Turn on thread page Beta
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Connor27)
    I don't believe in absolutism, some elements of human nature are negative and destructive, others are positive and productive, this falls into the latter category.

    The former is why we need a strong well funded judiciary and equally strong police force to maintain order and the rule of law.
    You believe that the state should be 'strong' when it comes to 'maintain order' but not strong enough to put it's foot down and say that if the medical technology to save someone in need of a transplant is available then no one should be killed by apathy?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    So as far as I can tell, your argument currently is "a sense of entitlement and neurological instinct, which don't necessarily lead to rights existing in any given situation" - how does it follow that rights result in this instance?
    Because this particular sense of entitlement and neurological instinct is a positive one that leads to prosperous, free, civilised societies, as Hayek said;

    "What our generation has forgotten is that the system of private property is the most important guarantee of freedom, not only for those that own property, but scarcely less for those who do not. It is only because the control of the means of production is divided among many people acting independently that nobody has complete power over us, that we as individuals can decide what to do with ourselves. If all it be nominally of 'society' as a whole of that of a dictator, whoever exercises this control has complete power over us."
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    You believe that the state should be 'strong' when it comes to 'maintain order' but not strong enough to put it's foot down and say that if the medical technology to save someone in need of a transplant is available then no one should be killed by apathy?
    The state should only intervene to prevent aggression, it should not coerce people into making decisions that they haven't thought about.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    Because this particular sense of entitlement and neurological instinct is a positive one that leads to prosperous, free, civilised societies, as Hayek said;

    "What our generation has forgotten is that the system of private property is the most important guarantee of freedom, not only for those that own property, but scarcely less for those who do not. It is only because the control of the means of production is divided among many people acting independently that nobody has complete power over us, that we as individuals can decide what to do with ourselves. If all it be nominally of 'society' as a whole of that of a dictator, whoever exercises this control has complete power over us."
    How is this the case when exclusionary access to property must necessary limit freedom (since individuals can prohibit every single other individual from accessing that property)? Hayek's argument only works if you presuppose a system of property.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    How is this the case when exclusionary access to property must necessary limit freedom (since individuals can prohibit every single other individual from accessing that property)? Hayek's argument only works if you presuppose a system of property.
    I have already argued that we should presuppose a system of property as it is intrisically ingrained into human nature, and is not a primitive, destructive aspect of the psyche that is discouraged by the state.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    I have already argued that we should presuppose a system of property as it is intrisically ingrained into human nature, and is not a primitive, destructive aspect of the psyche that is discouraged by the state.
    It is thought that in ancient tribes whoever needed a resource the most used it.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    What do the Libertarians think about the current smoking laws?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Obiejess)
    It is thought that in ancient tribes whoever needed a resource the most used it.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    The Neanderthals all had their own caves that they protected - property.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    I have already argued that we should presuppose a system of property as it is intrisically ingrained into human nature, and is not a primitive, destructive aspect of the psyche that is discouraged by the state.
    It certainly is primitive. Whether it is destructive is subjective, but I'll give you that it's not for the sake of argument. Whether or not it's discouraged by the state is a temporal question.

    Also, I'm not asking you to justify where a legal system of property comes from - but rather, where the notion of a right to property derives from.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    The Neanderthals all had their own caves that they protected - property.
    Luckily we are only part neanderthal, and primarily homo sapien


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quamquam123)
    What do the Libertarians think about the current smoking laws?
    Smoking as a whole should be legal, I believe that with regards to public buildings and vehicles and the like should be able to make their own decisions whether to ban smoking or not.

    Although second hand smoke arguably breaches the NAP I value more the individual sovereignty of each person to do what they want with their own body. Besides it isn't hard to walk away if someone is smoking near you in a building, or wind down a window in a car and encourage them to smoke out of it.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    Smoking as a whole should be legal, I believe that with regards to public buildings and vehicles and the like should be able to make their own decisions whether to ban smoking or not.

    Although second hand smoke arguably breaches the NAP I value more the individual sovereignty of each person to do what they want with their own body. Besides it isn't hard to walk away if someone is smoking near you in a building, or wind down a window in a car and encourage them to smoke out of it.
    What about when pregnant, what about as a mother in a room with children?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Obiejess)
    What about when pregnant, what about as a mother in a room with children?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Pregnancy: the foetus is a parasite that is reliant on the mother to survive, I therefore class it as part of the mother until it is born.

    Second Scenario: Potentially child abuse and worthy of contacting the authorities over if it is done in a malicious way.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    It certainly is primitive. Whether it is destructive is subjective, but I'll give you that it's not for the sake of argument. Whether or not it's discouraged by the state is a temporal question.

    Also, I'm not asking you to justify where a legal system of property comes from - but rather, where the notion of a right to property derives from.
    Where does the notion of a right to anything come from? They're all social constructs...

    The fact that the ECHR didn't even exist until 70 years ago is testament to that.

    I think we both know that was a loaded question.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _gcx)
    Clothing made from or by humans? :holmes:
    Clothing? :confused: It's says cloning lol

    When a human clones another human, currently were not allowed to clone humans due to "ethics" but it's very possible.
    What are the libertarian views on this?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    Where does the notion of a right to anything come from? They're all social constructs...

    The fact that the ECHR didn't even exist until 70 years ago is testament to that.

    I think we both know that was a loaded question.
    I don't believe in rights as a pre-legal construct, you see, and yet a lot of right-libertarian thought is predicated on the notion of natural property rights (since even if you take the goal as maximising liberty, right-libertarianism doesn't come as a consequence unless you presuppose property rights). I've never been impressed by classical arguments for natural property rights, starting with Locke and going right the way through Boaz: accordingly, I was hoping someone ITT could provide a better one.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    I don't believe in rights as a pre-legal construct, you see, and yet a lot of right-libertarian thought is predicated on the notion of natural property rights (since even if you take the goal as maximising liberty, right-libertarianism doesn't come as a consequence unless you presuppose property rights). I've never been impressed by classical arguments for natural property rights, starting with Locke and going right the way through Boaz: accordingly, I was hoping someone ITT could provide a better one.
    The idea is that it's better than the alternative; a man deserves the fruits of his labour.

    A bin man shouldn't have the same sized house as an investment banker.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Connor27)
    The idea is that it's better than the alternative; a man deserves the fruits of his labour
    Where does desert come from? Why does anyone deserve anything? It being better than the alternative is a fine argument (and loosely why I believe in maintaining legal property rights), but not sufficient to create a right; merely something which should be upheld until it makes sense not to.


    A bin man shouldn't have the same sized house as an investment banker.
    Why not? Does an investment banker create more of value than the binman?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    You believe that the state should be 'strong' when it comes to 'maintain order' but not strong enough to put it's foot down and say that if the medical technology to save someone in need of a transplant is available then no one should be killed by apathy?
    I know this wasn't directed toward me, but yaaaaaaaaaas.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    Where does desert come from? Why does anyone deserve anything? It being better than the alternative is a fine argument (and loosely why I believe in maintaining legal property rights), but not sufficient to create a right; merely something which should be upheld until it makes sense not to.




    Why not? Does an investment banker create more of value than the binman?
    Yes. To think otherwise would be to have a typical leftist lack of understanding of what investment bankers actually do, simply categorizing them as "those people who move paper around". In fact, they have a massively important role in the economy.

    Side note: do you guys actually call your garbage men binmen? Sounds like they come from the planet Bin
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: December 2, 2017
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.