Total Posts:51|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

20 Questions for Strict Libertarians

FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2013 1:44:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
If you're the kind of Libertarian who swears that pure logical extensions of self-ownership and voluntarism are what define your ideology, these questions are for you. After each question, I ask that you explain why you answered that way.

1. At what age does one acquire self-ownership? From birth? Conception? Gradually? An arbitrarily set age?

2. Do the mentally disabled possess self-ownership?

3. Is a person capable of selling their self?

4. Is it possible to only partially own yourself? If yes, how do we tell the difference?

5. Are parents obligated to take care of their children?

6. Are sexual relations between a fully grown adult and a pre-pubescent child allowable?

7. Is incest allowable?

8. Are all physical things ownable?

9. Can areas of air be ownable?

10. Can areas of water be ownable?

11. Are individuals allowed to pollute anything they own?

12. Is monopoly allowable?

13. Does intellectual property exist?

14. Are individuals allowed to claim ownership for anything as long as no one else has yet claimed those things?

15. Do you recognize the existence of psychological techniques for manipulating people's choices? If so, are they allowable? And if they aren't allowable, how do we go about drawing a line between these and simple persuasive marketing?

16. Is there a limit to how addictive a substance can be when it's being used to turn a profit? If yes, how do we draw the line?

17. Is it allowable to bribe an entire community into causing an individual to starve?

18. Is wealth inequality allowable, no matter how severe?

19. Is it ok for businesses to form cartels and conspire to rise prices, lower wages or fire workers who attempt to organize against them?

20. Did you already have an answer ready for all these questions or did you find yourself coming up with excuses on the spot? If the latter, are you still confident in your ideology?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2013 2:57:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/17/2013 1:44:16 AM, FREEDO wrote:
If you're the kind of Libertarian who swears that pure logical extensions of self-ownership and voluntarism are what define your ideology, these questions are for you. After each question, I ask that you explain why you answered that way.


I'm not Libertarian. I just want to answer one of these for you because it's very loaded...

1. At what age does one acquire self-ownership? From birth? Conception? Gradually? An arbitrarily set age?

Self-ownership is too complex to simplify as one thing. There are many forms of self-ownership. Assume it could be separated into 10 forms of self-ownership (bodily integrity, right to drink, etc...) One might get 2 at birth, 2 more at 15, and 3 more at 18, and the rest at 21... Thats only an example.

You can't label it all as one thing and hand it out as a GOTY super bundle.

2. Do the mentally disabled possess self-ownership?

I don't know their perspective.

3. Is a person capable of selling their self?

4. Is it possible to only partially own yourself? If yes, how do we tell the difference?

5. Are parents obligated to take care of their children?

6. Are sexual relations between a fully grown adult and a pre-pubescent child allowable?

7. Is incest allowable?

8. Are all physical things ownable?

9. Can areas of air be ownable?

10. Can areas of water be ownable?

11. Are individuals allowed to pollute anything they own?

12. Is monopoly allowable?

13. Does intellectual property exist?

14. Are individuals allowed to claim ownership for anything as long as no one else has yet claimed those things?

15. Do you recognize the existence of psychological techniques for manipulating people's choices? If so, are they allowable? And if they aren't allowable, how do we go about drawing a line between these and simple persuasive marketing?

16. Is there a limit to how addictive a substance can be when it's being used to turn a profit? If yes, how do we draw the line?

17. Is it allowable to bribe an entire community into causing an individual to starve?

18. Is wealth inequality allowable, no matter how severe?

19. Is it ok for businesses to form cartels and conspire to rise prices, lower wages or fire workers who attempt to organize against them?

20. Did you already have an answer ready for all these questions or did you find yourself coming up with excuses on the spot? If the latter, are you still confident in your ideology?

Just because you don't have all the answer on the spot doesn't mean you are at any level wrong, or that you might even be wrong. If they still found all the right answers, they are still (at that stage of the discussion) right. They would only have reason to lose confidence if they tried and couldn't find the right answers.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2013 3:04:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/17/2013 1:44:16 AM, FREEDO wrote:
If you're the kind of Libertarian who swears that pure logical extensions of self-ownership and voluntarism are what define your ideology, these questions are for you. After each question, I ask that you explain why you answered that way.

1. At what age does one acquire self-ownership? From birth? Conception? Gradually? An arbitrarily set age?

There's no consensus. Some claim birth, others claim sapience/self-awareness. I personally think that one becomes able to enjoy rights is once they gain self-ownership, but think that this is an impractical scenario and one that is detrimental to their person and the lives of other persons.

I also personally think that the only practical way to ensure that very young children enjoy the benefit of individual rights is to assume the reasonable person standard when dealing with them. Like, if a 5-year-old doesn't want to have life-saving surgery it wouldn't violate their rights to make them have it.

2. Do the mentally disabled possess self-ownership?

There's no consensus, but for me it depends on the severity of the disability.

3. Is a person capable of selling their self?

No, because the very core of libertarianism is voluntary interaction. You could practically sell yourself into slavery but a contract dictating that one party is unable to leave its confines would be unenforceable.

One might even claim that a tenant implicit in libertarianism is the option to change your mind.

4. Is it possible to only partially own yourself? If yes, how do we tell the difference?

No. This answer incorporates the following and the above answer. I would even go as far as to say that ownership/control are both binary functions. Even if something is owned or controlled by more than one person, it can't be owned or controlled by them at the same time.

5. Are parents obligated to take care of their children?

No.

6. Are sexual relations between a fully grown adult and a pre-pubescent child allowable?

Not generally. I would even go as far as to say never based on my earlier explanation of self-ownership.

7. Is incest allowable?

Yes.

8. Are all physical things ownable?

Depends on what you mean by physical things. I will say that anything that can be homesteaded can be owned.

9. Can areas of air be ownable?

You'd have to find a way to isolate and homestead it. Mises wrote a good piece on ownership and the sky.
http://mises.org...

10. Can areas of water be ownable?

Same basic concept as above.

11. Are individuals allowed to pollute anything they own?

Yes.

12. Is monopoly allowable?

Monopoly is impossible by definition under free market conditions.

13. Does intellectual property exist?

This issue divides libertarians. I say that ideas and such can't be owned because once you know of an idea you can't stop knowing it. The same applies to IP on movies and songs because copying a creative work doesn't actually deprive them of anything.

14. Are individuals allowed to claim ownership for anything as long as no one else has yet claimed those things?

No, the libertarian concept of ownership is based off homesteading and trading of objects previously homesteaded. Basically it isn't enough to declare something yours. You have to use it in some way.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

15. Do you recognize the existence of psychological techniques for manipulating people's choices? If so, are they allowable? And if they aren't allowable, how do we go about drawing a line between these and simple persuasive marketing?

