Libertarians Like Libertarianism, Except When It's Inconvenient
Therefore, Bulleted List:
- The state isn't here to enforce your preferences. In fact, that's a lot of the reason we are where we are. People want the state to enforce their preferences on others by force and the state is all too happy to take the power that comes along with that and do whatever they want with it, your preferences be damned. You'll be lucky if that same power isn't used against you, instead.
- If the state should have the power to kick homeless people out of the park, should they have the power to kick people out of the park who have no Maxine passport? Why or why not?
- If the homeless people don't like you, should the cops kick you out? I mean, we're all human here, right? None of us have rights that others don't. So, if it's cool for some to have the state kick people out of parks who don't share their lifestyle choices, then we should support a situation where all groups are trying to use government force to exclude those they don't like.
- If you argue that the state owns this property (the park), then it's up to them what to do with it, unless you also argue that it's not up to you what you do with your own property. Obviously, someone who supports the idea that some can't do with their property what they want, then they would also argue that they themselves can't do with their own property what they want, to be consistent. If you argue that the state can't legitimately own property, then what gives you more of a right to it than a homeless person?
- This is why they propagandize. They do what benefits them at our expense and that creates problems, but they've taught us in their schools from an early age that the solution to those problems they created is more power for them. That creates more problems, etc.
- Why would you bring your kid to a place like that? Maybe somehow you didn't know it would be that way? If that was the case, once you figured out that it was that way, why stay? Just don't take your kid to places like that. I wouldn't want my kid on Jeffrey Epstein's island and, for that reason, I wouldn't take her there.
- I get that you don't want your kid around that stuff. But if you're arguing for the use of force just to get your way, then you're part of the problem.
There's no good solution to the problem. The state's got things all messed up. Go somewhere that isn't a homeless infested park. I realize that may not be ideal, but your ideal isn't going to be accomplished by the naïve advocacy for state violence on behalf of your preferences.
Now, carry on with your normally excellent podcast.
Now, carry on with your normally excellent podcast.
Comments
In my libertopia, a voluntary community may reserve land as a park for members generally, and it may exclude nonmembers, the homeless, the unvaccinated, nudists or whatever. Why? Because people want to hold some land in common this way, and no one outside of a community may tell members how to govern the community's land. A community does enact the preferences of its members, but "enforce" is a misnomer because members definitively agree to follow the community's rules. Members are self-owners with an inalienable right to exit, but no member unilaterally dictates rules governing the interaction between members. If you find yourself far outside of your community's consensus, you may find or found another community.
A community may also reserve land and other resources for destitute members hopefully enabling all able members to contribute. I prefer this type of community. I would not join a community in which sleeping on a park bench is a homeless member's best option primarily because I have compassion for the homeless member. I may also want to enjoy a public park without homeless people sleeping on the benches. I see no contradiction.
If the homeless people don't like you, should the cops kick you out? I mean, we're all human here, right? None of us have rights that others don't. So, if it's cool for some to have the state kick people out of parks who don't share their lifestyle choices, then we should support a situation where all groups are trying to use government force to exclude those they don't like.
A community's rules could permit homeless people to sleep on benches and also permit park police to remove people accosting these people. I prefer the alternative discussed above, and destitute members living in a space reserved for them might well have a right to ask the police to remove you.
If you argue that the state owns this property (the park), then it's up to them what to do with it, unless you also argue that it's not up to you what you do with your own property. Obviously, someone who supports the idea that some can't do with their property what they want, then they would also argue that they themselves can't do with their own property what they want, to be consistent. If you argue that the state can't legitimately own property, then what gives you more of a right to it than a homeless person?
A community's standards, including any individual property rights that members respect, are up to the community's members. The whole idea of "property" is meaningless outside of a community enacting standards of propriety.
If my community rules out homeless people sleeping in a park, my right to use the park without these people is a term of the contractual relationship between me and other members of the community. As a member of the community, a homeless person definitively accepts my right and his corresponding obligation not to sleep in the park. No one has any right to anything beyond himself outside of a community agreeing on standards of propriety. All other rights are contractual.