I'm pretty sure that's our old friend Eric -- remember the Great Libertarian Dispute of 2004?
-- Ernie P. On Sep 29, 2011, at 3:56 PM, [email protected] wrote: > from Billy-- > > While searching for "Radical Centrism" today I came across this gem. > It seems as if some Libertarians are using the phrase "Radical Centrist" > to describe themselves This has little or nothing to do with > Radical Centrism......... > > > > > > here is the site : > Radical Centrist: Libertarian Questions and Answers > > radical-centrist.blogspot.com/.../libertarian-questions-and-answers.ht...Cached > Feb 16, 2007 – Radical Centrist. A Libertarian tries to sell freedom to a > population .... is where would they get an objective body of laws to > interpret? ... > > > My comments below in BF > 2007-02-16 > > Libertarian Questions and Answers > 1. Should the federal government protect the environment? Should there be > national parks or endangered species laws? > The federal (or more likely, state) governments should enforce property > rights through the civil courts. If someone has damaged your property through > pollution, it is a form or trespass. Trespass is force. So yes, to that > extent, government should protect the environment. Also, government should > protect the government by selling the national parks to the highest bidder. > This idea is pure insanity and shows zero knowledge of what happened to, for > example, > the Grand Canyon before it became a national park. There were mining > operations at > various locations, which you can't tell now since all have been closed down. > There was a > serious plan to run a railroad through the floor of the canyon. There were > private homes > and businesses along both rims, with plans for developments. Today's public > lodges > like El Tovar once were commercial hotels, and there were plans for many more. > In short, the Grand Canyon under private development would be unrecognizable. > > The highest bidder, having invested a great deal of money in his new land, > is likely to do a MUCH better job of protecting it than the government ever > has or will. For example, the Feds sell logging rights in national forests at > a fraction of the price that any (sane) owner would require. People will only > damage their own land if what they gain by doing so is more valuable than the > land itself. > > 2. Should food companies be required to list the ingredients on the package? > If not, should there be a punishment for printing false information on food > product packages, or would the only determent be how customers would react if > they found out they were lied to. > I don't believe there is a need to force food companies to print ingredients > on the package. I believe they would do so, because I believe that most > people want to know what they're putting in their bodies, and therefore would > be more likely to buy food with such information provided. If a company > printed false information (intentionally) on packaging (or anything else), > that would be an act of fraud. Such fraud could be handled by either criminal > or civil courts. > > This is ridiculously uninformed nonsense. The reason for today's labeling > laws is precisely > because, in the past, businesses did not provide the information. > 3. I’ve gained enough info to understand that libertarians are against > federal drug laws, but what about state or city drug laws? Also, are federal > drug laws unconstitutional? > Libertarians oppose all laws concerning "victimless crime". "Victimless > crime" is a contradiction in terms. And yes, the federal drug laws are > unconstitutional. When congress passed prohibition, they had to amend the > constitution in order to give themselves the power, first. There is no such > amendment to justify the "war on drugs" or the existence of the FDA, or > mandatory prescriptions. When drugs are legal, I look forward to being able > to make my medical decisions with (at my option) the advice of a doctor > who knows that I am paying him, not for his privileged position as a > prescriber, but because I actually value his advice. I suspect he'll make > sure that I continue to value his advice by making it good. > While I am sympathetic to opponents of the war on drugs, since marijuana is > not the same > thing as heroin or methamphetamines, the argument that all drugs are > economically or > otherwise neutral is absurd. There are social costs associated with > addiction, for > example, or with overdosing, or with any number of drug related medical > conditions > Who pays for the treatment when a druggie shows up at an ER ? We all do, if > not on the spot, soon enough in the form of higher medical costs passed along > to everyone else. The reasoning here is half baked, if that much baked. > > > 4. Should there be a post office? > Yes. There are several that would do: FedEx, UPS, and there will be many more > when the government is out of the business. BTW, before you assume that we > would be paying the prices we pay such companies now, keep in mind that they > are currently delivering a much more sophisticated service (rapid delivery) > and I think it quite likely that they will end up offering more choice AND > lower prices. > Uh huh, which is 100 % true for major markets --ONLY. The reason for the > PO is > because it is in the national interest for all Americans to have access to > mail, including > people who live in the boondocks, in sparsely populated counties, or in > small markets. > > > 5. Should interstate highways even exist? Furthermore, should there be > state-funded roads, or should all roads be ran by companies? Companies > provide us with electricity we have to pay for, so why don’t companies > provide us with roads we have to pay for. > Again, they should exist as private entities. This would have been > technically difficult (but possible) in 1789, but would not be nearly as hard > now. This is about my last priority, though. If, after the revolution, we end > up with a government that builds roads and does very little else, it will not > break my heart. It's such a simple thing that even they can't screw it up TOO > badly. > Libertarians really want all of us to drive on nothing but toll roads ? All > those who do can > go &%#@ themselves. This is ideological horse manure. Not to mention the > boon that > the interstate system has been to communities and businesses all over the USA. > > 6. Should there be anti-monopoly laws, or should the market take care of > itself? > The market should take care of itself. Harmful monopolies can only be > created/maintained by government intervention. > Pure poop. Untrue, False, the exact opposite of the truth. > > > There are some kinds of monopoly that can exist in a free market (for > example a failure monopoly, where if a business builds a railroad to a small > town, finds it can't support his debt payments and goes