Skip to main content

View Diary: Humanism Vs. Objectivism (112 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  In the deeper recesses of libertarianism where (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    happymisanthropy, Rashaverak

    they take this seriously, they argue for the necessity of civil trial courts and tort laws. One reason for this, is so that they can phase out the government and get rid of government police, etc.  Replace it all with civil trial courts, make everything a tort.  If you kill somebody, you get sued and pay for it so severely that you can do no more damage.  Nice idea, but, maybe you can see, how utopian and playful this all is, and how divorced from the real world it is.

    But even here, we need some kind of court system that resolves lawsuits.  Many conservatives are OPPOSED to lawyers and tort laws and people suing corporations for not fulfilling their contract.  That is inconsistent with the deeper levels of libertarianism.  It's just catering to the class that gets them elected.  

    Because if you're a small government libertarian and you're opposed to people stealing property from other people, and you're opposed to the heavy hand of government intervention, you HAVE to have some recourse to protect you from fraud.  The system doesn't work if you don't.  Without it, you really do just have gang rule.

    Capitalism is based on the concept of private property.  Absolutely essential.  Everything else emerges from that. The basic idea that I get to own some things, you can't have it without my consent.  Without fraud laws, you no longer have private property.  You have legalized theft.  Calling a system that doesn't punish theft capitalism is a contradiction.  

    And yet, that's what has happened.  IT has turned into a system of looting of the poor by the rich and then excusing it away through campaign donations that the poor can't match.

    •  Excellent, excellent post! (0+ / 0-)

      Truly.  This demolishes the notion that:

      The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.
      If:

      a.  someone borrows money to buy a house; and

      b.  the lender takes a secured interest in the house (a/k/a a mortgage lien); and

      c.  the borrower defaults on the loan; and

      d.  the lender forecloses; and

      e.  the home is sold at public auction, and

      f.  the original borrower simply stays put in the house,

      then what is to be done, and who is to do what?

      No possibility of eviction, backed up by physical force (the sheriff)?

      If the Law of Torts is to take the place of the Criminal Law, how does one collect on a judgment if the defendant/tortfeasor simply declines to write a check to cover the liability imposed upon him by the court?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site