I'm not quite sure what you're talking about but it sounds allowable. Things like future mind-control doohickeys or chamicals wouldn't be allowable, but suggestive techniques likely would be.

16. Is there a limit to how addictive a substance can be when it's being used to turn a profit? If yes, how do we draw the line?

Depends on whether or not it's known that the substance is addictive. For instance, putting nicotine in cookies to make people addicted to them might be considered a type of fraud, but advertising your new nicotine cookies would be fine.

17. Is it allowable to bribe an entire community into causing an individual to starve?

You aren't obligated to help anyone. You also aren't allowed to prevent that person from helping themselves/leaving.

18. Is wealth inequality allowable, no matter how severe?

Yes.

19. Is it ok for businesses to form cartels and conspire to rise prices, lower wages or fire workers who attempt to organize against them?

Yes.

20. Did you already have an answer ready for all these questions or did you find yourself coming up with excuses on the spot? If the latter, are you still confident in your ideology?

I already had an answer for these questions.

I'm sure I'll be ripped apart now.
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2013 9:54:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/17/2013 3:04:30 AM, Korashk wrote:
I'm sure I'll be ripped apart now.

No, thank you for your participation. I'm only asking questions here. But I do have some follow-up questions for you.

I also personally think that the only practical way to ensure that very young children enjoy the benefit of individual rights is to assume the reasonable person standard when dealing with them. Like, if a 5-year-old doesn't want to have life-saving surgery it wouldn't violate their rights to make them have it.

If one concludes that a large number of people are all making certain unreasonable decisions, is it justifiable to enforce a law against this behavior?

No, because the very core of libertarianism is voluntary interaction. You could practically sell yourself into slavery but a contract dictating that one party is unable to leave its confines would be unenforceable.

Is conditional slavery enforceable or allowable?

One might even claim that a tenant implicit in libertarianism is the option to change your mind.

The option to break contracts?

No. This answer incorporates the following and the above answer. I would even go as far as to say that ownership/control are both binary functions. Even if something is owned or controlled by more than one person, it can't be owned or controlled by them at the same time.

Could you explain this better? Why can't people own/control something at the same time?


7. Is incest allowable?

Yes.

Even when it results in disfigured and mentally disabled children?


11. Are individuals allowed to pollute anything they own?

Yes.

Does this include something which affects other areas?

Also, what if people have been hired to work on a piece of land and they are unknowing of a poisonous substance that's polluting their workplace, placed there by the owner.

12. Is monopoly allowable?

Monopoly is impossible by definition under free market conditions.

Can you explain?

No, the libertarian concept of ownership is based off homesteading and trading of objects previously homesteaded. Basically it isn't enough to declare something yours. You have to use it in some way.

If someone owns a piece of property but never uses it, is it allowable for others to claim it as their own, as long as they make good use of it?


Depends on whether or not it's known that the substance is addictive. For instance, putting nicotine in cookies to make people addicted to them might be considered a type of fraud, but advertising your new nicotine cookies would be fine.

Is it allowable to operate a heroin producing industry, as long as it's explicitly marketed as a heroin product?


18. Is wealth inequality allowable, no matter how severe?

Yes.

Even to the point of becoming Feudalistic, where all things are owned by a small privileged class?

19. Is it ok for businesses to form cartels and conspire to rise prices, lower wages or fire workers who attempt to organize against them?

Yes.

Can you explain why this is consistent with Libertarianism?

Also, what do you think of voluntary labor movements? What do you think of syndicalist revolutions, wherein workers pressure employers into turning over the means of production by going on general strike?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2013 9:58:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/17/2013 2:57:29 AM, donald.keller wrote:
I'm not Libertarian. I just want to answer one of these for you because it's very loaded...

Yes, all these questions are pretty loaded. But not against Libertarians. Ideologues, rather. People who think politics is a simple issue and are overly confident in their beliefs.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2013 9:58:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/17/2013 2:57:29 AM, donald.keller wrote:
I'm not Libertarian. I just want to answer one of these for you because it's very loaded...

Yes, all these questions are pretty loaded. But not against Libertarians. Ideologues, rather. People who think politics is a simple issue and are overly confident in their beliefs.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2013 10:03:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/17/2013 9:58:25 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 12/17/2013 2:57:29 AM, donald.keller wrote:
I'm not Libertarian. I just want to answer one of these for you because it's very loaded...

Yes, all these questions are pretty loaded. But not against Libertarians. Ideologues, rather. People who think politics is a simple issue and are overly confident in their beliefs.

Well, I was just talking about the first one. Simplifying Self-Ownership into one object makes answering the question harder, because Self Ownership as one right simply doesn't exist. It is millions of little rights, some completely different from the others.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2013 10:09:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/17/2013 10:03:11 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 12/17/2013 9:58:25 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 12/17/2013 2:57:29 AM, donald.keller wrote:
I'm not Libertarian. I just want to answer one of these for you because it's very loaded...

Yes, all these questions are pretty loaded. But not against Libertarians. Ideologues, rather. People who think politics is a simple issue and are overly confident in their beliefs.

Well, I was just talking about the first one. Simplifying Self-Ownership into one object makes answering the question harder, because Self Ownership as one right simply doesn't exist. It is millions of little rights, some completely different from the others.

Self-ownership is a concept put forward by Libertarians. I'm just using their language. It's up to them to define it for me.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2013 1:29:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/17/2013 9:54:50 PM, FREEDO wrote:
If one concludes that a large number of people are all making certain unreasonable decisions, is it justifiable to enforce a law against this behavior?

No, unreasonableness in and of itself isn't a basis for morality/enforceability in libertarianism. As long as your irrationality doesn't violate another's self-ownership/the non-aggression principle people should be allowed to do whatever. My response here was simply how I think it would be practical to enforce the self-ownership of those who haven't biologically developed the ability to think rationally.

I'm sure that my practical solution is unique to my viewpoint. The reasonable person standard in law is to prevent those currently incapable of making decisions from getting help. Basically you'd treat children the same way we would an unconscious person in a hospital that needs immediate medical treatment.

The reasonable person standard isn't something meant to stop, for lack of a better term, rational people from making irrational decisions.

-On Slavery/Relinquishing self-ownership

I'm going to be honest and say that I haven't read up on this in a WHILE and can't adequately explain. I did, however find a few excellent quotes on the subject referenced by Murray Rothbard in a piece he wrote on the subject:

[the philosophical defenses of human rights] are founded upon the natural fact that each human is the proprietor of his own will. To take rights like those of property and contractual freedom that are based on a foundation of the absolute self-ownership of the will and then to use those derived rights to destroy their own foundation is philosophically invalid.
- Williamson Evers, Law of Contracts

When a man renounces his liberty he renounces his essential manhood, his rights, and even his duty as a human being. There is no compensation possible for such complete renunciation. It is incompatible with man"s nature, and to deprive him of his free will is to deprive his actions of all moral sanction. The convention, in short, which sets up on one side an absolute authority, and on the other an obligation to obey without question, is vain and meaningless. Is it not obvious that where we can demand everything we owe nothing? Where there is no mutual obligation, no interchange of duties, it must, surely, be clear that the actions of the commanded cease to have any moral value? For how can it be maintained that my slave has any "right" against me when everything that he has is my property? His right being my right, it is absurd to speak of it as ever operating to my disadvantage.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract

Rothbard's entire piece can be found here:
http://mises.org...

Could you explain this better? Why can't people own/control something at the same time?

I guess my statement doesn't necessarily apply to ownership because there could arise a situation where more than one person has the legitimate sight to control something, but practically a thing can not be controlled by more than one person at the same time.

Think of it like driving a driver's education car. Both the driver and passenger have the ability to control the car, but only one of them can influence its direction and speed at a time. It can't go left and right, accelerate and decelerate, etc. One of the controlling factors dominates by necessity.

Even when it results in disfigured and mentally disabled children?

Yes. As an ideology libertarianism doesn't morally consider events that individuals don't have control over.

This is more of a side-discussion, but incest doesn't mean disfigured and mentally ill children. Incest means in increased chance of having disfigured and mentally ill children, as does any number of other things that people who are against incest aren't also against. For instance, first generation incest between first cousins has the same chance of producing a child with birth defects as a woman having a child after age 40 does; but you don't see people calling for the government to prevent middle-aged women from having children.

Does this include something which affects other areas?

If they own "other areas" then they can pollute "other areas" with impunity. If they don't then they can't.

Also, what if people have been hired to work on a piece of land and they are unknowing of a poisonous substance that's polluting their workplace, placed there by the owner.

If the owner knew about the substance he'd be liable for damages caused to that person. He'd probably be liable even if he didn't know.

Can you explain?

There are no barriers to entry in a free market economy meaning any basically anyone can enter any market at any time.

If someone owns a piece of property but never uses it, is it allowable for others to claim it as their own, as long as they make good use of it?

No, because homesteading only applies when a piece of property goes from being unowned into a state of ownership.

Is it allowable to operate a heroin producing industry, as long as it's explicitly marketed as a heroin product?

Yes.

Even to the point of becoming Feudalistic, where all things are owned by a small privileged class?

Yes. So long as the feudalistic class sticks to the principle of non-aggression.

Can you explain why this is consistent with Libertarianism?

Because nobody is being forced to do anything.

Also, what do you think of voluntary labor movements? What do you think of syndicalist revolutions, wherein workers pressure employers into turning over the means of production by going on general strike?

All for them. Syndicalism isn't incompatible to libertarianism provided that the collective ownership is voluntary.
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2013 11:42:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/17/2013 1:44:16 AM, FREEDO wrote:
If you're the kind of Libertarian who swears that pure logical extensions of self-ownership and voluntarism are what define your ideology, these questions are for you. After each question, I ask that you explain why you answered that way.

I'll give you answers but the explanations can be very long, why don't you just ask about whichever one you think you 'caught' me on?

1. At what age does one acquire self-ownership? From birth? Conception? Gradually? An arbitrarily set age?

Whenever they stop allowing abortions, and yes that is arbitrary.

2. Do the mentally disabled possess self-ownership?

Yes

3. Is a person capable of selling their self?

Yes

4. Is it possible to only partially own yourself? If yes, how do we tell the difference?

You sold part of yourself.

5. Are parents obligated to take care of their children?

Yes

6. Are sexual relations between a fully grown adult and a pre-pubescent child allowable?

No, nor is sex between pre-pubsecent child and anything else allowable since their body and mind could be damaged.

7. Is incest allowable?

Yes

8. Are all physical things ownable?

No

9. Can areas of air be ownable?

Only by enclosing them in a structure

10. Can areas of water be ownable?

Only by enclosing them in a structure

11. Are individuals allowed to pollute anything they own?

Yes so long as it's not dangerous to others and they don't sell it without telling someone.

12. Is monopoly allowable?

Of course.

13. Does intellectual property exist?

Yes

14. Are individuals allowed to claim ownership for anything as long as no one else has yet claimed those things?

No, ownership is derived from self-ownership. The only way to make property is to make something the product of your effort. Seeing something valuable sitting around does not make it yours, picking it up doesn't make it yours; but if it is valuable because of what you did to it or how you combined it with other things you found and picked up then it is yours.

Only objects , ideas, and structures can truly be property; and the latter only if it complies with a free-movement principle. (people get to move about the universe and you can't try to own air, water, land by putting some sprawling structure on it).-

15. Do you recognize the existence of psychological techniques for manipulating people's choices? If so, are they allowable? And if they aren't allowable, how do we go about drawing a line between these and simple persuasive marketing?

They are all allowable unless they are dishonest. A technique is dishonest if it attempts to hide the price or qualities of the item in any way. Saying something is free, and then informing the potential customer later than the next sentence that they must purchase something else for instance.

16. Is there a limit to how addictive a substance can be when it's being used to turn a profit? If yes, how do we draw the line?

No but there is a limit to how one can become addicted, if it can cause addiction second hand it must be used and sold in a controlled environment.

17. Is it allowable to bribe an entire community into causing an individual to starve?

Yes

18. Is wealth inequality allowable, no matter how severe?

Yes.

19. Is it ok for businesses to form cartels and conspire to rise prices, lower wages or fire workers who attempt to organize against them?

Yes, that's merely symmetric with allowing unions.

20. Did you already have an answer ready for all these questions or did you find yourself coming up with excuses on the spot? If the latter, are you still confident in your ideology?

Just #17. Never seen that before. At first I thought there might be some way for that to be conspiracy to commit fraud but no it isn't.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2013 3:27:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/17/2013 10:09:33 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 12/17/2013 10:03:11 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 12/17/2013 9:58:25 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 12/17/2013 2:57:29 AM, donald.keller wrote:
I'm not Libertarian. I just want to answer one of these for you because it's very loaded...

Yes, all these questions are pretty loaded. But not against Libertarians. Ideologues, rather. People who think politics is a simple issue and are overly confident in their beliefs.

Well, I was just talking about the first one. Simplifying Self-Ownership into one object makes answering the question harder, because Self Ownership as one right simply doesn't exist. It is millions of little rights, some completely different from the others.

Self-ownership is a concept put forward by Libertarians. I'm just using their language. It's up to them to define it for me.

Well Libertarians need to get their understanding of Self-Ownership together.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2013 4:55:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/18/2013 3:27:55 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 12/17/2013 10:09:33 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 12/17/2013 10:03:11 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 12/17/2013 9:58:25 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 12/17/2013 2:57:29 AM, donald.keller wrote:
I'm not Libertarian. I just want to answer one of these for you because it's very loaded...

Yes, all these questions are pretty loaded. But not against Libertarians. Ideologues, rather. People who think politics is a simple issue and are overly confident in their beliefs.

Well, I was just talking about the first one. Simplifying Self-Ownership into one object makes answering the question harder, because Self Ownership as one right simply doesn't exist. It is millions of little rights, some completely different from the others.

Self-ownership is a concept put forward by Libertarians. I'm just using their language. It's up to them to define it for me.

Well Libertarians need to get their understanding of Self-Ownership together.

Self-ownership is a simple concept. The disagreement occurs in discussing who has it.
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2013 7:15:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/17/2013 1:44:16 AM, FREEDO wrote:
1. At what age does one acquire self-ownership? From birth? Conception? Gradually? An arbitrarily set age?

When they fully develope into an adult. It's hard to draw a clear line as to when exactly it occurs but there does exist a distinction between adults and non-adults. Legally set ages which do have basis can be the marker we go by.

A child can gain self-ownership if the level of care provided by neglectful parents is below what he can provide for himself.

2. Do the mentally disabled possess self-ownership?

The mentally disabled as well as animals have always been the hole in my philosophy that I struggle to reconcile.

3. Is a person capable of selling their self?

Yes. Just like you can commit aggression against yourself.

In order to absolve yourself of the consequences you best include in the contract that it is temporary and will end at your own discretion.

4. Is it possible to only partially own yourself? If yes, how do we tell the difference?

Yea, it's called marriage. J/k.

Though I suppose it's possible to sign a marriage contract in which your wife gains co-ownership of you.

5. Are parents obligated to take care of their children?

You are not obligated to take care of adults. You are obligated to take care of the children you bring into the world. Neglect in this circumstance is aggression because the baby or child is dependent on you so it would be like cutting the life support cord on grandma which is aggression.

6. Are sexual relations between a fully grown adult and a pre-pubescent child allowable?

Only adults can consent. Children cannot consent, therefore it's aggression.

7. Is incest allowable?

Yes.

8. Are all physical things ownable?

If you earn it, you own it. I found Korash's mention of the homestead principle to be enlightening.

9. Can areas of air be ownable?

No. That is a shared, abundant regenerating resource that is unfeasably difficult to harness and keep tabs on.

10. Can areas of water be ownable?

You didn't build that, the earth made that happen. You can own the fruits of your labor and the acquisition of trade, but not water and air.

11. Are individuals allowed to pollute anything they own?

Yes. Thankfully air and lakes aren't ownable.

12. Is monopoly allowable?

Yes, but unlikely in a free market. Without the force of government, it would really be hard to operate something profitable without someone else wanting to compete and get in on the action.

13. Does intellectual property exist?

Yes. If the idea is an invention then it's like a blueprint and if someone steals it and profits from it, that is theft.

14. Are individuals allowed to claim ownership for anything as long as no one else has yet claimed those things?

Finders keepers. But it has to be enforceable and quantifiable. If I find a stick in the woods and claim, I keep it and own it. But if I stand on a giant landmass and say I own all of this without something to mark its boundaries and don't utilize it then no.

I liked Korash's homesteading answer better though.

15. Do you recognize the existence of psychological techniques for manipulating people's choices? If so, are they allowable? And if they aren't allowable, how do we go about drawing a line between these and simple persuasive marketing?

Powerful suggestion, subliminal persuasion is perfectly ok. MK ULTRA and Project Artichoke are not ok because it is direct hijacking of the mind and depriving its ability to think independently.

16. Is there a limit to how addictive a substance can be when it's being used to turn a profit? If yes, how do we draw the line?

No limit. But no fraud is allowed either.

17. Is it allowable to bribe an entire community into causing an individual to starve?

Yes.

18. Is wealth inequality allowable, no matter how severe?

Yes. I am fervently pro-wealth inequality. The size of the gap matters not. Prosperity, purchasing power, and the cost of living are the only things that matter in that regard, not gaps between you and the next guy.

19. Is it ok for businesses to form cartels and conspire to rise prices, lower wages or fire workers who attempt to organize against them?

Um, yes but the free market wouldn't tolerate it.

20. Did you already have an answer ready for all these questions or did you find yourself coming up with excuses on the spot? If the latter, are you still confident in your ideology?

Most of these, yes. The others I admittedly had an issue with and was already aware of those challenges.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2013 8:52:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/18/2013 1:29:30 AM, Korashk wrote:
On children

What rights do children have?

-On Slavery/Relinquishing self-ownership

I'm going to be honest and say that I haven't read up on this in a WHILE and can't adequately explain. I did, however find a few excellent quotes on the subject referenced by Murray Rothbard in a piece he wrote on the subject:

[the philosophical defenses of human rights] are founded upon the natural fact that each human is the proprietor of his own will. To take rights like those of property and contractual freedom that are based on a foundation of the absolute self-ownership of the will and then to use those derived rights to destroy their own foundation is philosophically invalid.
- Williamson Evers, Law of Contracts

I like this quote. But why wouldn't this lead to the Left-Libertarian argument that statelessness isn't enough--other forms of tyranny exist? For example, when a worker sells much of their capacity to control their own lives to their employer and must still do so if they wish to work for anyone else. The Left-Libertarian would conclude that either all people need to be self-sufficient so there's no need to seek employment, or have the means of production kept decentralized. Why would you not take it so far?



This is more of a side-discussion, but incest doesn't mean disfigured and mentally ill children. Incest means in increased chance of having disfigured and mentally ill children, as does any number of other things that people who are against incest aren't also against. For instance, first generation incest between first cousins has the same chance of producing a child with birth defects as a woman having a child after age 40 does; but you don't see people calling for the government to prevent middle-aged women from having children.

I had in mind an incident I recently heard on the news about an incest cult that had been continuing the tradition for generations and had horribly disfigured children with severe learning impairment and aggression issues. Do you think it was worthy of intervention?

Does this include something which affects other areas?

If they own "other areas" then they can pollute "other areas" with impunity. If they don't then they can't.

How far is an individual allowed to pollute the uncontained atmosphere above their property or a river that runs through their property?


No, because homesteading only applies when a piece of property goes from being unowned into a state of ownership.

Even when a small minority has homesteaded the majority of the land, putting everyone else at their mercy?

Is it allowable to operate a heroin producing industry, as long as it's explicitly marketed as a heroin product?

Yes.

This is an out-there hypothetical so stay with me.
A large group of employers form a cartel and replace a portion of all workers'pay with a new highly addictive drug called drug-X. If they don't take the drug, the'll be fired and replaced with someone who will. The workers become dependent on the employers and submit to greater and greater demands.
Is intervention in this situation justified?

Also, you mentioned that employers can be held responsible for work related injuries.
Does that include conditions such as muscle pain, fatigue, depression and anxiety?

Even to the point of becoming Feudalistic, where all things are owned by a small privileged class?

Yes. So long as the feudalistic class sticks to the principle of non-aggression.

Are peasants to be blamed if they are pressured to rise up in armed rebellion and initiate a redistribution?

Can you explain why this is consistent with Libertarianism?

Because nobody is being forced to do anything.

Isn't it true that when Libertarian rights are used towards goals that limit the freedom of choice that other possess over their own lives, it's destructive to the very intentions behind Libertarianism?


All for them. Syndicalism isn't incompatible to libertarianism provided that the collective ownership is voluntary.

Do you think it may be the rational thing for them to do?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2013 9:03:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/18/2013 11:42:32 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
2. Do the mentally disabled possess self-ownership?

Yes

Why?


5. Are parents obligated to take care of their children?

Yes

Why?

6. Are sexual relations between a fully grown adult and a pre-pubescent child allowable?

No, nor is sex between pre-pubsecent child and anything else allowable since their body and mind could be damaged.

You admitted that self-ownership starts before birth. So what is your justification for intervening founded on? This contradicts self-ownership.

7. Is incest allowable?

Yes

Even when it results in disfigured and disabled children?


11. Are individuals allowed to pollute anything they own?

Yes so long as it's not dangerous to others and they don't sell it without telling someone.

Can people be held legally liable for polluting the atmosphere?

12. Is monopoly allowable?

Of course.

Does that make for a freer society?


16. Is there a limit to how addictive a substance can be when it's being used to turn a profit? If yes, how do we draw the line?

No but there is a limit to how one can become addicted, if it can cause addiction second hand it must be used and sold in a controlled environment.

May anyone encourage others to use the product?


18. Is wealth inequality allowable, no matter how severe?

Yes.

Can poor people be blamed for forcibly taking back property during severe inequality that leaves them starving?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2013 9:10:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/18/2013 7:15:09 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

Thanks for replying, Geo. You're not the kind of libertarian I'm targeting. Looking for ideological-hard-heads.

No one is 100% Libertarian. We all have a limit. But many believe they are. I'd like to help them discover their inconsistency, an experience which all humans share in.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2013 11:48:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/18/2013 4:55:17 PM, Korashk wrote:
At 12/18/2013 3:27:55 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 12/17/2013 10:09:33 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 12/17/2013 10:03:11 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 12/17/2013 9:58:25 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 12/17/2013 2:57:29 AM, donald.keller wrote:
I'm not Libertarian. I just want to answer one of these for you because it's very loaded...

Yes, all these questions are pretty loaded. But not against Libertarians. Ideologues, rather. People who think politics is a simple issue and are overly confident in their beliefs.

Well, I was just talking about the first one. Simplifying Self-Ownership into one object makes answering the question harder, because Self Ownership as one right simply doesn't exist. It is millions of little rights, some completely different from the others.

Self-ownership is a concept put forward by Libertarians. I'm just using their language. It's up to them to define it for me.

Well Libertarians need to get their understanding of Self-Ownership together.

Self-ownership is a simple concept. The disagreement occurs in discussing who has it.

Hardly simple. There are millions of Self Ownership rights... Drinking Age, Driving Age, Smoking Age, Right to move out, Age of Consent, Age to work... There is no single "Self Ownership."
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 12:39:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/18/2013 9:03:25 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 12/18/2013 11:42:32 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
2. Do the mentally disabled possess self-ownership?

Yes

Why?

Impaired reason and will is still reason and will. If you're sure that your subject doesn't have either of these then no they are vegetables, throw them to the wolves if there is no hope.

5. Are parents obligated to take care of their children?

Yes

Why?

They choose to make them knowing they would be dependent. I consider that an implicit contract.

6. Are sexual relations between a fully grown adult and a pre-pubescent child allowable?

No, nor is sex between pre-pubsecent child and anything else allowable since their body and mind could be damaged.

You admitted that self-ownership starts before birth. So what is your justification for intervening founded on? This contradicts self-ownership.

7. Is incest allowable?

Yes

Even when it results in disfigured and disabled children?

No, but that is not a problem with incest it's a problem with recessive genetic flaws and applies to the whole human population. If you have reason to suspect that you and your partner may both be carrying recessive genetic flaws (as would automatically be the case for incest) you check your family history or you get a gene evaluation. If you can't or you are both carrying debilitating recessive genetic flaws you can only have sex after being rendered infertile.

None of that precludes incest.

11. Are individuals allowed to pollute anything they own?

Yes so long as it's not dangerous to others and they don't sell it without telling someone.

Can people be held legally liable for polluting the atmosphere?

Of course if you define a pollutant as something dangerous to others, not imaginary pollutants like CO2. Not pollutants that couldn't possibly harm anyone or anything in the atmosphere even if they can do it in a lab at 10x6 times concentration.

12. Is monopoly allowable?

Of course.

Does that make for a freer society?

More freedom always makes for a freer society than less.

16. Is there a limit to how addictive a substance can be when it's being used to turn a profit? If yes, how do we draw the line?

No but there is a limit to how one can become addicted, if it can cause addiction second hand it must be used and sold in a controlled environment.

May anyone encourage others to use the product?

Yea



18. Is wealth inequality allowable, no matter how severe?

Yes.

Can poor people be blamed for forcibly taking back property during severe inequality that leaves them starving?

1. Poor people, as people can be blamed for initiating the use of force against those who have not violated rights.

2. "taking back" implies they loaned it to someone or it was stolen. No one can be blamed for recovering stolen property, and no one can go back on their word on the terms of a loan.

3. Inequality never leaves anyone starving. You need bread to live, not more, less, or equal bread to your neighbor.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 12:48:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/18/2013 9:03:25 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 12/18/2013 11:42:32 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
6. Are sexual relations between a fully grown adult and a pre-pubescent child allowable?

No, nor is sex between pre-pubsecent child and anything else allowable since their body and mind could be damaged.

You admitted that self-ownership starts before birth. So what is your justification for intervening founded on? This contradicts self-ownership.

Forgot this one. That implicit contract I told you about, think of it like a loan; the child doesn't get the full rights to self-ownership till they detach from mom and dad. They may do that at any time provided they can go six months or something without coming back and pass a competency test for rights and responsibilities of self-ownership.

So I suppose I should not have given an absolute "no" but this requirement conspires to make it pretty much impossible. There are few enough who could manage to emancipate themselves before puberty, they aren't going to have sexual interests so they won't consent even if they did.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 1:07:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/18/2013 11:48:06 PM, donald.keller wrote:
Hardly simple. There are millions of Self Ownership rights... Drinking Age, Driving Age, Smoking Age, Right to move out, Age of Consent, Age to work... There is no single "Self Ownership."

Self-ownership is supposed to be the axiom where these rights find legitimacy.

Although I've heard a Left-Libertarian argue that the idea is incoherent and strict adherence to it may result in less personal choice for many. "You don't own yourself--you are yourself. If you own yourself, you can sell yourself and thus your liberty. You are your labor--when you're selling your labor, you're selling yourself and your liberty. Freedom of choice is not enough for a free society, we need to make the choice to be free." Or something along those lines.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 1:54:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/17/2013 1:44:16 AM, FREEDO wrote:
If you're the kind of Libertarian who swears that pure logical extensions of self-ownership and voluntarism are what define your ideology, these questions are for you. After each question, I ask that you explain why you answered that way.

At this point, I'm 7 shots down and looking for a challenge. I have not looked at a single answer and will attempt to answer as I believe a true libertarian would.


1. At what age does one acquire self-ownership? From birth? Conception? Gradually? An arbitrarily set age?

Upon the ability to rationally think and become self-aware.


2. Do the mentally disabled possess self-ownership?

Depends on the mental disability. Nearly all mentally disabled still hold the ability to think rationally and be self aware.


3. Is a person capable of selling their self?

Yes. They can enter into a contract of any length of time, including forever.


4. Is it possible to only partially own yourself? If yes, how do we tell the difference?

I'd say no. You can agree to partially own all that you produce from your labor.


5. Are parents obligated to take care of their children?

No, that would be enforcing a positive right for the children, which is inherently against the principles for nearly all libertarians.


6. Are sexual relations between a fully grown adult and a pre-pubescent child allowable?

Yes, so long as the child has reached the point that they can maintain rational thought and are self aware (I believe this typically happens between 18 months and 3 years old).


7. Is incest allowable?

Yes, same mental restrictions.


8. Are all physical things ownable?

yes


9. Can areas of air be ownable?

The area, yes. The individual particles, not really.


10. Can areas of water be ownable?

Same as above


11. Are individuals allowed to pollute anything they own?

Yes, though if their pollution spreads to someone else's property, they can be held liable.


12. Is monopoly allowable?

Yes


13. Does intellectual property exist?

Tricky. Some say no, some say yes. Those that say no, only say so because they like stealing free stuff from the internet.


14. Are individuals allowed to claim ownership for anything as long as no one else has yet claimed those things?

No. You cannot simply "claim" ownership. You have to mix your labor with it to achieve ownership.


15. Do you recognize the existence of psychological techniques for manipulating people's choices? If so, are they allowable? And if they aren't allowable, how do we go about drawing a line between these and simple persuasive marketing?

This is more than 1 question you dirty Nazi! Not sure where that came from. Yes, there are techniques. Yes, they are allowable. Ultimately, while you can influence people, they are ultimately responsible for their choices.
...
...
ULTIMATELY!


16. Is there a limit to how addictive a substance can be when it's being used to turn a profit? If yes, how do we draw the line?

No. So long as the consumer is made aware of the risks of their choice, it is their choice.


17. Is it allowable to bribe an entire community into causing an individual to starve?

Yes. No one is obligated to sell food to anyone else.


18. Is wealth inequality allowable, no matter how severe?

Yes, so long as it is rightfully earned.


19. Is it ok for businesses to form cartels and conspire to rise prices, lower wages or fire workers who attempt to organize against them?

Yes, because if they attempt to jack up prices, then other people will simply create new businesses to undermine them, forcing them to stay "honest" (at least price-wise).


20. Did you already have an answer ready for all these questions or did you find yourself coming up with excuses on the spot? If the latter, are you still confident in your ideology?

On the spot, bitches! And yes, I'm still pretty confident of my ideology.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 4:08:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/19/2013 1:54:34 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:

Pretty on point for being 7 shots in.
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 4:12:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/18/2013 11:48:06 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 12/18/2013 4:55:17 PM, Korashk wrote:
At 12/18/2013 3:27:55 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 12/17/2013 10:09:33 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 12/17/2013 10:03:11 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 12/17/2013 9:58:25 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 12/17/2013 2:57:29 AM, donald.keller wrote:
I'm not Libertarian. I just want to answer one of these for you because it's very loaded...

Yes, all these questions are pretty loaded. But not against Libertarians. Ideologues, rather. People who think politics is a simple issue and are overly confident in their beliefs.

Well, I was just talking about the first one. Simplifying Self-Ownership into one object makes answering the question harder, because Self Ownership as one right simply doesn't exist. It is millions of little rights, some completely different from the others.

Self-ownership is a concept put forward by Libertarians. I'm just using their language. It's up to them to define it for me.

Well Libertarians need to get their understanding of Self-Ownership together.

Self-ownership is a simple concept. The disagreement occurs in discussing who has it.

Hardly simple. There are millions of Self Ownership rights... Drinking Age, Driving Age, Smoking Age, Right to move out, Age of Consent, Age to work... There is no single "Self Ownership."

You and I have a different understanding of what self-ownership is, and I don't think you're using the term in the way that a strict libertarian would. I could be wrong though. I'm pretty much just answering FREEDO's questions off the cuff.

I'll get to your latest query later FREEDO. I'm a bit Drunk.
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 9:03:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/19/2013 4:08:33 AM, Korashk wrote:
At 12/19/2013 1:54:34 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:

Pretty on point for being 7 shots in.

Spell check does help to give that illusion.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 11:00:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'm not a libertarian, but Liberalism needs to be heard from, here.

At 12/17/2013 1:44:16 AM, FREEDO wrote:
If you're the kind of Libertarian who swears that pure logical extensions of self-ownership and voluntarism are what define your ideology, these questions are for you. After each question, I ask that you explain why you answered that way.

1. At what age does one acquire self-ownership? From birth? Conception? Gradually? An arbitrarily set age?

Self ownership is a concept that ignores the inherently social nature of man. We are bound to others from birth to death, and while man may have property in his body, that property is not wholly his.

2. Do the mentally disabled possess self-ownership?

Yes and no; like all, we are all bound to others.

3. Is a person capable of selling their self? (him or her self)

Not sure what you mean by that.

4. Is it possible to only partially own yourself? If yes, how do we tell the difference?

Yes; by acknowledging the reality of what it means to be human we understand that from birth until death we are part of something more than ourselves.

5. Are parents obligated to take care of their children?

Yes.

6. Are sexual relations between a fully grown adult and a pre-pubescent child allowable?

Under no circumstances.

7. Is incest allowable?

Under no circumstances.

8. Are all physical things ownable?

No.

9. Can areas of air be ownable?

Yes.

10. Can areas of water be ownable?

Yes.

11. Are individuals allowed to pollute anything they own?

No.

12. Is monopoly allowable?

Yes.

13. Does intellectual property exist?

Yes.

14. Are individuals allowed to claim ownership for anything as long as no one else has yet claimed those things?

No.

15. Do you recognize the existence of psychological techniques for manipulating people's choices? If so, are they allowable? And if they aren't allowable, how do we go about drawing a line between these and simple persuasive marketing?

Yes. It depends. To the extent that an average person would be harmed by manipulation, it is morally impermissible to allow -at least some kinds of individuals who would seek to manipulate others- to do so with impunity.

16. Is there a limit to how addictive a substance can be when it's being used to turn a profit? If yes, how do we draw the line?

Depends on the substance.

17. Is it allowable to bribe an entire community into causing an individual to starve?

If by "allowable" you mean "right" or "justifiable" then, no.

18. Is wealth inequality allowable, no matter how severe?

Yes.

19. Is it ok for businesses to form cartels and conspire to rise prices, lower wages or fire workers who attempt to organize against them?

It depends.

20. Did you already have an answer ready for all these questions or did you find yourself coming up with excuses on the spot? If the latter, are you still confident in your ideology?

Liberalism is strong enough that it needs no excuses. I am no more or less a liberal than I was before I answered them.
Tsar of DDO
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 2:15:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/19/2013 4:12:34 AM, Korashk wrote:
At 12/18/2013 11:48:06 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 12/18/2013 4:55:17 PM, Korashk wrote:
At 12/18/2013 3:27:55 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 12/17/2013 10:09:33 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 12/17/2013 10:03:11 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 12/17/2013 9:58:25 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 12/17/2013 2:57:29 AM, donald.keller wrote:
I'm not Libertarian. I just want to answer one of these for you because it's very loaded...

Yes, all these questions are pretty loaded. But not against Libertarians. Ideologues, rather. People who think politics is a simple issue and are overly confident in their beliefs.

Well, I was just talking about the first one. Simplifying Self-Ownership into one object makes answering the question harder, because Self Ownership as one right simply doesn't exist. It is millions of little rights, some completely different from the others.

Self-ownership is a concept put forward by Libertarians. I'm just using their language. It's up to them to define it for me.

Well Libertarians need to get their understanding of Self-Ownership together.

Self-ownership is a simple concept. The disagreement occurs in discussing who has it.

Hardly simple. There are millions of Self Ownership rights... Drinking Age, Driving Age, Smoking Age, Right to move out, Age of Consent, Age to work... There is no single "Self Ownership."

You and I have a different understanding of what self-ownership is, and I don't think you're using the term in the way that a strict libertarian would. I could be wrong though. I'm pretty much just answering FREEDO's questions off the cuff.

I'll get to your latest query later FREEDO. I'm a bit Drunk.

I just don't believe Self-Ownership can be given out as one thing. Different versions require completely different levels of self-ownership
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 4:01:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/19/2013 2:15:35 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 12/19/2013 4:12:34 AM, Korashk wrote:
At 12/18/2013 11:48:06 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 12/18/2013 4:55:17 PM, Korashk wrote:
At 12/18/2013 3:27:55 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 12/17/2013 10:09:33 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 12/17/2013 10:03:11 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 12/17/2013 9:58:25 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 12/17/2013 2:57:29 AM, donald.keller wrote:
I'm not Libertarian. I just want to answer one of these for you because it's very loaded...

Yes, all these questions are pretty loaded. But not against Libertarians. Ideologues, rather. People who think politics is a simple issue and are overly confident in their beliefs.

Well, I was just talking about the first one. Simplifying Self-Ownership into one object makes answering the question harder, because Self Ownership as one right simply doesn't exist. It is millions of little rights, some completely different from the others.

Self-ownership is a concept put forward by Libertarians. I'm just using their language. It's up to them to define it for me.

Well Libertarians need to get their understanding of Self-Ownership together.

Self-ownership is a simple concept. The disagreement occurs in discussing who has it.

Hardly simple. There are millions of Self Ownership rights... Drinking Age, Driving Age, Smoking Age, Right to move out, Age of Consent, Age to work... There is no single "Self Ownership."

You and I have a different understanding of what self-ownership is, and I don't think you're using the term in the way that a strict libertarian would. I could be wrong though. I'm pretty much just answering FREEDO's questions off the cuff.

I'll get to your latest query later FREEDO. I'm a bit Drunk.

I just don't believe Self-Ownership can be given out as one thing. Different versions require completely different levels of self-ownership

And my understanding is that self-ownership is something you either have or you don't. It's not a concept that has levels. You mentioned "self-ownership rights" earlier as if it's just a term that describes a bunch of things, but under my understanding of the concept if you don't have any singular one of those rights then you don't have self-ownership.
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 4:12:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/19/2013 4:01:08 PM, Korashk wrote:
At 12/19/2013 2:15:35 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 12/19/2013 4:12:34 AM, Korashk wrote:
At 12/18/2013 11:48:06 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 12/18/2013 4:55:17 PM, Korashk wrote:
At 12/18/2013 3:27:55 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 12/17/2013 10:09:33 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 12/17/2013 10:03:11 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 12/17/2013 9:58:25 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 12/17/2013 2:57:29 AM, donald.keller wrote:
I'm not Libertarian. I just want to answer one of these for you because it's very loaded...

Yes, all these questions are pretty loaded. But not against Libertarians. Ideologues, rather. People who think politics is a simple issue and are overly confident in their beliefs.

Well, I was just talking about the first one. Simplifying Self-Ownership into one object makes answering the question harder, because Self Ownership as one right simply doesn't exist. It is millions of little rights, some completely different from the others.

Self-ownership is a concept put forward by Libertarians. I'm just using their language. It's up to them to define it for me.

Well Libertarians need to get their understanding of Self-Ownership together.

Self-ownership is a simple concept. The disagreement occurs in discussing who has it.

Hardly simple. There are millions of Self Ownership rights... Drinking Age, Driving Age, Smoking Age, Right to move out, Age of Consent, Age to work... There is no single "Self Ownership."

You and I have a different understanding of what self-ownership is, and I don't think you're using the term in the way that a strict libertarian would. I could be wrong though. I'm pretty much just answering FREEDO's questions off the cuff.

I'll get to your latest query later FREEDO. I'm a bit Drunk.

I just don't believe Self-Ownership can be given out as one thing. Different versions require completely different levels of self-ownership

And my understanding is that self-ownership is something you either have or you don't. It's not a concept that has levels. You mentioned "self-ownership rights" earlier as if it's just a term that describes a bunch of things, but under my understanding of the concept if you don't have any singular one of those rights then you don't have self-ownership.

That's why it can't be a single thing. I can own a car and not be allowed to drive it because I'm not old enough.

Someone can believe a 10 year is old enough to drink, but not old enough to drive... When it comes to rights and freedoms, you can't compare owning yourself to owning an item. An item doesn't have a complex life split up by different levels of maturity and mental health, as well as a million different parts of it's existence.

While we are talking about the same thing... the concept of ownership... they aren't entirely comparable.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2013 6:34:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/18/2013 9:10:42 PM, FREEDO wrote:
No one is 100% Libertarian. We all have a limit. But many believe they are. I'd like to help them discover their inconsistency, an experience which all humans share in.

If this is your goal with the thread then I don't really see us gaining much more continuing this line of discussion. I pride myself on having as few inconsistencies in my belief system as possible to the point that I'd be okay with the world burning as long as I don't hold a contradictory belief.

At 12/18/2013 8:52:18 PM, FREEDO wrote::
What rights do children have?

The exact same rights as adults have, provided that they're self-aware/rational. The problem with this metric is that the standard for self-awareness and rationality isn't clearly defined. This is in part due to the fact that it really CAN'T be defined. I've heard claims that the brain isn't fully developed until you're in your twenties.

That's the reason for my personal practical solution of dealing with children using the rational person standard, at least until it's fairly clear that they're fully developed as people.

I like this quote. But why wouldn't this lead to the Left-Libertarian argument that statelessness isn't enough--other forms of tyranny exist? For example, when a worker sells much of their capacity to control their own lives to their employer and must still do so if they wish to work for anyone else. The Left-Libertarian would conclude that either all people need to be self-sufficient so there's no need to seek employment, or have the means of production kept decentralized. Why would you not take it so far?

I would agree with the notion that statelessness isn't enough to completely prevent tyranny, but I'm not sure what you mean by the second half of your statement. The entire basis of "mainstream" libertarianism is voluntary interaction. That's the entire standard. Preventing people from controlling things because of a possibility is the very antithesis of libertarianism.

I had in mind an incident I recently heard on the news about an incest cult that had been continuing the tradition for generations and had horribly disfigured children with severe learning impairment and aggression issues. Do you think it was worthy of intervention?

Yes, but not strictly because of incest. I've also read that story. The thing with incestuous relationships is that they're very rarely not the product of abuse which is usually an actionable violation of rights in libertarianism.

How far is an individual allowed to pollute the uncontained atmosphere above their property or a river that runs through their property?

They can pollute it up to the point where it starts effecting another person's property, which in ideal standards would all but make pollution something that can't be done without facing repercussions.

Even when a small minority has homesteaded the majority of the land, putting everyone else at their mercy?

Yes.

This is an out-there hypothetical so stay with me.
A large group of employers form a cartel and replace a portion of all workers'pay with a new highly addictive drug called drug-X. If they don't take the drug, the'll be fired and replaced with someone who will. The workers become dependent on the employers and submit to greater and greater demands.
Is intervention in this situation justified?

No. Although I'd be surprised if a company like that could function in a free society.

Also, you mentioned that employers can be held responsible for work related injuries.
Does that include conditions such as muscle pain, fatigue, depression and anxiety?

Probably not, I won't rule out the possibility entirely but I can't think of a situation where those issues would be actionable in a voluntary employment situation.

Are peasants to be blamed if they are pressured to rise up in armed rebellion and initiate a redistribution?

They're to be blamed if they carry out an armed rebellion to initiate redistribution.

Isn't it true that when Libertarian rights are used towards goals that limit the freedom of choice that other possess over their own lives, it's destructive to the very intentions behind Libertarianism?

I wouldn't say that, mainly because the goal of libertarianism isn't necessarily to maximize freedom of choice, but to ensure the freedom to choose to do what you want with what is yours provided you stick to the NAP.

All for them. Syndicalism isn't incompatible to libertarianism provided that the collective ownership is voluntary.

Do you think it may be the rational thing for them to do?

Sure, from what I've read about syndicalist businesses, they're often very successful. That doesn't mean people should be forced to syndicalize.
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2013 4:40:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/19/2013 1:54:34 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/17/2013 1:44:16 AM, FREEDO wrote:
If you're the kind of Libertarian who swears that pure logical extensions of self-ownership and voluntarism are what define your ideology, these questions are for you. After each question, I ask that you explain why you answered that way.

At this point, I'm 7 shots down and looking for a challenge. I have not looked at a single answer and will attempt to answer as I believe a true libertarian would.


Devil's advocate. I like it.

1. At what age does one acquire self-ownership? From birth? Conception? Gradually? An arbitrarily set age?

Upon the ability to rationally think and become self-aware.

How is that standard enforced?



3. Is a person capable of selling their self?

Yes. They can enter into a contract of any length of time, including forever.

Could this ultimately result in less freedom unless further steps are taken than simple Libertarianism?





6. Are sexual relations between a fully grown adult and a pre-pubescent child allowable?

Yes, so long as the child has reached the point that they can maintain rational thought and are self aware (I believe this typically happens between 18 months and 3 years old).

lol
I've never known a Libertariann to just out and admit that age range.

7. Is incest allowable?

Yes, same mental restrictions.

Even if it results in disabled children?







11. Are individuals allowed to pollute anything they own?

Yes, though if their pollution spreads to someone else's property, they can be held liable.

What if we assume man-made global warming exists. How can they be held accountable for that?


12. Is monopoly allowable?

Yes


Won't that result in less freedom for the general public?





15. Do you recognize the existence of psychological techniques for manipulating people's choices? If so, are they allowable? And if they aren't allowable, how do we go about drawing a line between these and simple persuasive marketing?

This is more than 1 question you dirty Nazi! Not sure where that came from. Yes, there are techniques. Yes, they are allowable. Ultimately, while you can influence people, they are ultimately responsible for their choices.

Isn't this another way simple Libertarianism may actually result in less freedom?

16. Is there a limit to how addictive a substance can be when it's being used to turn a profit? If yes, how do we draw the line?

No. So long as the consumer is made aware of the risks of their choice, it is their choice.

Even if a large number of businesses formed a cartel and replaced a portion of everyone's pay with a new highly addictive drug and told they would be fired if they didn't take it?



19. Is it ok for businesses to form cartels and conspire to rise prices, lower wages or fire workers who attempt to organize against them?

Yes, because if they attempt to jack up prices, then other people will simply create new businesses to undermine them, forcing them to stay "honest" (at least price-wise).

How can they start their own businesses if they were never payed enough by the old businesses owners to start one, let alone stay competitive?

If a cartel so powerful formed that it became a pseudogovernment, completely cornering the market, would the poor really stand any chance to invest in business?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord