libertarian labour

It imposes on people a restriction on how they use their own property.

Packard is a crafty one. I believe he is using some Socratic methods here, leading to the conclusion that libertopia isn't possible because it requires some anti-libertarian arrangements. I agree with him (as I believe you also agree).

I do think that Libertopia is possible, at least in this regard; but Zombie is right to say that it would massively reduce wealth all around. What I don't want to sustain is the contradiction that corporations' liability should be limited, but for some reason their actions and property are to be defended as if resposnible individuals were keeping them as private property. 'Don't take my stuff' only works as long as 'my stuff hurt you' makes me liable.

In other words,

However, having said all that, I do also believe that in many ways and in many cases, more liability and more private responsibility along with more private freedoms would do our economy a hell of good. We've gone too far to the other extreme.

I dunno how much "better" it is other than to phrase questions more sympathetically to the right wingers?

Scorecard for me?

so, almost identical to the one I linked to.

That website always places me in the same place as Adolf Hitler. There is obviously something wrong with it.

Someone should force the owner to make a change.

Actually, it's asking if fresh water sources should be turned into commodities. To a lesser extent, it's asking if there's even the authority to create such ownership.

Read the questions next time.

Looks interesting. I may give it a try.

First, the question isn’t “which do you prefer?” Let’s look at the actual wording of the question:

“It's a sad reflection on our society that something as basic as drinking water is now a bottled, branded consumer product.”

And you’ve offered a very good explanation for your preference which, you’re absolutely right, is not in any way reflected in the choices on the questionnaire. So it becomes a matter of how you look at the issue:

• Are Yuppies entitled to spend money for something they could get for free? Yes.
• Are bottled water companies entitled to sell a product that no one in the industrialized world actually needs, as long as their manufacturing methods are safe? Yes.
• Are there recycling programs to handle the empty bottles? Yes.
• Is there an unofficial industry (at least where I live) in collecting recyclable materials from trash that provides a marginal income for poor people? Yes.

So, no objections to any of that from me, either, even though, as you can see from my results, I’m about as left-libertarian as possible without falling off the chart.

That said, however, the reasons I chose “strongly agree” for my answer are twofold:

One, there are the efforts by companies such as Nestlé to “privatize” water rights: http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-pr...at-water-is-a-fundamental-human-right/5332238

Oh, but who cares? you say. They only do that in “Third World shitholes.” Not your problem.

Except that they’re buying up water rights in the U.S. as well: http://www.bottledlifefilm.com/index.php/the-story.html

Which I suppose you can dismiss as "not my problem unless they try it in my neighborhood," but it isn't always that easy.

So there’s that. The other thing is, I do think it’s a sad reflection on The Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave™ that so many of its citizens are such pussies that they need “special” water. Reminds me of that guy in the contact lens commercial babbling about his “special eyes.”

Disclaimer: Yes, some tap water does need to be filtered. Yes, if you’re out running/hiking/camping, etc. it’s a good idea to bring water. And yes, some people have medical conditions that make filtered water a necessity. But the “Look at the brand of water I’m drinking” mindset – promulgated far more by product placement in your TV shows than any real need – is the reason I chose “strongly agree.” YMMV

Huh. Choosing "neutral" on the questions using inflammatory language, and “Are you fucking kidding me?” on the “tyranny” question caused that shift.

So, have we rolled all WF topics into this one thread by now, or is there something we've missed?

has someone threatened to ban you yet?

I ranged mostly between neutral and really important for the weighting... I don't think I chose "don't cares" at all.

Really just the same set of questions with different wording given I scored almost identically on both.

You mean because this one doesn't inject biases into the premises of the questions?

Examples:

"If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations."

Do you see where the injected bias is there? "...economic globalisation is inevitable..."

Or:

"There is now a worrying fusion of information and entertainment."

The bias is injected via the word "worrying". What's worrying about it? Should people not be entertained while they receive information? Should entertainment, on the other hand, be devoid of any informational value?

If I own land in which a creek runs through, do I not have the right to use that water and prohibit who else uses that water? You don't just get to come on my property and use my water just because, "it belongs to everyone man." [ I am imagining some dreaded hippy with a Grateful Dead T-shirt and corduroy pants smoking a joint and filling up his water bottle]

Water, which flows in and out of various properties, is not a good example for property rights.

What if the people whose property is upstream of yours get to it first?

Libertarians do not support slavery and/or child labor. Space turkey doesn't know what he's talking about, he's a troll.

Actually, no you don't control that water, and yes, those downstream do have rights over how you use the water.

You are answering my question with a question.

My take on it is that the water itself should not be subject to privatization. However, where the water is procured certainly can be. The hippie in your scenario can have all the water he wants -- but he has no entitlement to get it from your faucet without voluntary trade between the two of you. Electricity is another one along the same lines; anybody can simply have electricity for the taking -- but that doesn't mean you can simply take it from someone else who is himself paying for it.

Yes. Real life scenario. "Your" stream doesn't originate on your property. If the guy upstream of you builds a dam on his property and diverts the water, "your" stream dries up.

With me so far?

If Nestlé builds a bottling plant upstream from you, same deal. Unless there's Evul Gubmint Regulation to stop them.

See how that works?

That's where I was going, but I wanted to see Garamet's head explode first. Yes, as a human, you have a right to water, but you don't have permission to obtain it from my section of the creek that lies on my land, unless we work out an arrangement ahead of time.

So then you sink a well. See how that works?

I see evenflow's gonna have to have "the vagina talk" with you again.

And -?

Actually you can't stop anyone from scooping up some water to drink or any other light, non destructive purpose as long as they didn't trespass on your land to get to the creek. You may own the land to both sides of the creek, but the creek itself and the banks are public. I could canoe myself up between your property and take a nice long drink.

And everybody and his brother would say that'd make you a colossal dick.

He doesn't understand the issue at all, but hopes to make heads explode.

Prove the owner personally dumped or knew the chemicals were being dumped or gave the order to dump it.

In your fantasy land you will quickly find that the owners never know anything or did anything and therefore aren't liable.

Now if you want to make a case that "piercing the veil" and holding individual officers of a company and/or holding individual owners of a company should be made easier under certain circumstances then I'm all for that.

A company that dumps toxic chemicals in the water should have the CEO's fortune wiped out for the cleanup even if he didn't know about it. This will highly motivate all other CEO's around the country to be on top of their company.

But should some little old lady who holds a couple shares of stock in that same company be wiped out financially? No.

And then I run h off my property with a shotgun.