Total Posts:53|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Libertarian zoning

innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2010 11:34:12 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
My first dilemma as a libertarian came in the 80's. I was an elected person in a small town in Massachusetts that i had been raised in. I was an ardent libertarian still in college and was psyched to actually serve in representing a few neighborhoods near my home in Lexington. I did well, and won my second election and was elevated to the Executive Committee of the town. Then i was confronted with the annual zoning ordinances that had to be reviewed and or modified (variances). As a libertarian i was against all zoning and felt that a person's property should be theirs to do with as they please. I looked at the zoning and the town and how things were actually put together with some good thought. I also looked at a neighboring town that had crappy zoning and what it did to the town.

So here i am, i have a beautiful town of great historic significance, maintained and kept up so it is frequently visited by tourists, and it is clear to me that the zoning had much to do with the way this town looked. I also couldn't stop thinking about the town that isn't far away that is just shi++y because of poor planning and zoning. I had to decide for the good of the town which way things should go in variances and future planning.......what to do.

This was my first major break with the theoretic acceptance of libertarianism and it's actual application in a community; ever since i have taken a far more pragmatic view of my libertarianism.

I might add that it was around this same time that i took my trip to the USSR and was heavily influenced by that, but it pulled me back toward libertarianism.

So, any thoughts on the application of libertarianism beyond the theory, but in actual application in a community? Would the hard core libertarians here maintained their philosophical integrity at the expense of the community? Or would they probably not run for office in the first place?
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2010 12:18:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/15/2010 11:34:12 AM, innomen wrote:
My first dilemma as a libertarian came in the 80's. I was an elected person in a small town in Massachusetts that i had been raised in. I was an ardent libertarian still in college and was psyched to actually serve in representing a few neighborhoods near my home in Lexington. I did well, and won my second election and was elevated to the Executive Committee of the town. Then i was confronted with the annual zoning ordinances that had to be reviewed and or modified (variances). As a libertarian i was against all zoning and felt that a person's property should be theirs to do with as they please. I looked at the zoning and the town and how things were actually put together with some good thought. I also looked at a neighboring town that had crappy zoning and what it did to the town.

So here i am, i have a beautiful town of great historic significance, maintained and kept up so it is frequently visited by tourists, and it is clear to me that the zoning had much to do with the way this town looked. I also couldn't stop thinking about the town that isn't far away that is just shi++y because of poor planning and zoning. I had to decide for the good of the town which way things should go in variances and future planning.......what to do.

This was my first major break with the theoretic acceptance of libertarianism and it's actual application in a community; ever since i have taken a far more pragmatic view of my libertarianism.

I might add that it was around this same time that i took my trip to the USSR and was heavily influenced by that, but it pulled me back toward libertarianism.

So, any thoughts on the application of libertarianism beyond the theory, but in actual application in a community? Would the hard core libertarians here maintained their philosophical integrity at the expense of the community? Or would they probably not run for office in the first place?

I probably wouldn't have run for office in the first place, but yes, I would have maintained my integrity.

That doesn't mean that the town would necessarily lose its historical significance though. Let's say that in a town, there are a few people who want to change their property in such a way that would cause the town to lose its "historical significance" or whatever, but everyone else in the town doesn't want them to. The libertarian solution isn't for the few people to change their homes and not care about everyone else. The libertarian solution is to give the people of the town a choice: either let the minority modify their property, or buy the property themselves. The government solution would be to use the violence of the state for either one of the solutions, most likely the stopping the renovation solution. If that were the case, then one of two things would be true. If the town would have been willing to pay up if they had to to keep the historical significance,then the government solution is obviously wrong. It is effectively stealing from the property owners. If the town wouldn't have been willing to buy up the property, then the act is still obviously wrong. Why should the majority of the town get its will enforced if isn't even willing to pay for the consequences of their actions?
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2010 12:31:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/15/2010 12:18:34 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 10/15/2010 11:34:12 AM, innomen wrote:
My first dilemma as a libertarian came in the 80's. I was an elected person in a small town in Massachusetts that i had been raised in. I was an ardent libertarian still in college and was psyched to actually serve in representing a few neighborhoods near my home in Lexington. I did well, and won my second election and was elevated to the Executive Committee of the town. Then i was confronted with the annual zoning ordinances that had to be reviewed and or modified (variances). As a libertarian i was against all zoning and felt that a person's property should be theirs to do with as they please. I looked at the zoning and the town and how things were actually put together with some good thought. I also looked at a neighboring town that had crappy zoning and what it did to the town.

So here i am, i have a beautiful town of great historic significance, maintained and kept up so it is frequently visited by tourists, and it is clear to me that the zoning had much to do with the way this town looked. I also couldn't stop thinking about the town that isn't far away that is just shi++y because of poor planning and zoning. I had to decide for the good of the town which way things should go in variances and future planning.......what to do.

This was my first major break with the theoretic acceptance of libertarianism and it's actual application in a community; ever since i have taken a far more pragmatic view of my libertarianism.

I might add that it was around this same time that i took my trip to the USSR and was heavily influenced by that, but it pulled me back toward libertarianism.

So, any thoughts on the application of libertarianism beyond the theory, but in actual application in a community? Would the hard core libertarians here maintained their philosophical integrity at the expense of the community? Or would they probably not run for office in the first place?

I probably wouldn't have run for office in the first place, but yes, I would have maintained my integrity.

That doesn't mean that the town would necessarily lose its historical significance though. Let's say that in a town, there are a few people who want to change their property in such a way that would cause the town to lose its "historical significance" or whatever, but everyone else in the town doesn't want them to. The libertarian solution isn't for the few people to change their homes and not care about everyone else. The libertarian solution is to give the people of the town a choice: either let the minority modify their property, or buy the property themselves. The government solution would be to use the violence of the state for either one of the solutions, most likely the stopping the renovation solution. If that were the case, then one of two things would be true. If the town would have been willing to pay up if they had to to keep the historical significance,then the government solution is obviously wrong. It is effectively stealing from the property owners. If the town wouldn't have been willing to buy up the property, then the act is still obviously wrong. Why should the majority of the town get its will enforced if isn't even willing to pay for the consequences of their actions?

Point of clarification, the town will remain historically significant regardless of what happens to the zoning. The overall aesthetics of the town are dependent on good zoning - as would be the resulting tourism, and the commerce of local businesses. The libertarian approach is in theory better for the individual, but in reality it would mean an incremental, at best, degradation of the community. While the individual may be maintaining his property, he most likely would be unable to participate in the purchase of other properties to maintain the community. A more benign solution would be the zoning ordinances. The libertarian solution would impact the town negatively, and has disregard for "community". - There is no way around this in the libertarian approach. It hinges on the hope that something will happen, but probably won't.
BTW - my rationale was - anyone moving into this community understands there are zoning laws in place.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2010 12:37:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/15/2010 12:31:20 PM, innomen wrote:
At 10/15/2010 12:18:34 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 10/15/2010 11:34:12 AM, innomen wrote:
My first dilemma as a libertarian came in the 80's. I was an elected person in a small town in Massachusetts that i had been raised in. I was an ardent libertarian still in college and was psyched to actually serve in representing a few neighborhoods near my home in Lexington. I did well, and won my second election and was elevated to the Executive Committee of the town. Then i was confronted with the annual zoning ordinances that had to be reviewed and or modified (variances). As a libertarian i was against all zoning and felt that a person's property should be theirs to do with as they please. I looked at the zoning and the town and how things were actually put together with some good thought. I also looked at a neighboring town that had crappy zoning and what it did to the town.

So here i am, i have a beautiful town of great historic significance, maintained and kept up so it is frequently visited by tourists, and it is clear to me that the zoning had much to do with the way this town looked. I also couldn't stop thinking about the town that isn't far away that is just shi++y because of poor planning and zoning. I had to decide for the good of the town which way things should go in variances and future planning.......what to do.

This was my first major break with the theoretic acceptance of libertarianism and it's actual application in a community; ever since i have taken a far more pragmatic view of my libertarianism.

I might add that it was around this same time that i took my trip to the USSR and was heavily influenced by that, but it pulled me back toward libertarianism.

So, any thoughts on the application of libertarianism beyond the theory, but in actual application in a community? Would the hard core libertarians here maintained their philosophical integrity at the expense of the community? Or would they probably not run for office in the first place?

I probably wouldn't have run for office in the first place, but yes, I would have maintained my integrity.

That doesn't mean that the town would necessarily lose its historical significance though. Let's say that in a town, there are a few people who want to change their property in such a way that would cause the town to lose its "historical significance" or whatever, but everyone else in the town doesn't want them to. The libertarian solution isn't for the few people to change their homes and not care about everyone else. The libertarian solution is to give the people of the town a choice: either let the minority modify their property, or buy the property themselves. The government solution would be to use the violence of the state for either one of the solutions, most likely the stopping the renovation solution. If that were the case, then one of two things would be true. If the town would have been willing to pay up if they had to to keep the historical significance,then the government solution is obviously wrong. It is effectively stealing from the property owners. If the town wouldn't have been willing to buy up the property, then the act is still obviously wrong. Why should the majority of the town get its will enforced if isn't even willing to pay for the consequences of their actions?

Point of clarification, the town will remain historically significant regardless of what happens to the zoning. The overall aesthetics of the town are dependent on good zoning - as would be the resulting tourism, and the commerce of local businesses. The libertarian approach is in theory better for the individual, but in reality it would mean an incremental, at best, degradation of the community. While the individual may be maintaining his property, he most likely would be unable to participate in the purchase of other properties to maintain the community. A more benign solution would be the zoning ordinances. The libertarian solution would impact the town negatively, and has disregard for "community". - There is no way around this in the libertarian approach. It hinges on the hope that something will happen, but probably won't.
There's no such thing as a solution that's better for individuals but bad for the "community." There' no separate entity called a "community," it's just a group of individuals. So who exactly is this degradation bad for? If it's bad enough for enough individuals, then they'd pool their money and pay to stop it. If it isn't, then the good for individuals outweighs their concerns.

BTW - my rationale was - anyone moving into this community understands there are zoning laws in place.
I was under the impression that zoning laws effect everyone within a certain town, not just people that move in after the zoning laws are enacted. Anyway, if you wanted to bind newcomers to follow certain rules, you could do so. People could just agree to have buyers sign a contract saying they won't do certain things to their property before selling them land.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2010 1:35:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/15/2010 12:37:34 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 10/15/2010 12:31:20 PM, innomen wrote:
At 10/15/2010 12:18:34 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 10/15/2010 11:34:12 AM, innomen wrote:
My first dilemma as a libertarian came in the 80's. I was an elected person in a small town in Massachusetts that i had been raised in. I was an ardent libertarian still in college and was psyched to actually serve in representing a few neighborhoods near my home in Lexington. I did well, and won my second election and was elevated to the Executive Committee of the town. Then i was confronted with the annual zoning ordinances that had to be reviewed and or modified (variances). As a libertarian i was against all zoning and felt that a person's property should be theirs to do with as they please. I looked at the zoning and the town and how things were actually put together with some good thought. I also looked at a neighboring town that had crappy zoning and what it did to the town.

So here i am, i have a beautiful town of great historic significance, maintained and kept up so it is frequently visited by tourists, and it is clear to me that the zoning had much to do with the way this town looked. I also couldn't stop thinking about the town that isn't far away that is just shi++y because of poor planning and zoning. I had to decide for the good of the town which way things should go in variances and future planning.......what to do.

This was my first major break with the theoretic acceptance of libertarianism and it's actual application in a community; ever since i have taken a far more pragmatic view of my libertarianism.

I might add that it was around this same time that i took my trip to the USSR and was heavily influenced by that, but it pulled me back toward libertarianism.

So, any thoughts on the application of libertarianism beyond the theory, but in actual application in a community? Would the hard core libertarians here maintained their philosophical integrity at the expense of the community? Or would they probably not run for office in the first place?

I probably wouldn't have run for office in the first place, but yes, I would have maintained my integrity.

That doesn't mean that the town would necessarily lose its historical significance though. Let's say that in a town, there are a few people who want to change their property in such a way that would cause the town to lose its "historical significance" or whatever, but everyone else in the town doesn't want them to. The libertarian solution isn't for the few people to change their homes and not care about everyone else. The libertarian solution is to give the people of the town a choice: either let the minority modify their property, or buy the property themselves. The government solution would be to use the violence of the state for either one of the solutions, most likely the stopping the renovation solution. If that were the case, then one of two things would be true. If the town would have been willing to pay up if they had to to keep the historical significance,then the government solution is obviously wrong. It is effectively stealing from the property owners. If the town wouldn't have been willing to buy up the property, then the act is still obviously wrong. Why should the majority of the town get its will enforced if isn't even willing to pay for the consequences of their actions?

Point of clarification, the town will remain historically significant regardless of what happens to the zoning. The overall aesthetics of the town are dependent on good zoning - as would be the resulting tourism, and the commerce of local businesses. The libertarian approach is in theory better for the individual, but in reality it would mean an incremental, at best, degradation of the community. While the individual may be maintaining his property, he most likely would be unable to participate in the purchase of other properties to maintain the community. A more benign solution would be the zoning ordinances. The libertarian solution would impact the town negatively, and has disregard for "community". - There is no way around this in the libertarian approach. It hinges on the hope that something will happen, but probably won't.
There's no such thing as a solution that's better for individuals but bad for the "community." There' no separate entity called a "community," it's just a group of individuals. So who exactly is this degradation bad for? If it's bad enough for enough individuals, then they'd pool their money and pay to stop it. If it isn't, then the good for individuals outweighs their concerns.
See the problem is that the individual would rather take a chance and let the others take care of the problem, thus riding on the benefits that the others will provide by keeping the town looking good. The cost of buying all properties in order to maintain what zoning would provide is astronomical. It is bad for those who live in the town, whereas if those in the town got together and made decisions as in zoning it would be better than otherwise. - There is no doubt that zoning is better for the community, but the individual who has less say in what happens loses in that process. He will benefit from having a better town, but he loses out in the ideals of libertarianism. - in this libertarianism, in it's pure form fails when compared to the alternative.

BTW - my rationale was - anyone moving into this community understands there are zoning laws in place.
I was under the impression that zoning laws effect everyone within a certain town, not just people that move in after the zoning laws are enacted. Anyway, if you wanted to bind newcomers to follow certain rules, you could do so. People could just agree to have buyers sign a contract saying they won't do certain things to their property before selling them land.
They do affect everyone in a town, but you move into the town knowing that there are zoning laws and you will have to live by them. The burden of information lies on the buyer not the seller - why should the person selling land be obligated in providing an education as to the town's restrictions?
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2010 1:45:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/15/2010 11:34:12 AM, innomen wrote:
I used to be an idealist and after I got real world experience, I realized that practicality is far more useful.

This is basically what I saw, and I like it.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2010 1:53:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I also couldn't stop thinking about the town that isn't far away that is just shi++y because of poor planning and zoning.
Poor =/= none, I'm also curious how you determined the causation there.

Zoning for one thing makes millions of people waste billions of hours a year commuting.

Tourism is not the only industry in the world, and if it wishes others property to be tailored to its purpose, it should pay up to get it that way.

Yes, I would seek to abolish zoning in any office I happened to come across.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2010 1:55:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
also, there is no such thing as "better" for a community unless its pareto, which zoning ain't.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2010 2:05:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/15/2010 1:53:47 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I also couldn't stop thinking about the town that isn't far away that is just shi++y because of poor planning and zoning.
Poor =/= none, I'm also curious how you determined the causation there.
The causation between it being shi++y and the zoning? In one community there are distinct districts that allow levels of commercial business and a gradation with respect to residential neighborhoods, or historically preserved areas. The other has a strip club/bar next to the elementary school in a residential neighborhood. Panda might like that, but property owners would not.

Zoning for one thing makes millions of people waste billions of hours a year commuting.

I would like to know how you figure that the absence of zoning would improve commuting time. - That's a complete guess on your part.

Tourism is not the only industry in the world, and if it wishes others property to be tailored to its purpose, it should pay up to get it that way.
As a libertarian, is nothing sacred in areas of historic significance? Would you put the Declaration up for sale?

Yes, I would seek to abolish zoning in any office I happened to come across.
And you would never be elected.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2010 2:08:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Inno, you should pick up a copy of "The voluntary city". Its a compendium of historical essays on non-government provision of all sorts of different services. Including city planning. Knowing how the market has provided things past makes everything seem so easy. The "But how will we do X w.o government?" is really just an entrepreneurial problem, and most of us aren't entrepreneurs.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2010 2:11:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/15/2010 2:05:54 PM, innomen wrote:
At 10/15/2010 1:53:47 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I also couldn't stop thinking about the town that isn't far away that is just shi++y because of poor planning and zoning.
Poor =/= none, I'm also curious how you determined the causation there.
The causation between it being shi++y and the zoning? In one community there are distinct districts that allow levels of commercial business and a gradation with respect to residential neighborhoods, or historically preserved areas. The other has a strip club/bar next to the elementary school in a residential neighborhood.
So?

Panda might like that, but property owners would not.
Why not?
They can build fences, no need to see the strip club.


Zoning for one thing makes millions of people waste billions of hours a year commuting.

I would like to know how you figure that the absence of zoning would improve commuting time.
Strippers with kids don't have to commute from residence district to school to red light district--

bob doesn't have to commute from residential district to commercial district, or worse, from suburb with all the residential space that isn't superexpensive to city, since suburb has insufficient business zones...

Tourism is not the only industry in the world, and if it wishes others property to be tailored to its purpose, it should pay up to get it that way.
As a libertarian, is nothing sacred in areas of historic significance?
No.
As a collector, it might be, and if so, I'll buy the historically significant stuff to keep it that way.
What's the significance here anyway?

Would you put the Declaration up for sale?
I don't own it. If I did, yes, I'd sell it. The words are recorded.


Yes, I would seek to abolish zoning in any office I happened to come across.
And you would never be elected.
Though I provide the electorate the opportunity to change its mind, I don't expect such things.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2010 2:20:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/15/2010 1:35:28 PM, innomen wrote:
At 10/15/2010 12:37:34 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 10/15/2010 12:31:20 PM, innomen wrote:

Point of clarification, the town will remain historically significant regardless of what happens to the zoning. The overall aesthetics of the town are dependent on good zoning - as would be the resulting tourism, and the commerce of local businesses. The libertarian approach is in theory better for the individual, but in reality it would mean an incremental, at best, degradation of the community. While the individual may be maintaining his property, he most likely would be unable to participate in the purchase of other properties to maintain the community. A more benign solution would be the zoning ordinances. The libertarian solution would impact the town negatively, and has disregard for "community". - There is no way around this in the libertarian approach. It hinges on the hope that something will happen, but probably won't.
There's no such thing as a solution that's better for individuals but bad for the "community." There' no separate entity called a "community," it's just a group of individuals. So who exactly is this degradation bad for? If it's bad enough for enough individuals, then they'd pool their money and pay to stop it. If it isn't, then the good for individuals outweighs their concerns.
See the problem is that the individual would rather take a chance and let the others take care of the problem, thus riding on the benefits that the others will provide by keeping the town looking good. The cost of buying all properties in order to maintain what zoning would provide is astronomical. It is bad for those who live in the town, whereas if those in the town got together and made decisions as in zoning it would be better than otherwise. - There is no doubt that zoning is better for the community, but the individual who has less say in what happens loses in that process. He will benefit from having a better town, but he loses out in the ideals of libertarianism. - in this libertarianism, in it's pure form fails when compared to the alternative.
Buying all of the properties? That wouldn't be necessary. You'd only have to buy the ones that have special historical significance or whatever. If a large % of property owners were planning on changing their property in a way that destroyed the historical significance, then democracy wouldn't work either. If it were only a minority, then the people that would benefit from keeping the property a certain way would be able to pay to keep it that way if they wanted to.

Anyway, by what standards is preserving historical significance "better" for the community than letting people do whatever they want with their property? There's no such thing as a policy that's better for a "community," there are only things that benefit or hurt individuals. If individuals want certain benefits, they should be willing to pay for them, not force other individuals, or the "community," to conform to their will.

Furthermore, you are assuming that an "ideal" set of zoning laws could be enacted, and then comparing that set of laws to no zoning laws. That's ridiculous. Imagine this conversation:
Liberal: We should set up X regulatory agency.
You: No, that won't work because [a bunch of problems that regulatory agencies have]
Liberal: No, I'm not proposing that, I'm proposing an agency that enacts the policies I hope it will enact

Would you consider that a legitimate argument? Of course not. You can't judge policies based on how you hope that they work, only on how they actually work. So if you advocate giving a local government the power to enact zoning laws, you can't say that you're advocating that they do the specific things that you want them to do, you must accept ALL of the consequences of giving the local government that power, which, in a democracy, include stupid and corrupt laws.

BTW - my rationale was - anyone moving into this community understands there are zoning laws in place.
I was under the impression that zoning laws effect everyone within a certain town, not just people that move in after the zoning laws are enacted. Anyway, if you wanted to bind newcomers to follow certain rules, you could do so. People could just agree to have buyers sign a contract saying they won't do certain things to their property before selling them land.
They do affect everyone in a town, but you move into the town knowing that there are zoning laws and you will have to live by them. The burden of information lies on the buyer not the seller - why should the person selling land be obligated in providing an education as to the town's restrictions?
They shouldn't be obligated to provide any such education. I'm only saying that if they want the historical significance preserved, then it is up to them to write up such a contract. If they don't, then they can either sell it to whoever, or sell it to someone who does care about the historical significance.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2010 2:21:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/15/2010 2:11:04 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 10/15/2010 2:05:54 PM, innomen wrote:
At 10/15/2010 1:53:47 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I also couldn't stop thinking about the town that isn't far away that is just shi++y because of poor planning and zoning.
Poor =/= none, I'm also curious how you determined the causation there.
The causation between it being shi++y and the zoning? In one community there are distinct districts that allow levels of commercial business and a gradation with respect to residential neighborhoods, or historically preserved areas. The other has a strip club/bar next to the elementary school in a residential neighborhood.
So?
You asked me how, i told you how.

Panda might like that, but property owners would not.
Why not?
They can build fences, no need to see the strip club.

Honestly, as a home owner, property owner, that's the only problem you can see?

Zoning for one thing makes millions of people waste billions of hours a year commuting.

I would like to know how you figure that the absence of zoning would improve commuting time.
Strippers with kids don't have to commute from residence district to school to red light district--

bob doesn't have to commute from residential district to commercial district, or worse, from suburb with all the residential space that isn't superexpensive to city, since suburb has insufficient business zones...

You don't know that, you have no idea how far bob would need to go to get away from the helter skelter set up that zero planning would result, or how far he would take his kid to the private non-strip club adjacent school.
Tourism is not the only industry in the world, and if it wishes others property to be tailored to its purpose, it should pay up to get it that way.
As a libertarian, is nothing sacred in areas of historic significance?
No.
As a collector, it might be, and if so, I'll buy the historically significant stuff to keep it that way.
What's the significance here anyway?
In this town where i grew up is the green where the minutemen fought the British, and you would allow a strip club put there instead of the green.

Would you put the Declaration up for sale?
I don't own it. If I did, yes, I'd sell it. The words are recorded.


Yes, I would seek to abolish zoning in any office I happened to come across.
And you would never be elected.
Though I provide the electorate the opportunity to change its mind, I don't expect such things.

This is where you guys are not in touch with the reality of life. Where the greater good lies in a compromise. This is where you are sanctifying the ridiculous.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2010 3:02:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/15/2010 2:21:36 PM, innomen wrote:
At 10/15/2010 2:11:04 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 10/15/2010 2:05:54 PM, innomen wrote:
At 10/15/2010 1:53:47 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I also couldn't stop thinking about the town that isn't far away that is just shi++y because of poor planning and zoning.
Poor =/= none, I'm also curious how you determined the causation there.
The causation between it being shi++y and the zoning? In one community there are distinct districts that allow levels of commercial business and a gradation with respect to residential neighborhoods, or historically preserved areas. The other has a strip club/bar next to the elementary school in a residential neighborhood.
So?
You asked me how, i told you how.

that doesn't sound ****y.

Panda might like that, but property owners would not.
Why not?
They can build fences, no need to see the strip club.

Honestly, as a home owner, property owner, that's the only problem you can see?
The only genuine one.


Zoning for one thing makes millions of people waste billions of hours a year commuting.

I would like to know how you figure that the absence of zoning would improve commuting time.
Strippers with kids don't have to commute from residence district to school to red light district--

bob doesn't have to commute from residential district to commercial district, or worse, from suburb with all the residential space that isn't superexpensive to city, since suburb has insufficient business zones...

You don't know that, you have no idea how far bob would need to go to get away from the helter skelter set up that zero planning would result
Helter skelter?

or how far he would take his kid to the private non-strip club adjacent school.
He doesn't need to do such a thing. If he does so that is his idiocy. Everyone, idiot or otherwise, is bound to the commuting dictated by zoning laws.

Tourism is not the only industry in the world, and if it wishes others property to be tailored to its purpose, it should pay up to get it that way.
As a libertarian, is nothing sacred in areas of historic significance?
No.
As a collector, it might be, and if so, I'll buy the historically significant stuff to keep it that way.
What's the significance here anyway?
In this town where i grew up is the green where the minutemen fought the British
They fought all kinds of places.

and you would allow a strip club put there instead of the green.
An excellent way to honor freedom fighters, many of whom probably would have been quite glad to have a strip club to go to after the battle.

This is where you guys are not in touch with the reality of life. Where the greater good lies in a compromise.
That isn't any "reality."
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2010 12:58:25 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/15/2010 3:02:09 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 10/15/2010 2:21:36 PM, innomen wrote:
At 10/15/2010 2:11:04 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 10/15/2010 2:05:54 PM, innomen wrote:
At 10/15/2010 1:53:47 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I also couldn't stop thinking about the town that isn't far away that is just shi++y because of poor planning and zoning.
Poor =/= none, I'm also curious how you determined the causation there.
The causation between it being shi++y and the zoning? In one community there are distinct districts that allow levels of commercial business and a gradation with respect to residential neighborhoods, or historically preserved areas. The other has a strip club/bar next to the elementary school in a residential neighborhood.
So?
You asked me how, i told you how.

that doesn't sound ****y.
It's a shi++y town, trust me.

Panda might like that, but property owners would not.
Why not?
They can build fences, no need to see the strip club.

Honestly, as a home owner, property owner, that's the only problem you can see?
The only genuine one.
You don't see the diminishing value of your property due to it's decaying context as a problem?


Zoning for one thing makes millions of people waste billions of hours a year commuting.

I would like to know how you figure that the absence of zoning would improve commuting time.
Strippers with kids don't have to commute from residence district to school to red light district--

bob doesn't have to commute from residential district to commercial district, or worse, from suburb with all the residential space that isn't superexpensive to city, since suburb has insufficient business zones...

