Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

just wondering

Expand Messages
  • wiotle@yahoo.com
    from reading past posts i am cofused,libertarians suppot property rights, correct? beacause one post seamed to say they did not
    Message 1 of 3 , Dec 16, 2003
      from reading past posts i am cofused,libertarians suppot property
      rights, correct? beacause one post seamed to say they did not
    • group_secretary
      Good question! Can you help us out a bit further on that issue? GS
      Message 2 of 3 , Dec 16, 2003
        Good question! Can you help us out a bit further on that issue?

        GS

        --- In LibertarianDebate@yahoogroups.com, wiotle@y... wrote:
        > from reading past posts i am cofused,libertarians suppot property
        > rights, correct? beacause one post seamed to say they did not
      • morecommonsense
        What post were you referring to, Wiotle? Personally, I don t think government should interfere in private disputes, in particular not if all of the following
        Message 3 of 3 , Dec 27, 2003
          What post were you referring to, Wiotle?

          Personally, I don't think government should interfere in private
          disputes, in particular not if all of the following three conditions
          apply:
          1. the participants in the dispute don't (threaten to) resort to
          violence;
          2. there are plenty of private enterprises or individuals willing
          and able to assist with mediation and settlement of the dispute;
          3. the participants in such a dispute can afford such assistance,
          as well as ongoing private security services.

          Point 1 is the strongest point, in my view, since support for
          government intervention is likely to go against the Libertarian
          Pledge that we will not be the first to resort to the use of force.

          Point 2 is obvious - if there is a demand, there is no reason why
          suppliers shouldn't take the opportunity to offer their services;
          the point is merely added as government tends to prohibit or
          monopolize such services, something any genuine libertarian should
          object to.

          Point 3 is not so much a libertarian argument, I think. It's more a
          socialist argument, which shouldn't appeal much to libertarians. But
          the fact that we're talking about property disputes is an indication
          that participants are not poor anyway. The poor have little
          property, so they have little reason to vote for more rigid
          intervention by government in property disputes. The rich can afford
          private services. So, what are you talking about?

          Cheers!

          MCS

          --- In LibertarianDebate@yahoogroups.com, wiotle@y... wrote:
          > from reading past posts i am cofused,libertarians suppot property
          > rights, correct? beacause one post seamed to say they did not
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.