Hacker News Reader

Comment by davemel37 | Hacker News Reader

IMO it means you believe in a right freedom so long as you dont infringe on someone elses rights.

So, in theory you would be against forcing someone to pay taxes to build roads or provide education, but would arguably be for paying for a police department and justice system to protect people from having others infringe on their rights.

It basically means the only function of government should be to protect our freedoms and anything outside that purview should be done by the private sector and let the markets decide what has real value and is worth investing in.

View on HN

I haven't looked into this myself, but your definition of "libertarian" fits exactly with my concept of an ideal government: one that's sole purpose is to protect the freedoms and dignities of all those within its jurisdiction, and within that framework, allowing everything else to be more or less self-determined, so long as the freedoms and dignity of all those within it are not harmed.

In my simple way of understanding this, then, is that libertarians are un-developed democrats. They think Democrats are "wrong" because of what they are, but when you extend this line of thought for many, many many years, you find yourself a democrat. Democrats can be easily criticized for overthinking bathroom rights, but doesn't that argument boil down to freedoms of the oppressed transgendered person? Freedom for the many oppressing the freedoms of the few.

Too many climate laws, too many laws protecting groundwater? How would this Libertarian definition fit those? The freedoms of the individuals in the town that has a giant polluting factory. Now that town needs laws to make the factory safer.

How about gun laws? Libertarians might suggest more "freedoms" with respect to gun availability,... many years later, revealing that more guns available actually means more deaths => freedom lost for the dead? Now they're a democrat too...

How's this definition different than democrat?

I'm just asking, because reading this mini-thread I'm lost here.

All those things you mention violate the Non-Aggression Principle, and are thus incredibly non-libertarian.

Libertarianism make few exceptions to that principle in order to allow for such things as limited government policing, courts and defence.

Bathroom laws require forcing companies to pay for additional bathrooms, and by extension, pay for the policing required to prevent gender-mixing in the non-approved bathrooms.

Environmental regulations force companies to pay for expensive pollution-limiting equipment. Pollution is already handled by libertarianism as pollution means either damage to people's health, or damage to people's property. Both of which are violations of the non-aggression principle. No environmental "regulations" necessary as the repercussions far outweigh the benefits of pollution.

Gun-laws means imprisoning people for owning a piece of property. Same thing with drug-prohibition.

If you force people to do something with the threat of losing money/property/freedom then your policy is not even remotely libertarian. If you are genuinely curious, I suggest you not rely on this mini-thread to define libertarian-concepts to you. Rather research it.

> Bathroom laws require forcing companies to pay for additional bathrooms

Not usually.

> Environmental regulations force companies to pay for expensive pollution-limiting equipment. Pollution is already handled by libertarianism as pollution means either damage to people's health, or damage to people's property. Both of which are violations of the non-aggression principle. No environmental "regulations" necessary as the repercussions far outweigh the benefits of pollution.

I'm having some trouble parsing what you mean. Are you saying the government should stop pollution because it causes damage to people/property, but they shouldn't call it 'regulation'?

How do the people with the pollution-damaged health or property then get justice or cause those "repercussions"? Is libertarianism then ultimately grounded upon tort law? Is the idea to have a corps of free or low-cost lawyers constantly ready to sue polluters to cease and desist and pay restitution to the harmed?

I am totally lost on your pollution point. Can you elaborate ?What repercussions are there for the polluter?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com