Re: More freedom-hating "libertarians"

Les Cargill wrote:
Davinchi wrote:

sinister wrote:

"Peter B. P." <peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:1i1ex6h.1oz06i0r53cdiN%peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

sinister <sinister@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Peter B. P." <peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1i1esgv.154rtt7omnptnN%peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

sinister <sinister@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

http://www.ldp.org.au/federal/policies/propertyRights.html

The LDP believes the ownership of property is a fundamental right that
precedes the power of government.
Widespread private ownership of property is also a signficantly
preferable
alternative to either collective ownership or ownership by a privileged
elite.

The LDP supports the right of 'eminent domain' of property owners over
their
property. It believes neither the State nor other members of society
should
be able to limit or interfere with the right to enjoy property so long as
such enjoyment does not involve coercion of others.

Specific LPD policies:

The LDP supports the right of landlords and tenants to freely negotiate
the
terms of tenancies, free from state rules and restrictions.

snip

Sinister, i agree with you on this point, but to generalize from one
point to claim that one group of people are "freedom-hating" is spurios
and unecessary poliemical.

I'm implicitly making a _statistical_ generalization, which I claim stands.

That doesn't detract from my admiration (if not complete agreement with)
geolibertarians and Georgists and yourself (I assume you essentially fall
into those camps).

Thank you*. However, back to the point: Does the LDP of Australia
mention anything about land value taxation?


Not on that page, but I think a reasonable inference given what they wrote in the linked text would imply they're against LVT. Certainly, they appear to have no understanding that there's no natural right to use landed property in any way the "owner" sees fit, given that the owner cannot naturally, rightfully exclude others from the property.

*) Since I am in favor of a morderate to large LVT, I think that I fall
into the G-ist camp.

--
regards , Peter B. P.
http://titancity.com/blog , http://macplanet.dk

"We don't dial 911 - we dial .357".



I just have to chime in.
It's not that Libertarians are freedom hating per se. It just seems that way when encountering modern society where there are rules to promote and maintain a civil society.
Hence, they don't abide by any regulation in support of the commons or agree to any idea of public goods.

But that's more of a reaction to the tendency to make everything
a public good. Either pole is an excess, and moderation
usually wins out.


"Usually" sure, but this is almost an admission that my point is correct. Using the Pareto standard imagine on one side a public good that isn't used by some citizen - he pays a small marginal cost in taxes to support it, and on the other side a regulation to protect the commons that isn't obeyed - then many can be harmed (Pollution for example, Superfund was a reaction to industrial dumping, OSHA is a reaction to actual harm to actual people caused in part by corporate/managerial demands). Neither instance passes the Pareto standard, but the latter can be far worse in it's effects to the social welfare function. You can't even expect to have a social contract with a corporation, but you can formalize some of the expectations via regulation. Hence regulations aren't an undue burden, they are part of the bargain business is obliged to live with in order to function in modern society.

In modern times, Libertarians are not free market promoters, but free rider opportunist. I've seen it so many times it hurts, but they simply won't agree to anything that limit their choice even when they demand equal access to the commons and benefit from societies organization and infrastructure.

The grass is always greener. If say, 1946 ( or 1964 ) were the peak of
the "make it public goods" direction of the pendulum-swing, then of course the reaction will be in the opposite direction.

What makes it "worse" for anti-Libertarians is that the "new" ideas
produce the most fruit, so the empirical support is skewed - we can't
even yet have a reasoned discussion of the Laffer curve without it
being a Rorshach test. Throw in self-selection bias in
media choices, and it's tear-inducing.

I new ideas bear fruit, perhaps it is because they have some merit. (Laffer is ambiguious - it's results are heavily dependent upon the models assumptions and vary depending on the business cycle.) Self selection works both ways so it's effect is polarizing - so point taken, and it's a good point. But it's taken for what is is, not for what it appears to imply.
Look at a libertarian, and I'll bet you odds you will find most of the characteristics of Narcissistic Personality Disorder - a sociopathic mental illness.

Hardly. There's the strong odor of basement dweller to Libertarianism.
Some of that's just Usenet, though.

The *real*, *serious* Libertarian thinkers are very much real and
serious. Milton Friedman was perfectly capable of defending his
ideas in terms of benefeit to people, and in many cases, much
benefeit was obtained. But it's very hard for younger people to realize
just how pervasive collectivist memes *were* prior to the
1970s. Hayek deserves a lot of props, IMO.

Right, Freidman also proposed legalization of all drugs, but that's not a trade-off society feels is in it's best interests. It's easy to cherry pick the benefits when the benefit are on book in an accounting sense, and it's easy to to ignore the bads (as opposed to goods) when they are not accounted for. Read some Hayek, your correct.

-----
"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." -- James Madison
.....
--
Les Cargill

-----
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one.
......
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: More freedom-hating "libertarians"
    ... Widespread private ownership of property is also a signficantly ... The LDP supports the right of 'eminent domain' of property owners over ... It just seems that way when encountering modern society where there are rules to promote and maintain a civil society. ... they don't abide by any regulation in support of the commons or agree to any idea of public goods. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: More freedom-hating "libertarians"
    ... Widespread private ownership of property is also a signficantly ... The LDP supports the right of 'eminent domain' of property owners over ... It believes neither the State nor other members of society ... times, Libertarians are not free market promoters, but free ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: More freedom-hating "libertarians"
    ... Widespread private ownership of property is also a signficantly ... The LDP supports the right of 'eminent domain' of property owners over ... Sinister, i agree with you on this point, but to generalize from one ... It just seems that way when encountering modern society where there are rules to promote and maintain a civil society. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: More freedom-hating "libertarians"
    ... Widespread private ownership of property is also a signficantly ... The LDP supports the right of 'eminent domain' of property owners over ... It just seems that way when encountering modern society where there are rules to promote and maintain a civil society. ... In modern times, Libertarians are not free market promoters, but free rider opportunist. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • More freedom-hating "libertarians"
    ... Widespread private ownership of property is also a signficantly preferable ... The LDP supports the right of 'eminent domain' of property owners over their ... The LDP does not believe local government has a right to decide matters ...
    (sci.econ)