Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[GreatJustice]

Yes we have.  That's why the nanny state northeast has consistantly been decades ahead of the old south on social issues such as women's rights, gay rights, race rights.  When the people identify a social problem they have the government step in and fix it.

Bit of a generalization there, especially prior to the Southern Strategy.

It's "nanny state" New Hampshire that doesn't require insurance for drivers, seat belts, helmets, has no state income tax and has been cutting its budget back significantly for quite a while, while it's "old south" Tennessee that actively prosecuted rail companies that didn't make separate train cars for blacks.

Take the complex issue of slavery.  Vermont took the heavy handed government approach of making it illegal in 1780.  Guess what didn't happen in Vermont?  Slavery!  The southern states let the individuals do what they want.  Guess what happened?  Decades of slavery and a deep culture of racial resentment on both sides.

So libertarianism, which is based off the concept of self ownership and free will, would advocate for slavery? Keep in mind, slavery wouldn't have gone far if the government wasn't actively putting down slave revolts.

Sure, you can directly protect your home, but what about transferable title to land you're not occupying? How efficient will things be if everyone has to send armed units to secure land they just bought? If you contend that "free market security" will replace government mandated police and soldiers, then what's to stop a private armed group just grabbing your land and saying "free market, dude!"

War isn't very profitable to those directly involved. Considering the fact that "legitimate" PDAs would be receiving money and support from its subscribers, whereas a "bandit" PDA would be reliant on having a constant flow of loot to keep itself going, it wouldn't be much of a contest most of the time.

You also ought to remember that the government regularly seizes land either directly or indirectly, doesn't allow competition/opting out, will not improve its services, has basically no input from those under it (barring the well connected and powerful of course), and, if "defeated" by another government, will hand over the apparatus of the state to a potentially worse ruler.

[Nadaka]

You also ought to remember that the government regularly seizes land either directly or indirectly

[citation needed]

[mainiac]

Yeah, blame the government for what private individuals did to each other.  Never heard that from a libertarian before.

So libertarianism, which is based off the concept of self ownership and free will, would advocate for slavery?

Actually a lot of libertarians at the time did exactly that.  Libertarianism has the funny habit of celebrating social change about five years after the liberals push it through.

[darkrider2]

You also ought to remember that the government regularly seizes land either directly or indirectly

[citation needed]

What, public domain? Don't they usually put worthwhile things on the properties they overtake? And pay the original owners quite reasonably? What about those oil companies that leased lands off of hundreds of people then renigged when the leases expired? And the government didn't really do anything about it, some great regulation there.

Then there's the other seizure of property when you're under investigation, and I don't really have a problem with that.

[palsch]

What, public domain?

Erm, eminent domain surely? Public domain is something rather different.

Then there's the other seizure of property when you're under investigation, and I don't really have a problem with that.

Actually that process is arguably more open to abuse and less subject to oversight. Take the current rules surrounding seizures relating to drug arrests. The arrests don't even need to become charges for the seized property to be permanently held by the arresting force.

Contrast this with the procedures regarding eminent domain seizures and eminent domain looks positively liberal in it's execution. Which it isn't in case anyone had any doubts.



By the way, I would agree that the right term for anyone who wishes to maximise personal freedoms through the most practical means would be a liberal. That's kinda what liberal has always meant. Libertarian tends to be a narrower term, although as always with political labels there is always some variation.

I used to call myself a civil libertarian but got over it.

[darkrider2]

Oh sorry, yes eminent domain.

[Leafsnail]

It's "nanny state" New Hampshire that doesn't require insurance for drivers, seat belts, helmets, has no state income tax and has been cutting its budget back significantly for quite a while, while it's "old south" Tennessee that actively prosecuted rail companies that didn't make separate train cars for blacks.

You just selectively spew out disconnected facts everywhere without any actual substantive argument.  That's why whenever I feel tempted to respond to one of your posts properly I just listen to the Ron Paul song.  Pretty much the same level of argument and at least it's funny.

[Nadaka]

Oh sorry, yes eminent domain.

That is hardly used regularly. And the government is required to demonstrate a pressing need for it and pay the full market price for any property acquired through eminent domain.

[Lord Shonus]

Oh sorry, yes eminent domain.

That is hardly used regularly. And the government is required to demonstrate a pressing need for it and pay the full market price for any property acquired through eminent domain.

In the last few years, it's been used to expand the University of Toledo twice and the Toledo airport once. In none of these cases did those involved gain more than a fraction of the actual value of their property, because of the methods used by the government appraisers. Similarly, properties are regularly seized for relatively small amounts of back taxes while properties that aren't in a development corridor are allowed to languish for ten times the deficit. It's used, and abused, quite often, to the point where, if a company's trying to buy your land, they tell you flat out that you can take their first offer, or be happy with the scraps the government gives you when they take it.

[Zrk2]

The problem with some parts of that video is that he doesn't use percentages, so the benefits to the wealthy always seem bigger.

[GlyphGryph]

Eminent Domain has a long history of being abused heavily and frequently. I understand why the government might need it, but I'm not sure if it outweighs the benefit of the government being unable to do it. :/

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Eminent domain has such an unfortunate history because of how directly it is stated in the Constitution, leaving even liberal Justices with little room to rule upon it. All the same, it will probably be reformed after Obama gets his next few appointees.

[GlyphGryph]

Oh wow, I just realized I managed to pull "least supportive of Romney" in that quiz thing of everyone who has posted.

I must really, really not like the guy!

[SalmonGod]

I haven't deeply research it myself, but I've been seeing a lot of noise about it lately from all the activist feeds.  There has been a ton of eminent domain activity going on lately in relation to the Keystone XL pipeline.  As far as I'm aware, Obama has been very supportive of the pipeline and all measures taken to secure the project's development.  I welcome any evidence to the contrary.  As it stands, I have 0 expectation that Obama would help to reform eminent domain.  I'd give that about as much credibility as all his claims about being a champion of government transparency.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

I haven't deeply research it myself, but I've been seeing a lot of noise about it lately from all the activist feeds.  There has been a ton of eminent domain activity going on lately in relation to the Keystone XL pipeline.  As far as I'm aware, Obama has been very supportive of the pipeline and all measures taken to secure the project's development.  I welcome any evidence to the contrary.  As it stands, I have 0 expectation that Obama would help to reform eminent domain.  I'd give that about as much credibility as all his claims about being a champion of government transparency.

The issue is you're confusing a corporation performing 'eminent domain' seizures like they are in relation to the pipeline, and government land seizures. It's not approved by the US government, so there has been no government taking of lands in relation to Keystone. It's been the corporations involved forcibly and somehow legally removing citizens from their land, like many corporations [Wal Mart comes to mind] before them. It's an extremely unfair change-to-existing-law that was written in favor of corporations. It's summarized best by this:

“Allowing the government to take property solely for public purposes is bad enough, but extending the concept of public purpose to encompass any economically beneficial goal guarantees that these losses will fall disproportionately on poor communities. Those communities are not only systematically less likely to put their lands to the highest and best social use, but are also the least politically powerful.”

& On Obama and Keystone:
Basic summary of why not to support it;
I googled 'Obama pipeline against'.

Seems he is aware it's an absolutely awful idea, he's not a moron.

He's going to smash the proposal to bits once the election has passed and the decision has to be made mostly since it's obviously bad for America and only good for about .0001% of people involved. Not to mention having a big ass target pipeline down the middle of our country would be such a great idea in hindsight since nothing ever happens to those things.