Jollybear
Hey
Hours of service tweak, plus many other stupid laws also tweaked will bring us closer to that libertarian utopia.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is This Fair Criticism Of Libertarianism?
- Thread starter Milton Platt
- Start date
Hours of service tweak, plus many other stupid laws also tweaked will bring us closer to that libertarian utopia.
What other laws?
Jollybear
Hey
Ok, lets look at some more, that i have experience with.
Another elog one.
Everytime you stop the truck and press off "off duty" or "on duty" under that heading you must press an option of why your off duty or on duty. If uou dont like the options, you may manually type in your own reason.
To save time, i just press one of ther given options. So, if say i stop to pee, there is no audamatic given option that says "need to pee". There is one close to it and it says "personel hygene" ill usually press that and then go pee. I will not manually type in "need to pee" because its just rediculious too me.
Ok, now, even though to do this is not hard or time consuming, still, it goes against the principles of freedom.
There is absolutely NO need for the government to know why your stopping the truck. None. This also is not the company asking why either, this is the government asking why. If the company wants to know why, they will call you and ask "hey, your tacker says your in such and such state and its x 0 clock, you need to role now or else your gonna be 2 hours late on this load!" The company dont care WHY your stopped. They just care that you dont make a service fail by being late.
But, oddly, the government cares why you stop the truck. Why should they care? There not the costumer, there not the truck company. For them it shouldnt matter. So, IF you violate this regulation and refuse to put a reason under your "off duty" status, and they inspect your log, they can give you a ticket for something as trivial as this!
So, the only motive i can see in this regulation is nothing more then over reaching control for the sake of gaining more money via the issuing of tickets.
Its all power and money.
This violates the principles of GOOD liberty.
There is lots more tweaks that can be done too.
How about something not related to trucking?
Jollybear
Hey
Sure.
How about zoning laws.
Local Laws Ban Front Yard Food Gardens in Cities Across the US
These are examples of people getting in trouble for growing gardens on there own yard, that they bought and paid for by there own hard earned money.
Zoning laws in general, or this specific issue?
Edit: you don't need to go full-on libertarian to allow front yard gardens.
Jollybear
Hey
Full on libertarian simply means to allow people to do whatever they want, as long as it harms no one else.
Does growing a front yard garden hurt your naghbor? Nope.
This is a good example of where libertarians differ from liberals.
Front yard gardens harm no one. But liberals (in my town)
make such things illegal because of the nonconforming
appearance. Yards are supposed to look a particular way.
Grass height & size are regulated. Even lawn/porch furniture is.regulated.
No rain gardens...no prairie grass...no wildflowers...no parking...no
looking like something scares the neighbors regarding property values.
A slippery slope argument...
If people can grow veggies in their front yard, it'll lead to corporations
enslaving workers, & cooking their children for the company BBQ.
We must be very restrictive or libertarians will remove all restrictions, eh.
Last edited:
Jollybear
Hey
Right, why should a nearby naghbor care if we have a front yard garden, its our yard, not his. We dont go over to his house and tell him he MUST grow a garden in his front yard too. Yet he thinks he has a right to tell us we gotta make our yard like his.
Its incredable.
They call it the "social contract".
It essentially means that what you're forced to do is something you agreed
to...by merely existing. They have expectations, & you're forced to meet them.
Their defense?
Without there level of restrictions, you can legally murder your neighbors.
Jollybear
Hey
Right, so if they dont restrict your garden, then they cant restrict murder, lol.
That's the typical argument against libertarianism here on RF,
ie, they set up a false alternative...one unacceptably extreme.
They paint libertarianism as a parade of horribles, with no
middle ground between their world & the one created for us.
Politics is a spectrum. If we can nudge Republicrats in the
direction of more liberty (both social & economic), & still
satisfy their needs, then this is good. It's the most we can do.
Btw, I see you eyeballing me carrots & lettuce!
I'd say it means a lack of regulation, including important and beneficial regulation.
But you don't need libertarianism to have a front yard garden.
A better approach: tweak zoning by-laws to make them better while still keeping beneficial policies that are incompatible with libertarianism (e.g. universal health care, government pensions, and welfare).
Jollybear
Hey
I think the only reason they misrepresent libertarians is because they got no good argument against it.
For many posters on RF, winning an argument is everything.
And so they redefine what others believe....
Libertarians have no regulations or laws.
Atheists have no morality.
Muslims are commanded to kill the infidel.
Catholics blindly obey the Pope.
Mormons are all polygamists.
The need to win removes all common ground.
Jollybear
Hey
You keep painting libertarism to mean anti ALL laws. And thats simply not true. Like revolt just said, theres a spectrum of political views. Theres middle ground.
