What radical policies would you initiate?

zooropa

That's not what I meant.

By "force" I mean any action which involves aggression against property. So these are things like theft, arson, misappropriation, fraud, burglary, robbery, copyright violations, etc.

...Freeing slaves, perhaps?

Reply 42

SlyPie

12

Limiting human over-population by permitting each person to have a max of 3 kids.

Edit: hmm 2 or 3..unsure

Reply 43

OP

Weejimmie

...Freeing slaves, perhaps?

What slaves?

Reply 44

Slaves are property. There were people who strongly disapproved of slave-owners being deprived of their legally held property.

Reply 45

OP

What's your point?

No libertarian would advocate slavery.

Technically you are right, but i don't think we could get closer to it than you want without decending into complete chaos.

Would it? Reducing the size and scope of government would create greater liberty.

Reply 46

zooropa

No libertarian would advocate slavery.you mean slaves aren't property and so liable to defence?

Reply 47

Niccolo

6

Weejimmie

Slaves are property. There were people who strongly disapproved of slave-owners being deprived of their legally held property.

I for one would be most distressed if i were to be relieved of my indispensable pygmy-freak mini-butlers or my faithful hunchback valet.

Reply 48

OP

But slavery is antithetical to libertarian belief because force is used.

I believe anyone can own anything, without using force or fraud against others' person or property whilst owning it.

Reply 49

Tonight Matthew

2

zooropa

Would it? Reducing the size and scope of government would create greater liberty.

Is it that simple? Surely government requires enough power to sufficiently maintain liberty as a whole? I am mainly referring to your proposed policy to remove ALL restrictions on businesses. Given that corporations only have obligations to their shareholders and not society as a whole, giving them a totally free hand seems somewhat foolish to me.

Reply 50

zooropa

But slavery is antithetical to libertarian belief because force is used.

I believe anyone can own anything, without using force or fraud against others' person or property whilst owning it.

I take it you don't mind if we form a commitee to find out how everyone acquired everything and the amount of past force or fraud used in its acquisition with power to confiscate without compensation anything illegally obtained at any time?

Reply 51

KizD

12

zooropa

Would it? Reducing the size and scope of government would create greater liberty.

As Tonight Mathew said, with the current system, lack of regulation would not be beneficial to the consumer. However I agree to an extent, regulation has gone OTT.

Your government control ideal of 10% seems ambitious. Aside from privatising national health and cutting bureacracy. Where are the other 32% of cuts going to be? Military? National security? Police? Transport? Please don't say anything arbitary like 'cut out waste' though

Reply 52

OP

I take it you don't mind if we form a commitee to find out how everyone acquired everything and the amount of past force or fraud used in its acquisition with power to confiscate without compensation anything illegally obtained at any time?

I do mind.

Aside from privatising national health and cutting bureacracy. Where are the other 32% of cuts going to be? Military? National security? Police? Transport? Please don't say anything arbitary like 'cut out waste' though

I'd privatise everything bar the police, armed forces, roads, money supply and judicial system. That would equate with about 10% of GDP.

Reply 53

OP

Tonight Matthew

Is it that simple? Surely government requires enough power to sufficiently maintain liberty as a whole? I am mainly referring to your proposed policy to remove ALL restrictions on businesses. Given that corporations only have obligations to their shareholders and not society as a whole, giving them a totally free hand seems somewhat foolish to me.

Regulations against business harms businessses. The state is bad for business.

Reply 54

zooropa

I do mind.

So it doesn't matter how people got property; if they have it now it's sacred?

Reply 55

Tonight Matthew

2

zooropa

Regulations against business harms businessses. The state is bad for business.

You didn't actually reply to my post at all. I am fully aware what the logic behind cutting all regulation on business is, but as I said in my previous post, I very much doubt that it is logic that takes into account the liberty of all, which as a libertarian, you surely value as paramount?

Reply 56

Bastiat

zooropa

Regulations against business harms businessses. The state is bad for business.

True - but government isn't about serving businesses, but about serving people. The state is the people, and without consumers, business would collapse. That is why regulations exist - to protect the consumer, on whom business relies.

Reply 57

Carl

14

zooropa

I've never read his works.

He argues that taxation is wrong because it violates the individual's right to property, and that the state should only exist to:

-protect individuals against theft and fraud,
-ensure it's own security.

All other spending should be done privately.

Reply 58

earthredalert89

9

i shall simply move to australia before im 30 and live in a big 5 bedroomed house for 100k with a couple of fields out the back.

Reply 59