this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2023
1536 points (91.9% liked)

Memes

45241 readers
1623 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 112 points 1 year ago (68 children)

The only way for libertarianism to work is if every human had only good intentions. Since that’s simply never going to happen libertarianism will never work. Just my opinion feel free to disagree.

[–] [email protected] 58 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Libertarianism is a theory espoused to those with good intentions by people that have bad intentions.

It doesn’t work for almost anyone. But it super works for some. That’s the point.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The problem is that it doesn't work even if everyone has good intentions. It needs everyone to agree on what "good intentions" even means.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I think you are possibly confusing libertarianism with anarchism. Libertarianism does not make the argument that the state is well functioning without a central authoritative mediating body -- I point you to the model of a Nightwatchman State.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Also there's the fact that nearly everybody's idea of freedom is drastically different and some people's freedoms infringe on others.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Also there’s the fact that nearly everybody’s idea of freedom is drastically different

Libertarianism seeks to maximise freedom.

some people’s freedoms infringe on others.

Libertarianism does not, in any way, shape, or form, advocate the idea that one is able infringe on the rights, and freedoms of another without their consent. One should not be allowed to impart a cost on another without their consent, or proper compensation for damages.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What if you think you should be able to enjoy peace and quiet and your neighbour wants to play loud music constantly?

Who’s freedoms do you infringe so the other one can have theirs?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

What if you think you should be able to enjoy peace and quiet and your neighbour wants to play loud music constantly?

These sorts of issues are examples of where we must accept that we live in an imperfect world, and, as such, we must make compromises. I completely agree that one should not be allowed to freely emit noise pollution, as it directly affects the livelihoods of all who are within earshot -- imparting a psychological cost, one could say. It is not realistic to say that everyone must be completely quiet unless all parties affected have given their consent, and as such, we make reasonable limits based on context as to the amount of noise pollution that we can generate. These limits are most commonly implemented as municipal noise pollution bylaws.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (5 children)

I personally don't fully agree. Libertarianism just doesn't work at all. It is not even a complete system from a logical sense. It falls apart when faced with basic scrutiny, or they just theorize a system that's basically the same as a central government but with a private entity name stamped on it.

It is an ideology stemming from a basic principle, but they sadly don't seem to think of the entire system as a whole.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Why do you say this? There would exist a justice system to protect individual, and property rights through tort law, just as there is now.

load more comments (63 replies)