You don't know that, you have no idea how far bob would need to go to get away from the helter skelter set up that zero planning would result
Helter skelter?
"disorderly haste or confusion"http://www.phrases.org.uk...


or how far he would take his kid to the private non-strip club adjacent school.
He doesn't need to do such a thing. If he does so that is his idiocy. Everyone, idiot or otherwise, is bound to the commuting dictated by zoning laws.
A very poor response on your part, and proves my point. He does if he doesn't want to live in a community that has a strip club on the village green and one next to the elementary school.

Tourism is not the only industry in the world, and if it wishes others property to be tailored to its purpose, it should pay up to get it that way.
As a libertarian, is nothing sacred in areas of historic significance?
No.
As a collector, it might be, and if so, I'll buy the historically significant stuff to keep it that way.
What's the significance here anyway?
In this town where i grew up is the green where the minutemen fought the British
They fought all kinds of places.

and you would allow a strip club put there instead of the green.
An excellent way to honor freedom fighters, many of whom probably would have been quite glad to have a strip club to go to after the battle.


This is where you guys are not in touch with the reality of life. Where the greater good lies in a compromise.
That isn't any "reality."

It is real life, not a theoretical notion of an ideal. It is where the purity of libertarian becomes absurd and distasteful. Keeping it as such will relegate it always to the realm of fringe.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2010 11:39:55 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/16/2010 12:58:25 AM, innomen wrote:
At 10/15/2010 3:02:09 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 10/15/2010 2:21:36 PM, innomen wrote:
At 10/15/2010 2:11:04 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 10/15/2010 2:05:54 PM, innomen wrote:
At 10/15/2010 1:53:47 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I also couldn't stop thinking about the town that isn't far away that is just shi++y because of poor planning and zoning.
Poor =/= none, I'm also curious how you determined the causation there.
The causation between it being shi++y and the zoning? In one community there are distinct districts that allow levels of commercial business and a gradation with respect to residential neighborhoods, or historically preserved areas. The other has a strip club/bar next to the elementary school in a residential neighborhood.
So?
You asked me how, i told you how.

that doesn't sound ****y.
It's a shi++y town, trust me.
I'm not the trusting type. :)


Panda might like that, but property owners would not.
Why not?
They can build fences, no need to see the strip club.

Honestly, as a home owner, property owner, that's the only problem you can see?
The only genuine one.
You don't see the diminishing value of your property due to it's decaying context as a problem?
Not unless you contracted with those "providers of context" to keep things that way.



Zoning for one thing makes millions of people waste billions of hours a year commuting.

I would like to know how you figure that the absence of zoning would improve commuting time.
Strippers with kids don't have to commute from residence district to school to red light district--

bob doesn't have to commute from residential district to commercial district, or worse, from suburb with all the residential space that isn't superexpensive to city, since suburb has insufficient business zones...

You don't know that, you have no idea how far bob would need to go to get away from the helter skelter set up that zero planning would result
Helter skelter?
"disorderly haste or confusion"http://www.phrases.org.uk...
The property lines are plenty of order. If there's DEMONSTRABLE harm from something to the actual use of the property, not merely the prices for buyers who want different uses of the property or happened to be prejudiced(A strip club is not demonstrable harm to the use of the property), the answer is not zoning laws but lawsuits with the principle that the first one whose position was established in a conflict wins (If there is, say, loud music from the strip club that interferes with the study at the elementary school, the question is whether the strip club had speakers there before the school.)



or how far he would take his kid to the private non-strip club adjacent school.
He doesn't need to do such a thing. If he does so that is his idiocy. Everyone, idiot or otherwise, is bound to the commuting dictated by zoning laws.
A very poor response on your part, and proves my point. He does if he doesn't want to live in a community that has a strip club on the village green and one next to the elementary school.
Yes, he is bound to pay the price of his prejudices.

This is superior to everyone else paying the price of his prejudices in mandatory sprawl and long commutes.

That isn't any "reality."

It is real life, not a theoretical notion of an ideal. It is where the purity of libertarian becomes absurd and distasteful.
Moderation is not some law of physics. It is a theoretical (and bad) ideal. I brook no compromise between freedom and slavery, food and poison, life and death.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
InBonobo
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2010 11:50:22 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
sorry to butt in so late in this thread..

my view is that libertarianism doesn't "just work". it requires that a lot of people are on the same page, aware of libertarian ideas and have above average entrepreneurial skills. this does not occur naturally in a community.

as such, I would've done what the original poster has done. as an elected representative, you have to act as your voters want you to act, and voters overwhelmingly place safety and convenience on top of freedom and liberty. sure, there is room to lead and be sometimes be a step in front of the pack, but zoning is not it.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2010 12:05:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Small communities more closely resemble private businesses than governments. I wouldn't worry too much about being "unlibertarian" at the local level. Its pretty close to a free association anyway.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2010 12:10:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/16/2010 12:05:41 PM, Sieben wrote:
Small communities more closely resemble private businesses than governments. I wouldn't worry too much about being "unlibertarian" at the local level. Its pretty close to a free association anyway.

Do i hear a compromise to your libertarianism? I don't worry about being too unlibertarian, i worry about libertarians being too libertarian and forever remaining on the fringe instead of having an active voice in society. But you already know that about me.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2010 12:12:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/16/2010 12:05:41 PM, Sieben wrote:
Small communities more closely resemble private businesses than governments.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2010 12:22:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/16/2010 12:10:52 PM, innomen wrote:
At 10/16/2010 12:05:41 PM, Sieben wrote:
Small communities more closely resemble private businesses than governments. I wouldn't worry too much about being "unlibertarian" at the local level. Its pretty close to a free association anyway.

Do i hear a compromise to your libertarianism? I don't worry about being too unlibertarian, i worry about libertarians being too libertarian and forever remaining on the fringe instead of having an active voice in society. But you already know that about me.

I said not to worry too much...

If by compromise libertarianism, you mean to ask if I would advocate unlibertarian things on our way to libertopia? Sure. I mean, I pay taxes all the time so that Bush and Obama can kill innocent brown people. I use gummint roads, take out loans from the central banking system etc.

But do I think pure libertarianism can work? Heck yes. You don't need a government to centrally plan a community... like I said, "The Voluntary City" gives many historical examples of things usually we think only the government can provide.

AND RAGNAR don't be cheeky. You know what I mean...
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2010 12:00:36 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Zoning laws are a way to steal the value of property without paying for it. A town has a zoning ordnanace that requires a quarter-acre lot to build a house. then thee is "concern" that the town will get too crowded. So zoning is changed to half acre, then acre, then two acres, then five ... Undivided property loses its development value, but developed property increases in value because competing supply is diminished. similarly, open spaces are nice. No need to pay for them, just zone them.

Zoning variances are a way for politicians to reward friends and punish enemies. It need not be explicit corruption, it may just seem that friends are more believable than enemies.

There exists the theoretical possibility that politicians will determine land use more reasonably than free markets, but that rarely is the the case. In my city, the town leveled 30 acres of business as part of their concept of a mixed use towncenter with residences over shops. However, no one with money would invest in the construction so the land remained empty for years. It is still empty.

The legitimate way to restrict development is to buy the development rights at market rates. That will limit government intrusion to what taxpayers are willing to pay for.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2010 3:00:59 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Innomen, no gain is achieved from a moral arguments.

Sure, you understood why it's implication in society is near impossible but people don't listen to moral arugments; take glee in the fact that world still has a heart because I'm expecting some libertarian(anti welfare) reforms in the next few decades.

I meet Eamonn Butler the other they and I asked him how he deals with clashing ethics and how he deals with moral arguments. To paraphrase he replied that: It is a matter of public interest, in a democratic society a governments duty is of the will of the people, therefore unless voted for libertarianism and all it's radical forms can never come to power. Lol @ at the fact that the conversation was after the day's topic of Austrian economics: Friedrich Hayek and he just happened to walk through.

Inb4 the libertarian constitutional republic/anarchy.

For the first time in my life I'm happy I have a democracy.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2010 12:48:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/19/2010 3:00:59 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
Innomen, no gain is achieved from a moral arguments.

Sure, you understood why it's implication in society is near impossible but people don't listen to moral arugments; take glee in the fact that world still has a heart because I'm expecting some libertarian(anti welfare) reforms in the next few decades.

I meet Eamonn Butler the other they and I asked him how he deals with clashing ethics and how he deals with moral arguments. To paraphrase he replied that: It is a matter of public interest, in a democratic society a governments duty is of the will of the people, therefore unless voted for libertarianism and all it's radical forms can never come to power. Lol @ at the fact that the conversation was after the day's topic of Austrian economics: Friedrich Hayek and he just happened to walk through.

It is where my values are in conflict. When we take the ideology from the classroom and apply it to life; almost always there is a need for compromise. If someone holds onto their ideology in the face of absurdity that person is sanctifying the ridiculous.

If rangar bought a house, and three months later a McDonalds opened up ten feet from his property line, i think might be a compromise.


Inb4 the libertarian constitutional republic/anarchy.

For the first time in my life I'm happy I have a democracy.
huh? Ordinarily you would prefer.....?
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2010 12:53:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/19/2010 3:00:59 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
Innomen, no gain is achieved from a moral arguments.

Sure, you understood why it's implication in society is near impossible but people don't listen to moral arugments; take glee in the fact that world still has a heart because I'm expecting some libertarian(anti welfare) reforms in the next few decades.

I meet Eamonn Butler the other they and I asked him how he deals with clashing ethics and how he deals with moral arguments. To paraphrase he replied that: It is a matter of public interest, in a democratic society a governments duty is of the will of the people, therefore unless voted for libertarianism and all it's radical forms can never come to power. Lol @ at the fact that the conversation was after the day's topic of Austrian economics: Friedrich Hayek and he just happened to walk through.

You do realize that the notion of a government having a "duty" to anyone is a moral statement, and that the further assertion that its duty is to "the people" is just an implicit acceptance of utilitarianism, right?
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2010 1:20:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/19/2010 12:53:57 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/19/2010 3:00:59 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
Innomen, no gain is achieved from a moral arguments.

Sure, you understood why it's implication in society is near impossible but people don't listen to moral arugments; take glee in the fact that world still has a heart because I'm expecting some libertarian(anti welfare) reforms in the next few decades.

I meet Eamonn Butler the other they and I asked him how he deals with clashing ethics and how he deals with moral arguments. To paraphrase he replied that: It is a matter of public interest, in a democratic society a governments duty is of the will of the people, therefore unless voted for libertarianism and all it's radical forms can never come to power. Lol @ at the fact that the conversation was after the day's topic of Austrian economics: Friedrich Hayek and he just happened to walk through.

You do realize that the notion of a government having a "duty" to anyone is a moral statement, and that the further assertion that its duty is to "the people" is just an implicit acceptance of utilitarianism, right?

