The Libertarian "State"

[JacksSmirkingRevenge]

"Rights."
Lol.

[piscator]

Federal Land Ownership:
Constitutional Authority and the History of Acquisition, Disposal, and Retention (pdf)

[rainbow]

Perhaps Seth can explain how Libertarianism would not descend into Anarchy.

Seth would shoot all the rioting peasants and there wouldn't be any anarchy , or anyone to actually do any work and make life even remotely bearable

Similar to the Somali Warlords, then.



...so what could go wrong, I ask again?

[Seth]

Another example of you googling up some silly shit from some objectivist website, and leaving totally fucked up about it...

Not at all. It's merely a reading of the plain language of the Constitution, which nowhere authorizes the federal government to own anything other than the District of Columbia and the lands necessary for those authorized uses found in the Constitution itself.

You may again invoke the fallacy of appeal to common practice if you like, but I'm not discussing how things are, I'm discussing constitutional principles and how things should be under original intent construction. Disagree if you like, but personal insults and resorts to hand-waving fallacies doesn't constitute rational discussion.

If you're bent about inheriting some lands on federal mineral reservations which preexisted not only homestead claims, but certain states and which those states recognized in their eventual charters of statehood, the courts are at your disposal. Otherwise, pound sand - Just be sure you don't extract any valuable minerals in the process without sharing it with the US taxpayer.

More evasive appeal to common practice fallacy.

I was crafting a long rebuttal including references from the Federalist Papers and other sources but I decided that you are not worthy of my effort, given your dismissive attitude and unwillingness to civilly debate the issue.

[piscator]

Another example of you googling up some silly shit from some objectivist website, and leaving totally fucked up about it...

Not at all. It's merely a reading of the plain language of the Constitution, which nowhere authorizes the federal government to own anything other than the District of Columbia and the lands necessary for those authorized uses found in the Constitution itself.

You may again invoke the fallacy of appeal to common practice if you like, but I'm not discussing how things are, I'm discussing constitutional principles and how things should be under original intent construction. Disagree if you like, but personal insults and resorts to hand-waving fallacies doesn't constitute rational discussion.

You don't know jack shit, so your goofball interpretations of the intent of people who died 150 years before you were born are usually in direct conflict with established legal precedent and tested law, a legal tradition you seem to feel is a logical fallacy...

"In the context of land, the equal footing doctrine has been held to mean that
states have the authority over the beds of navigable waterways. Some have argued
that the equal footing doctrine prohibits permanent federal land ownership. This is
contrary to the plain wording of the Constitution. The doctrine and some language
within the U.S. Supreme Court case of Pollard’s Lessee v. Hagan have been
combined to provide an argument that the federal government held the lands ceded
by the original states only temporarily pending their disposal. However, this theory
has been rejected by other Supreme Court cases. Furthermore, in Pollard’s Lessee
v. Hagan, the Supreme Court ruled on the narrow issue of federal ownership of
submerged lands beneath navigable waterways, finding those lands belonged to the
state under the equal footing doctrine because the original states had kept ownership
of the shores of navigable waters and the soils under them."

If you're bent about inheriting some lands on federal mineral reservations which preexisted not only homestead claims, but certain states and which those states recognized in their eventual charters of statehood, the courts are at your disposal. Otherwise, pound sand - Just be sure you don't extract any valuable minerals in the process without sharing it with the US taxpayer.

More evasive appeal to common practice fallacy.

I was crafting a long rebuttal including references from the Federalist Papers and other sources but I decided that you are not worthy of my effort, given your dismissive attitude and unwillingness to civilly debate the issue.

Save it for someone who cares. I bill millions of dollars a year and support a dozen families based on my recognized expertise in land law. You sit around and try to make yourself omnipotent on the internet ~16 hours/day. If you had a lick of sense, you'd appreciate the free education you could be getting from my posts, but you don't. That's why you're a Libertarian.

[Seth]

Another example of you googling up some silly shit from some objectivist website, and leaving totally fucked up about it...

Not at all. It's merely a reading of the plain language of the Constitution, which nowhere authorizes the federal government to own anything other than the District of Columbia and the lands necessary for those authorized uses found in the Constitution itself.

