What about people who use too much of the commons whether it may overgrazing shared fields, taking too much water upstream or polluting the air? I mean you may not want to purchase their stuff but they may not care about externalities leaving you to deal with the costs.
Get Green in now and let's run some Green Sengun pnrs please. Please pretty please Silas? Pretty please KPJ?
No, I don't care about the PM of New Zealand beyond talking about more abstract concepts of freedom (not being a resident of New Zealand). I haven't mentioned the PM of New Zealand in this thread. I mean like the governments of California and the United States. I can also use as much of the commons as I like, that is what makes them common. Ideally, we would commoditize most things, as things that have owners are generally better protected and subjected to less waste. Ultimately, I don't think the tragedy of the commons will end up having a greater impact on me than governments.
Since this is not about goods and services, basically you're b****ing about paying taxes? That's what I get from the "can arrest me if I don't give them the amount of money they demand from me."
Paying taxes is the most fundamental example, because even if all you do is work, eat, and sleep in your own residence, you cannot get away from it. Every law is the government limiting your freedom with the threat of imprisonment or death though. Speed limits, zoning, prohibition of drugs, gun control, automotive emission requirements, etc. would all be examples of government control over you that you cannot opt out of, even if you never hurt anyone else. I think there is a place for government, I'm not an anarchist, but the government should be limited to protecting people's rights, not infringing upon them or social engineering.
What about a person's right to say clean air... do coal rollers get signed consent papers to contaminate people's lungs (maybe emission requirements could help protect our rights), what about the right to not have a waste pit built next to a neighborhood, school or upstream of a towns water supply (maybe zoning could protect our rights), what about the right to have our children be able to safely walk home from school and not have people driving 140 mph in a school zone (maybe speed limits could protect our rights)? What happens when one man's perception of freedom doesn't align with the next? What if things you believe could never hurt anybody, does? I do think a fun zone box, a reservation of sorts, where like-minded people could opt-out (or in?) could be interesting.
Tragedy of the Commons is generally ignored by libertarians and is a known failure of their brand of capitalism. Capital and research intensive stuff like life saving medicine for niche diseases also go by the wayside. Pharma would rather go balls deep reformulating a patent for boner pills than curing a disease for rare disorders. If the sample size is big enough, then they'll opt for therapeutic treatment (HIV/AIDS). Think of it as a subscription plan like Netflix...for life? I'm generally swayed for smaller governments or temporary ad hoc surges in emergency powers. Libertarianism seems to be like a thought experiment for living inside a black hole. The folks who don't live in log cabins deep inside the boonies are probably the more loonier ones.
WHAT!!! I CAN'T TAKE A **** IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET!??!! THAT'S SOCIAL ENGINEERING! SOCIALISM. NO WAIT, THAT MAKES YOU A NAZI!!!! I WANT FREEDOM TO **** IN THE PUBIC POOL! STOP THE OPPRESSIVE GOBERNERMENT FROM TAKING AWAY OUR SHI##ING RIGHTS!
Jacinda Ardern still sucks and is a horse-faced, socialist-authoritarian, passive aggressive embarrassment of a politician.
Not sure if you are able to use the search functionality, I guess not, but if you could, you could look up my posts about Marjorie Taylor Greene.
Nah we talkin about dem Covid anti-vax grifters. That good ****. You know those grifters who's target demo was you.
No, we call these people "moderates'. At least that's what ATW says. He says he's moderate. Why shouldn't we believe him?
What if you're a farmer and there is another farmer upstream from you. That farmer decides to grow cotton and rice which are very water intensive products. That means you don't get enough water to grow your crops. You're just OK with that? Of if you're not a farmer what if your neighbor decides they want to compost their own human waste in their back yard. That is obviously very smelly. Are you fine then with them just polluting the commons of the air above your houses?
HOw is government protecting your rights if they can't enforce laws meant to protect your safety and ability to exercize your rights? For example traffic control laws. If anyone can drive at any speed and any direction they want that means that driving, really being out in the public, is more dangerous. If I don't have good reflexes or a super safe car for that matter just being a pedestrian my right to be out in the public is greatly compromised. Your argument is that if you just stay in your house you can be fine. The problem with that is if I'm essentially imprisoned in my own house that is not the ability to exercise my rights. You say you're not an anarchist but you are essentially advocating anarchy.