No, it's whatever moral stance democracy dictates, whether it be communism or nationalistic fronts that all it is. Democracy is so contradictory to libertarian theory it's not that surprising so may are anarchist. The states "duty" is whatever the electorate say, cody; faith in the electorate/democratic system is the moral acceptance. If it was utilitarian it would be socialist.

You do understand that a noninterventionist or minimal interventionist authoritarian government is best for libertarianism. A government that maintains perfect freedom without manipulation by personal interest. -also see comoncents' "constitutional republic" which is on par with the authoritarian state.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2010 1:28:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/19/2010 12:48:24 PM, innomen wrote:
At 10/19/2010 3:00:59 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
Innomen, no gain is achieved from a moral arguments.

Sure, you understood why it's implication in society is near impossible but people don't listen to moral arugments; take glee in the fact that world still has a heart because I'm expecting some libertarian(anti welfare) reforms in the next few decades.

I meet Eamonn Butler the other they and I asked him how he deals with clashing ethics and how he deals with moral arguments. To paraphrase he replied that: It is a matter of public interest, in a democratic society a governments duty is of the will of the people, therefore unless voted for libertarianism and all it's radical forms can never come to power. Lol @ at the fact that the conversation was after the day's topic of Austrian economics: Friedrich Hayek and he just happened to walk through.

It is where my values are in conflict. When we take the ideology from the classroom and apply it to life; almost always there is a need for compromise. If someone holds onto their ideology in the face of absurdity that person is sanctifying the ridiculous.

If rangar bought a house, and three months later a McDonalds opened up ten feet from his property line, i think might be a compromise.
In their eye's it's not absurdity, it's complete rationale. You can't argue with someone who thinks like that. The individual > collective gain. I guess that's the problem in moral arguments whether it be for abortion, vegetarianism or welfare. The way people prioritise their "duties", so to speak, is the bane of rational argument.


Inb4 the libertarian constitutional republic/anarchy.

For the first time in my life I'm happy I have a democracy.
huh? Ordinarily you would prefer.....?
Ask Volkov, Cody or C_N.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2010 1:42:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/19/2010 1:28:15 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 10/19/2010 12:48:24 PM, innomen wrote:
At 10/19/2010 3:00:59 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
Innomen, no gain is achieved from a moral arguments.

Sure, you understood why it's implication in society is near impossible but people don't listen to moral arugments; take glee in the fact that world still has a heart because I'm expecting some libertarian(anti welfare) reforms in the next few decades.

I meet Eamonn Butler the other they and I asked him how he deals with clashing ethics and how he deals with moral arguments. To paraphrase he replied that: It is a matter of public interest, in a democratic society a governments duty is of the will of the people, therefore unless voted for libertarianism and all it's radical forms can never come to power. Lol @ at the fact that the conversation was after the day's topic of Austrian economics: Friedrich Hayek and he just happened to walk through.

It is where my values are in conflict. When we take the ideology from the classroom and apply it to life; almost always there is a need for compromise. If someone holds onto their ideology in the face of absurdity that person is sanctifying the ridiculous.

If rangar bought a house, and three months later a McDonalds opened up ten feet from his property line, i think might be a compromise.
In their eye's it's not absurdity, it's complete rationale. You can't argue with someone who thinks like that. The individual > collective gain. I guess that's the problem in moral arguments whether it be for abortion, vegetarianism or welfare. The way people prioritise their "duties", so to speak, is the bane of rational argument.

Most political ideologies in their purity become absurd when they are maintained as pure in practice. Always there are compromises made, and it is absurd when it is in practice, but in theory it's very comfortable because it's tidy. This isn't even a moral argument as much as it is pragmatic.

Inb4 the libertarian constitutional republic/anarchy.

For the first time in my life I'm happy I have a democracy.
huh? Ordinarily you would prefer.....?
Ask Volkov, Cody or C_N.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2010 1:46:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/19/2010 1:20:29 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
If it was utilitarian it would be socialist.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I lol'd.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2010 1:51:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/19/2010 1:20:29 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 10/19/2010 12:53:57 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 10/19/2010 3:00:59 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
Innomen, no gain is achieved from a moral arguments.

Sure, you understood why it's implication in society is near impossible but people don't listen to moral arugments; take glee in the fact that world still has a heart because I'm expecting some libertarian(anti welfare) reforms in the next few decades.

I meet Eamonn Butler the other they and I asked him how he deals with clashing ethics and how he deals with moral arguments. To paraphrase he replied that: It is a matter of public interest, in a democratic society a governments duty is of the will of the people, therefore unless voted for libertarianism and all it's radical forms can never come to power. Lol @ at the fact that the conversation was after the day's topic of Austrian economics: Friedrich Hayek and he just happened to walk through.

You do realize that the notion of a government having a "duty" to anyone is a moral statement, and that the further assertion that its duty is to "the people" is just an implicit acceptance of utilitarianism, right?

No, it's whatever moral stance democracy dictates, whether it be communism or nationalistic fronts that all it is.

The underlying moral principle for democracy is utilitarianism.

Democracy is so contradictory to libertarian theory it's not that surprising so may are anarchist. The states "duty" is whatever the electorate say, cody;

According to democratic theory, anyway.

faith in the electorate/democratic system is the moral acceptance. If it was utilitarian it would be socialist.

That isn't necessarily true.

You do understand that a noninterventionist or minimal interventionist authoritarian government is best for libertarianism.

Contradiction. If a government is authoritarian, it isn't minimal or non-interventionist, and vice-versa.

A government that maintains perfect freedom without manipulation by personal interest.

If a government does that, it isn't authoritarian.