You may again invoke the fallacy of appeal to common practice if you like, but I'm not discussing how things are, I'm discussing constitutional principles and how things should be under original intent construction. Disagree if you like, but personal insults and resorts to hand-waving fallacies doesn't constitute rational discussion.

You don't know jack shit, so your goofball interpretations of the intent of people who died 150 years before you were born are usually in direct conflict with established legal precedent and tested law, a legal tradition you seem to feel is a logical fallacy...

It's not the legal precedents, tested law or legal traditions that's the fallacy, it's your mindless obedience to them that you substitute for rational debate that's the fallacy.

Save it for someone who cares.

I am, that's why I didn't bother, you're not worth my time.

I bill millions of dollars a year and support a dozen families based on my recognized expertise in land law.

Sounds like a fallacious appeal to authority to me.

You sit around and try to make yourself omnipotent on the internet ~16 hours/day. If you had a lick of sense, you'd appreciate the free education you could be getting from my posts, but you don't. That's why you're a Libertarian.

There's no "education" in your posts, that's the problem. All there is is dismissive and arrogant appeals to common practice that amount to the following: "You should just shut up because the way things are is the way things are and therefore there's no need to discuss them."

That's an ignorant evasion and nothing more.

[Jason]

You should just shut up because some 'intelligent' and 'educated' people say 'Libertarianism' is impracticable. Discussing the minutiae of a moot point leads.. where?

[piscator]

[Seth]

You should just shut up because some 'intelligent' and 'educated' people say 'Libertarianism' is impracticable. Discussing the minutiae of a moot point leads.. where?

Wow. How "scientific" of you...

[Jason]

Yarp. I've never read nuffin. I are dumb.

[JimC]

I work on the principle that for any given society, there is an optimum level of government impact and control on the lives of the population.

Too little (often because of lack of money, talent or corruption rather than libertarian principles), then you have things like buildings in Bangladesh falling down because no one applied building regulations...

Too much, and innovation is stifled, and/or governments are interfering with people's sex lives, and the whole drug control thing.

I think that most western governments are a little too prone to applying too much in the area of social control, and not quite enough in regulating the big financial sharks. I know that's just my opinion; hopefully, via the ballot box, a society ought to be able to at least roughly move to where the majority of the people are comfortable with.

[Warren Dew]

I think that most western governments are a little too prone to applying too much in the area of social control, and not quite enough in regulating the big financial sharks.

Regulation is what makes the financial sharks big. "Too big to fail" regulations - okay, technically, designation as a systemically important institution - are a case in point.

[Seth]

I think that most western governments are a little too prone to applying too much in the area of social control, and not quite enough in regulating the big financial sharks.

Regulation is what makes the financial sharks big. "Too big to fail" regulations - okay, technically, designation as a systemically important institution - are a case in point.

The problem is NOT "regulation" per se, it's HOW government goes about regulating and WHAT the actual purpose (as opposed to the advertised purpose) of the regulation is. Intervention by the government with the purpose of ensuring honest trade (not "fair" just honest...caveat emptor and all that) and policing against force and fraud is perfectly appropriate. Intervention by the government to pick and choose winners and losers in the marketplace is not, even if the ostensible purpose is to make things "better" in society.

Too many people are simply unable to distinguish between the two different types of regulation (just as they cannot or will not distinguish between taxation to run government and redistributionary taxation) and incessantly throw up strawman and red herring arguments by conflating the two together and then accusing Libertarians of advocating no regulation whatsoever. This is simply willful ignorance.

[Tero]

You're still in the 1700s Seth. Your ideas will work in a horse and buggy economy in an untamed land.

[JimC]

I think that most western governments are a little too prone to applying too much in the area of social control, and not quite enough in regulating the big financial sharks.

Regulation is what makes the financial sharks big. "Too big to fail" regulations - okay, technically, designation as a systemically important institution - are a case in point.

Well, in that case, poorly designed regulation rather than too much regulation. A big problem is the sheer amount of financial clout that the big financial sharks can bring to bear. They can afford whole forms of specialised lawyers, and the near-corrupt ways they can influence government by well-heeled lobbyists and direct payments in elections shows that power in western economies can be highly asymmetrical...

And the "too big to fail" thing is usually because governments foresee that the turmoil caused by the death throes of one of the giants will be blamed on the government, rather than the company or the system, so they work desperately to prop them up, at much cost...