Posted on 07/31/2002 5:20:31 AM PDT by fporretto
Thanks, HV
Let me offer a real-life example: my own mother. She was born in 1931 and raised in North Carolina about the time the Volstead Act (prohibition) was repealed. But in (mostly Southern) states, legal "dryness" lingered for decades (even as every single state and legislative official had access to as much liquor as he could drink, whenever he wanted it.)
My parents' environment was the blue-collar world where, as in the 20's and 30's, the only available alcohol was bootleg. (You probably know that some of those country-boys, in their zeal to outrun the "Rev-e-nooers" back then, eventually turned their hopped-up vehicles into today's billion-dollar NASCAR.)
Back to Mama. In the 30's, with nothing legal (and a serious Baptist stigma attached to consuming any alcohol at all) those who wanted a drink were reduced to buying not only what might be poison (some of it was,) but of drinking as much as possible in a short time. You dasn't get caught.
So in my mother's childhood, all she knew of "imbibers" were people who drank to get drunk. This would bring out latent anger in some of them and they'd beat the hell out of available children. (Sometimes she was one of them.) This was not a crime, then and there.
The drunk driver who killed my mother's mother in 1933 was not even brought up on charges. It was barely a crime, then and there.
Now, as a grown woman, when things had stabilized, she did not turn into Carrie Nation, but had gained a deep suspicion for anyone who drank any amount of alcohol. I don't blame her. Enforcing those feelings was her "stage 2" ability to cope with alcoholic beverages. She can have one glass of wine, but not two. A few people cannot have even one, while still others can drink Herculean amounts. My mother's own body chemistry is her basis for wondering --even at age 71 -- why anybody can have more than a drink or two and continue to enjoy it, because she literally cannot. And the ones who did in her childhood were often quite cruel to her.
But you're right, WyldKard: all the verifiable numbers show that prohibition increased, rather than decreased, alcoholism or just plain drinking to excess. Alcoholics Anonymous was founded in the mid 1930's, of original members who had had no trouble getting all they wanted to drink when it was technically "illegal."
I won't even get into the beginnings of organized crime here; that's a whole 'nother thread. Or 12.
What you can't, or won't, realize is that libertarianism is completly flawed because no one can agree on a uniform standard for "reason". It's that simple. Your version of reason is different than mine and everyone elses. Thus, whatever we decide to be "reasonable" is completely arbitrary. In fact, any big idea such as "justice", or "fairness" or "liberty" suffers the same flaws. There are no ideals. Someone much smarter than either you or I, Plato, tried to solve this with the Doctrine of Forms. He failed.
Plus, most of the time I don't even know what your arguments are about. For instance, you say that you're a libertarian, then you say that liberty is limited. I say, "hey great, looks like your a conservative" because you've admit that society can regulate liberty; what other reason would society have to curtail liberty other than order? So, then you say--no wait, I'm a conservative.
I really don't want to argue who either doesn't know what I'm talking about or whose comeback is, effectively, "I know you are, but what am I".
So, let's put it this way. You win.
HV
I guarantee you won't. I would never accept welfare from the government.
Unless the land when purchased has a stipulation (such as many developments have) that states what is and isn't acceptable to keep property values high as part of the agreement, of course you have no right to sue your neighbor. You are free to ignore, plead, beg and boycott your neighbor but not sue them.
Second, you are taking a 1 in a few million and trying to prove the norm. Most people who could afford to buy a home next to a $750,000 home will not purposely lower the value of their home.
When you use force or fraud (a form of theft) against someone else.
"There is no constitutional right to high property value."
True. No argument there.
"Unless the land when purchased has a stipulation..."
Here's the problem with your response: you're arguing the specific here. In other words, it's not about what's legal right now, but whether or not regulating what can be done on one's property *should* be regulated. I can make a strong case that I'm simply doing what I want to do on my own property. You could make an equally strong case that what I'm doing on my property is hurting your economic well being, which hurts your personal liberty. Who's right? How do you know?
Again, this is the problem with libertarianism. Define "liberty". You say that my right to throw my fist stops at your face. But my fist is always going to be further away from my perspective, and your face always closer from yours. There is no such thing as objective 'reason'. Or objective 'fairness'. Or 'equality'.
And that gets me to the second post, where you say that force is the standard to know if rights are being violated. That tells me you're probably a Rand fan. But, if there's no God, and we need an 'objective' answer to what 'reason' or 'freedom' or 'liberty' means, to whom do we appeal? Rand says that two 'rational' people can't disagree, but we're disagreeing right here. And what Rand doesn't tell you is that this statement--"Two rational people cannot have disagreements"--which she repeats often in her works, is *non-negotiable* to her 'philosophy'. Because if two rational people can honestly disagree, then it's not Objectivism, it's Subjectivism, or better yet Nonsensism.
So, on the issue of force, if we can't agree on which version of 'liberty' or 'truth' or whatever should prevail, eventually someone is going to have to come in and pick between competing visions of what these ideas mean. And once we arrive at what 'liberty' means, and you or I still dissent, how do we enforce the decision? Answer: force. Thus, Rand's entire philosophy relies on arbitrary decisions on what abstract concepts mean, which are then backed up by guns. Because if Objectivism isn't backed up by force, how will it prevail? By appealing to God?
No its not a problem. Economic well being is not necessarily personal liberty.
This is what liberty means.
The condition of being free from restriction or control.
The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing
Therefore, if I wanted to move into a development and a stipulation on my contract said I had to keep my property looking groomed to keep property values high and to be considerate of my neighbors, then I have voluntarily entered into an agreement as such. If I purchase property and there is no such stipulation, then it is not violate a contract (fraud), it is not commiting force on someone else, and therefore there is no ground to hold your neighbor accountable.
Again, this is the problem with libertarianism. Define "liberty". You say that my right to throw my fist stops at your face. But my fist is always going to be further away from my perspective, and your face always closer from yours. There is no such thing as objective 'reason'. Or objective 'fairness'. Or 'equality'.
This makes no sense. Either you are forcing me to do something or you are not. There is no 'grey area' as you would like myself to believe. Making physical contact or threating is using force. Asking a neighbor to stop doing something that you do not like is completely another.
And that gets me to the second post, where you say that force is the standard to know if rights are being violated. That tells me you're probably a Rand fan. But, if there's no God, and we need an 'objective' answer to what 'reason' or 'freedom' or 'liberty' means, to whom do we appeal? Rand says that two 'rational' people can't disagree, but we're disagreeing right here. And what Rand doesn't tell you is that this statement--"Two rational people cannot have disagreements"--which she repeats often in her works, is *non-negotiable* to her 'philosophy'. Because if two rational people can honestly disagree, then it's not Objectivism, it's Subjectivism, or better yet Nonsensism.
I haven't read any of Rand's work except Capitalism: The Unknown ideal. Reason is not the discussion at hand, liberty and freedom are, which I've already defined.
So, on the issue of force, if we can't agree on which version of 'liberty' or 'truth' or whatever should prevail, eventually someone is going to have to come in and pick between competing visions of what these ideas mean. And once we arrive at what 'liberty' means, and you or I still dissent, how do we enforce the decision? Answer: force. Thus, Rand's entire philosophy relies on arbitrary decisions on what abstract concepts mean, which are then backed up by guns. Because if Objectivism isn't backed up by force, how will it prevail? By appealing to God?
No, you have it backwards. You have to define force first, before you can define liberty. Liberty could easily be said as free from (initial) force. I should have said initial force, as once you violate the rights of others, you have given up your rights in the process. When you are not (initially) forcing people to do anything, you have liberty.
Where does this type of thinking come from? I'm a Libt. and believe strongly in charity and social responsibility. I don't think thay Libt's are especially anti-charity, except perhaps Randian/Objectivists.
I do have serious issues with govt enforced donations though.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.