kathyk1024 wrote:
Well what is John Jay's concept of ownership?
his conception of ownership is similar to most modern day capitalists, that it is perfectly acceptable for a person to own the land we live on, the water we drink, and even the air we breathe. that there is no such thing as collective interest or common property. i reject that completely. my conception of property is approximately what Adam Smith's was: that a person may own something to the degree that it is "created". in other words, it is the work that goes into something that makes it yours.
Isn't libertarianism at its base more naive than lazy? Was there ever a question that people could self-govern? No need for drunk driving laws because no one drinks and drives. Leave me the hell alone.
drunk driving is not even all that gray of an area. people have the right to be secure in their vehicles, and that would mean that all impaired persons should be restricted from driving. taken to the absurd extreme, this would include the blind, for example.
No need for gun control laws because I took a safety course and only responsible people have guns. Leave me the hell alone.
again, where guns present a public hazard, the public has the right to reasonably protect themselves against the excesses of gun ownership. personally, i think guns should be on a similar track to cars. they can be used responsibly or irresponsibly. that means that they should be licensed, and that people should be expected to pass a training course. i think that is totally reasonable. is this Libertarian? not in the extreme sense. however, there are more important things than unrestricted use of dangerous devices like cars, airplanes, and guns.
We also saw how the financial industry acted with Bushian-level regulation.
you can really blame the Libertarians for this, more precisely the Freidmanites. unrestricted capitalism is really no better than unrestricted socialism.
Login
FAQ
Search
sooz06
