactly what they plan to put in place of what they are eliminating. They answer NONE of the questions I brought up. Instead, they speak in platitudes, less clearly than even the politicians they despise. Its lovely to speak in generalities, as they do, but ask a specific question, and you don't get a specific answer.

I also think Ron Paul is a bit of an idiot.


You would think that if that were true, most governments would be libertarian, but there has never been one. It would collapse from chaos.

Read: "libertarianism still involves government" from SpamSandwich. The other truth is that even the most anarcho-capitalist rhetoric still involves a few rules. I'm the kind of guy who typically respects all opinions, and yours is sensible but uninformed. All of the examples you bring up are cases where no libertarian would argue against. There is a body (if not bodies) of socio-economic academics dedicated to the investigation of so-called externalities. Libertarianism, in a sentence, is about minimizing the size of government to the smallest size that provides the maximum freedom to a given society. As you noticed, at some point the rights of the individual lose their clout as rights at all.

For what it's worth, I have done my homework on American history, and I consider early USA to be a generally libertarian state. Also, for what it's worth, Ron Paul is quite far from the "objectivist" brand of libertarianism that is primarily used in discussion and debate of libertarianism in general.

I will also mention that some of the countries in Eastern Europe seem at least poised to become hard-core capitalist states. That's really 9/10's of the journey. With extreme economic freedom, social freedom is almost impossible to prevent. I wish them luck, and I plan to invest heavily in them.


Yeah, really. It has worked. It does work. It will work. There is even scientific evidence that the human brain is "inherently good." It came out last year, from Harvard. I'm stunned that it was buried so quickly in the media, since it's such a wonderful finding.

Government and economics have also been interests of mine from way back. While, in theory, some of what I said would be agreed upon by "some" libertarians, most of it would not. If you go to the site provided by Spamsandwich, you will read their platform, which is in direct opposition to several of my points. The fact that there is not opposition to more, is because their platform does not even address them, at least not on the site. I'm actually pretty informed.


Early USA was not libertarian in the cities, but by necessity, in outlying areas, where jurisdiction didn't reach, you could say that. But that would be true of all parts of the world, even today, where government is ineffective. Sadly enough, those are the parts of the world where strife is greatest, and the toll on people is such that human misery is the highest.


I so, and I'm not sure that it's so, it won't last long. It never does. At some point, the government will reign it in. We saw a short period in the "NEW" Russia where we could that libertarianism reached new heights, only to be brought under the foot of the government, where it is now. The government allowing the unfettered business community to function where it suits it, and shuts it down also where it suits it. The fact that there are few laws regarding business, or many other matters, doesn't prevent the government from doing what it wants to to control the comings and goings of all.


Really. And where exactly has it worked? I don't know even one place where you could say with a straight face that libertarianism reigns, or reigned.

The study from Harvard is much more mixed than that. It didn't actually say that our brain is wired for good. This is just another study of several over the past few years that tests the hypothesis of whether cooperation for altruistic reasons gains one more than working solely for one's own good. Hardly a conclusion that its the result of a "good" brains wiring.

It's much more a conclusion that people trust others that appear, over time, to be fair. This is not an unusual finding. It's to one's benefit to be fair, over the long run, even though one may gain more in the short term by being greedy.

1. I'm not talking about Russia.

2. You admit that there was a large degree of libertarianism in the 19th century west. It seems as though it worked fine out there.

Well... that flamed out rather quickly.

We're talking about the topic in general, using various example is helpful.


The wild west, as it was called, had more than its share of crime, yes. But after the government expanded, at the request of most of the populace, much of that ended.

I am NOT for bigger and bigger Federal government; however, it Bear Stearns and other financial houses had been regulated, we wouldn't be in this meltdown mess.

That's one of the problems that libertarians don't seem to understand.

While they love talking about the more primitive past, they refuse to live with the consequences of a modern world, where more laws are required just to keep things working.

They seem to like the idea of everyone carrying machine guns around everywhere they go, including bars, etc. They don't mind the idea of a "no rules" automotive society. They would leave food and drug safety to the same people who killed hundreds near the turn of the 20th century when there was no drug regulation.

I suppose that sewers would be up to the building owners as well. No regulations concerning polution of course as that would be bad for manufacturers, and we might as well cut down all the trees, and pave all the surface possible for developers.

No standards for schools or accreditation for higher institutions as that would intrude on the private schools systems that would take over education.

We can go on and on here. They like to say that all relevant laws would be made, but who would decide that? Where would the creeping laws stop?