July 11-13: At Netroots Nation

The Hidden History of Guns and the 2nd Amendment Book Tour Is Coming...

Thursday, June 6: NEW YORK, NY 7:30pm

Location: The Strand (2nd floor), 828 Broadway, NYC

Monday, June 10: WASHINGTON, DC 6:30pm

Location: Busboys and Poets, 450 K St NW, Washington, DC

Wednesday, June 12: PORTLAND, OR 7:30pm

Location: Powell’s, 1005 W Burnside St., Portland

Sunday, June 23: SEATTLE, WA 7:30pm

Location: Town Hall, 1119 8th Ave, Seattle (West Entrance) w/Elliott Bay Book Company

Tuesday, June 25: SAN FRANCISCO, CA 7:00pm

Location: First Church, 2345 Channing Way, Berkeley w/The Booksmith

Friday, June 28: CHICAGO, IL 7:00pm

Location: Frugal Muse, 7511 Lemont Rd. #146 (Chestnut Court Shopping Center), Darien

Saturday, June 29: MINNEAPOLIS, MN 7:00pm

Location: Common Good Books, 38 S. Snelling Ave, St. Paul

Friday, July 12: Philadelphia, PA 4:15pm - At Netroots Nation
Location: PA Convention Center, 1101 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA

Become a Thom Supporter- Click the Patreon button

The use of limited "coercion" is acceptable in civil law when it comes to stopping negative externalities!

On July 23, 2016, we discontinued our forums. We ask our members to please join us in our new community site, The Hartmann Report. Please note that you will have to register a new account on The Hartmann Report.

9 posts / 0 new

Comments

When a parent "coerces" a child through discipline (not necessarily through spanking, of course!), they are stating to that child "you don't have a choice!" A libertarian might say that this is irrelevant when it comes to property disputes. Nonsense! If the use of your property is interfering with my property or my life(!), I am not going to give you the choice to continue doing it! Now I might not use violence, deception, or financial extortion to make you stop hurting me, but I am not just going to give you the choice to do it either!

micahjr34
Joined:
Feb. 7, 2011 4:57 pm

I respectfully challenge Libertarians to come on here and argue their case that not giving people the choice to inflict harm on others is bad!

micahjr34
Joined:
Feb. 7, 2011 4:57 pm

I support the use of force " when it comes to restraining the behavior of those who are criminally disturbing and violating people...". However, I don't know exactly what you mean by ways not explained in terms of property. Can you elaborate and/or give examples?

LysanderSpooner's picture
LysanderSpooner
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Thank you for your response, LysanderSpooner.

When I refer to "property" I am refering to an abstract asset (such as a share of stock in a company) or a tangible good that has to be manufactured. I know that a business or economics type person might use some other definition, but for the sake of this discussion, that is the definition I will use. However, I do believe that when it comes to law enforcement, that property does not fit well with some types of problems and disturbances between people that is within the jurisdiction of law enforcement.

micahjr34
Joined:
Feb. 7, 2011 4:57 pm

Now I must also mention the difference between laws and regulations. In the context of this discussion, laws affect people and regulations affect businesses, typically when it comes to "externalities." A "negative externality" is any result from economic activity that inflicts harm on third, unparticipating parties, that also are catagorized against in regulations because they inflict harm to third parties. I say this to help clarify my position.

micahjr34
Joined:
Feb. 7, 2011 4:57 pm

When it comes to the issue of government regulations in workplace (read: Laws passed to help make sure that workers do not have to work in a workplace that will get them maimed or killed just doing their job), I am surprised at how adamant some people are in attacking these regulations. "Good" regulations are designed for only one real purpose: workplace safety, coupled with a little bit of consumer safety. While its debatable (speaking abstractly) whether or not people should be allowed to sell products that they know have safety flaws (extremely abstractly), it is unacceptable for the workplace to be unsafe. I do not care how much it hurts "the bottom line!" There are the lives of PEOPLE at stake here! It is very troubling, the notion that workers should be allowed to work with out safety precautions if they "waive" their rights, because that would put pressure on the business to want to hire only people who don't mind coming home at the end of the day in a casket, as long as the pay is good!

micahjr34
Joined:
Feb. 7, 2011 4:57 pm
Quote micahjr34:

When it comes to the issue of government regulations in workplace (read: Laws passed to help make sure that workers do not have to work in a workplace that will get them maimed or killed just doing their job), I am surprised at how adamant some people are in attacking these regulations.

I believe this is the case of those subscribing to rigid philosophical dogma rather than looking at in a pragmatic nad rational manner.

Dominic C
Joined:
Jun. 27, 2011 10:39 am

I once heard a phrase ---"Ignorance Kills, Dogma Murders"

micahjr34
Joined:
Feb. 7, 2011 4:57 pm

How Do We Take Back the Military From the Billionaire Owned Military Industrial Complex?

Thom plus logo Democrats (Bernie & Lee) in the senate proposed legislation saying what the Constitution already says: that Trump can't go to war with Iran without congressional authorization. Every Republican on the committee, except Rand Paul, voted against it.
Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system