On 12/05/16 11:54, Russell Coker wrote:
Do you own a house if banks can destroy your
neighborhood by robo-signing
forclosure documents that the residents can't afford to legally oppose?
Libertarianism opposes fraudulent practices. Hopefully down the track AI
will make legal procedures a lot cheaper.
Do you own a house if corporations own the roads,
water, and electricity
supplies and can cut off your entire neighborhood if it's not profitable or if
there are mostly non-white people living there (IE Flint)?
The Flint water crisis
was actually caused by corrupt *government*
officials. I doubt private company subject to the rigors of the free
market would have engaged in such dubious practices.
Do you own a house if a corporation can pollute the
air and give you a high
probability of cancer if you choose to keep living there?
It's true that the
environment is the Achilles heel of libertarianism.
I've come up with a possible solution the air pollution that does sound
far fetched I agree but may go some way to addressing this problem. So
basically the atmosphere is treated as an asset and all people living on
the earth are given an equal share in the atmosphere as an asset.
Industries that pollute must basically pay compensation to the
shareholders. This is very much like a carbon tax except that it is more
market based and would ensure polluting is dis-incentivised.
If you look at the comparison of countries by tax rates Australia doesn't seem
that high. With a couple of exceptions it seems that the countries with
higher tax rates than Australia are places you probably wouldn't mind living
(Belgium, Finland, Sweden are all good places to live). The countries with
the lowest tax rates include Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, and UAE - places
where I don't even want to change flights. The middle-eastern countries with
low tax are also fairly positive towards slavery, no-one who likes liberty
wants anything to do with that.
I have an old school friend that lives in Kuwait --
he seems to live the
life of Riley regularly flying to Europe for the weekend due the the
middle east's centralised location.
Libertarianism is all about liberty for the super-rich
and serfdom for people
I'd rather be poor and free than rich and overburdened by regulations.
Additionally regulations seem to be being used by corporations to
entrench their position in the market rather than to give the consumer
benefits. Of course this stifles economic mobility.
Libertarianism is about helping the powerful subjugate
the weak. That's why
mistreatment of children is so important to influential libertarians such as
Rothbard and Rewart.
I believe that society should protect the weak. We need a legal system to
protect children from sexual abuse etc, a welfare system to prevent them from
starving etc. The Libertarian approach of legalising child porn, ceasing
welfare, and essentially forcing children into sex work is unacceptable to me.
is a ridiculous strawman.