You do, because having a front yard garden requires LIBERTY to do so, lol.
I agree about tweaking laws to make them better. Im happy to see you say that.
You mentioned welfar. Ok, do you think people who are able to work should be on welfar?
I haven't done that at all.
And the term "libertarian" covers only a part of this spectrum.
So you think that anywhere that front yard gardens are allowed is a libertarian system?
If I were running things, I'd probably go a step beyond welfare to some sort of guaranteed minimum income system.
How do you feel about universal health care? It's generally opposed by libertarians.
Jollybear
Hey
Lol, of course you havent.
Right......
Its a part of it yes. Thats a part of the libertarian principles, absolutely.
Hmmm, well, let me ask again, should a able person be allowed on welfar?
Also, who should qualify for that guaranteed minimum income system you speak of?
Opposed. But, before i go deeper, id like to go deeper on the welfar
Its an interesting and an entertaining video. The presenter is instantly likeable and intelligent, but I have objections. I like his conclusions, but his arguments are terrible and seem slanderous, too. The opinions I put forward below do not make me an expert on Locke, rights to liberty or Locke; so you are encouraged to read about them. I'm also don't have a degree in philosophy. I
In the video he misunderstand's Locke and cheapens him. (7:20) At the time that Locke says right to property is God-given, he's arguing that it does not derive through nobility. In other words Locke argues against a 'Right' to property as understood in his time. That is part of the foundation of Utilitarianism rather than a score for Libertarianism. Those who claim Locke, claim Locke. It could be this confusion is due to claims that the vid maker has seen on Libertarian web sites rather than due to his own reading of Locke.
Some of Locke's arguments are valuable. Locke does not consider that people have any exclusive right to property in our natural state. He does argue for property ownership and seeks to uphold that labor bestowed upon something causes it to be owned. From this we get modern ideas like Squatter's Rights. The video makes the mistake of cheapening Locke and turning people away from his thoughtful statements, although I value its spirited introduction of Utilitarian theory. I think where Locke falls short is that he presupposes labor makes anything owned, but its a model. Its fine to ask what causes people to labor on things, and it would be easy as pie to say that Locke may not be a member of the Libertarian party. He exists before it does and has different political considerations. I could take what Locke has said and infer that he would take away 90% of ownership from all people who are not actively developing their resources with their own hands.
Copy of Locke's chapter titled *Of Property* from his 2nd treatise of civil government.
As for what he says about the right to liberty (8:21) again the video fails, because its argument is fallacious. His conclusion is that he is not a Libertarian and is Utilitarian, but freedom as an idea which exists before the Libertarian party. One can choose not to be a Libertarian and still believe freedom is a right. Through conscience and compassion born on experience I can insist there is a right to liberty. Its experience and horror that have driven most to accept this that people must be free, and the alternative is a horror.
Bad free will argument (9:01). Fallacious again. One does not have to be Libertarian to accept responsibility for their own lives and can recognize good and bad fortune. Free will might be a Libertarian principle, but its not owned by Libertarianism and doesn't have to be such a paper doll. It can mean (does mean I think) that a person is expected to look at their situation and do something about it and be responsible for what they are and have done. It also doesn't have to mean that the poor are guilty of being poor and deserve to be poor.
I agree with his conclusion that "Libertarianism simply doesn't work." I value his introduction of Utilitarian theory. I agree that we should share. His argument does not apply to his conclusion, even though his conclusion "I am not a Libertarian" might have a valid argument behind it. He should come up with better arguments. Instead he throws all kinds of good arguments under the bus, and his speech also confuses the Libertarian party and libertarianism.
I know full well tbat libertarians generally support criminal laws against things like murder, assault, theft, etc., and civil courts for things like breach of contract.Lol, of course you havent.
They generally don't favour laws that support beneficial programs like universal health care, or that protect worker's rights (e.g. minimum wage laws and employment standards), or that limit people's ability to infringe on the freedoms of others (e.g. gun control).
That seems to be common to all libertarians, but there are some who go much further... e.g. arguing that government building codes and food inspection should be eliminated and that the safety of buildings and food should be left to market forces.
A quick Googling tells me that Sacramento, CA allows front yard vegetable gardens.
Do you consider the laws in Sacramento (and therefore the state laws of California and US federal laws) to reflect libertarian ideals?
Yes, of course. If you don't, why not?
Every citizen and permanent resident.
I'm not sure what else there is to say. I don't see how making someone homeless or starving them is a reasonable punishment for the "crime" of not working.
Edit: and pragmatically, the cost to society of having people fall through the cracks is far more than it is just to make sure they're supported.