bankrupt, someone > else can buy the old railroad at a fraction of the price and run it at a > profit. But this sort of monopoly does harm not it's customers, as if they > did not do what they did, the town would just have to live without rail > service.) > That said, there is a possibility of collusion raising prices in the short > run. I would like to see one or more non-governmental companies that made a > business of finding businesses where this was going on, and either buying or > building a new company in those industries to break the cartel. But > governmental anti-monopoly practice does far more harm than good. > > One issue that is open in my mind is copyright and patent. These are > monopolies enforced by government. There are good arguments for and against > them. Again, I could probably live with just about any solution to these > problems a sane (libertarian) society came up with. I think that current > copyright law gives too much away. > > 7. Should any government entity prevent restaurants from serving food or > items that are known to be bad for us? A lot of libertarians disagree with > the upcoming trans fat ban in NYC, but trans fat is pretty much just bad for > us. What if restaurants still served our food on plates with lead paint? It’s > bad, but people could chose not to eat there. > No. I like food that is bad for me. I like cheeseburgers, I like McDonalds > fries. How much of these things I consume and how much of a price I pay to do > so is an intimate decision that I am unwilling to delegate. > Completely insane. Costs of bad food decisions can easily be passed along to > everyone else > in the form of higher insurance premiums, obesity and associated problems ( > one example, > an 325 pounder on a plane adds to fuel costs that you pay every time you fly > ), health problems > may also result in lost productivity, and on and on. > > There simply is no rational justification for granting the foundational > premise of > libertarianism, that we are all islands and social atoms with no > interdependence > to one another. The operating premise of libertarianism, in so many words, > is a fairy tale, it is false, it cannot be taken seriously. > > > 8. I’ve gathered that libertarians don’t like seatbelt laws, but should there > be laws requiring parents to make their children under 18 wear seatbelts? > With that said, should it still be illegal for parents to give children > alcohol? > There is a law requiring that parents take care of their kids. It is the law > of evolution. If they do not do a reasonable job, their bloodline will die > out. > > Dammit, what is the problem that libertarians simply cannot see how costs are > passed along > to other people because of private decisions ? Not to mention the moral > indifference > in the libertarian position , a view that is anti-Christian, anti-Jewish, > etc, and clearly > reflects the modern origins of libertarianism as an offshoot of the Counter > Culture > of the 1960s when various over-the-edge hippies ( not all of them, the hard > cases ) > wanted absolute freedom to drop acid, say "f**k you to the cops, go naked in > public, > and 100 other things. Now we have much the same motivation on the part of > people who otherwise are middle class. > 9. Should there be laws that say where guns are allowed, or should it be up > to the owner of the place? > It should be up to the owner. > Should work well in certain neighborhoods especially :-( > > And BTW, given the Wild West ideal of many libertarians, just why was it > that many towns in the Old West made it a crime to carry forearms in the > city limits ? They knew that drunken cowboys might shoot up the place. > They demanded the right of peaceful citizens to be safe from harm. > > Now communities are not to be allowed to organize and pass laws > to protect themselves ? I realize that many libertarians would > not go this far, but such a viewpoint, to be a purist about it, > is consistent with libertarian philosophical principles. > > 10. Should there be public education systems, or should all schools be > private? I’m sure some charity would open free schools, but they wouldn’t be > ran by any sort of government. > It should be private, and charity and/or financing should be fine for those > few would could not afford the (much cheaper) price of education in a > libertarian society. > Private schools work great because parents know that no rotten kids will be in > the same classes as little Suzy or little Tommy. Nor will kids from > impoverished > families with little education. Nor will special needs children. Sure, sort > out all > the undesirables and everything works like a charm. I could not agree more. > Which was one reason why I liked College so much. What a relief not to > need to put up with idiots who don't want to be there. But if you assume, > as did our Founding Fathers, that democracy requires a literate and educated > citizenry, then the responsibility exists to educate the whole population, > not just there creme of the crop. > > Guess that libertarians don't think much of the Founding Fathers. > > 11. Should it be illegal for an employer to discriminate by race when hiring? > No. That said, it would generally be in the employer's best interest not to > discriminate, as if he does so, he is cutting himself off from part of the > talent pool, and thereby costing himself money. Not to mention alienation of > potential customers. Who wants to deal with a person like that? > The history of race bigotry in the United States speaks for itself. It is > perhaps the biggest > blemish on our history. > > 12. Libertarians seem to hold private property in high value. Should people > be allowed to own airspace? > I would say that everything which can be owned should be owned. Otherwise it > has to struggle by defended only by an incompetent government. (Is there > another kind?) > Goddamned right government can be very competent. Is is always ? Of course > not, > and sometimes it is gosh awful. But, for one, I am sick and tired of constant > bashing > of all government as if the very idea of government is evil. But this is > another legacy > of the late 1960s and the Leftist origins of modern libertarianism, the era of > the Viet Nam war when, indeed, a lot of people were highly pixxed at the > government. > > 13. If our society were truly libertarian, what type of legislation would > congress work on? > In a libertarian society, it is very likely that congress would almost never > actually meet. Most of the laws could be written very quickly after the > founding of the republic and left alone for long periods of time. > How can anyone believe in such drivel ? > > > > > -- > Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community > <[email protected]> > Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism > Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
