I am not committed to this conclusion, and I wanted some other heads besides mine on it.
Here is the form of libertarian government I am supposing:
1. Property is held sacrosanct.
2. Laws may only exist to protect against force or fraud.
more complicated,
3. The definition of force and fraud would be a high bar limited to direct situations. Managing risk would be left up to private organizations (who could be responsible in an incident) rather than government mandate. So the government would only step in if someone did actual harm, or committed provable fraud. As opposed to regulations that require disclosures or avoiding conflicts of interest to make fraud less likely even where it may not be occurring.
If there's a more concise way to say #3 I'm interested, but I hope my intention gets through.
I think this is in line with libertarians I have spoken to who want more than just our current system with more libertarian tendencies, that instead want to create a new system strongly aligned with the NDA or the "force-fraud" principles. I am willing to be corrected if I haven't gotten it quite right.
My hypothesis is, that if property is nearly inviolate from regulation, that in most circumstances the amount of wealth and property one has correlates directly to their political influence... de facto if not de jure.
As opposed to power adhering to voting constituencies, instead of a power vacuum it would go instead to property owners, with those having the most concentrated wealth having the most power, with very little to hold them in check.
While it's clear that wealth can influence voting, and we struggle to find reliable ways to avoid that, I wonder if extremes of libertarian philosophy simply make it more directly true instead of alleviating it.
Now fire away. I brought my thoughts here for people to throw rocks at, and gain a better understanding from that process.
Here is the form of libertarian government I am supposing:
1. Property is held sacrosanct.
2. Laws may only exist to protect against force or fraud.
more complicated,
3. The definition of force and fraud would be a high bar limited to direct situations. Managing risk would be left up to private organizations (who could be responsible in an incident) rather than government mandate. So the government would only step in if someone did actual harm, or committed provable fraud. As opposed to regulations that require disclosures or avoiding conflicts of interest to make fraud less likely even where it may not be occurring.
If there's a more concise way to say #3 I'm interested, but I hope my intention gets through.
I think this is in line with libertarians I have spoken to who want more than just our current system with more libertarian tendencies, that instead want to create a new system strongly aligned with the NDA or the "force-fraud" principles. I am willing to be corrected if I haven't gotten it quite right.
My hypothesis is, that if property is nearly inviolate from regulation, that in most circumstances the amount of wealth and property one has correlates directly to their political influence... de facto if not de jure.
As opposed to power adhering to voting constituencies, instead of a power vacuum it would go instead to property owners, with those having the most concentrated wealth having the most power, with very little to hold them in check.
While it's clear that wealth can influence voting, and we struggle to find reliable ways to avoid that, I wonder if extremes of libertarian philosophy simply make it more directly true instead of alleviating it.
Now fire away. I brought my thoughts here for people to throw rocks at, and gain a better understanding from that process.
via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/Lg7Do12
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire