How do libertarians deal with fishing regulations?
Overfishing is a real thing, and if not for fishing quotas and wildlife reservations, the problem would be much higher.
>>71928217
>How do libertarians deal with
They don't.
>>71928217
t. alberto barbosa
There are two ways they deal with your question:
1) So what?
2) Not an argument
>>71928217
Privatization of sea waters. Treat it like land, and people won't overuse it. Tragedy of the commons.
Privatize the oceans!
;_;
>>71928399
I know, i just wanted to know how will they spin an try to explain this
>>71928597
>pic related
>>71928835
>Privatization of sea waters.
How would that work out? Fishermen would have to pay a tool to fish?
>Treat it like land, and people won't overuse it.
Am i missing something? Is it irony?
>>71928861
Why would they explain it? It's like asking a Communist about what would happen with rich people. They would get their money taken away. There is no solution. A communist can't say ''actually we are not going to take wealth away from people, we will make poor people richer until everyone is rich''. It doesn't work like that.
There would be nothing to prevent people from overfishing. Period. It's just something you'd have to deal with in a Libertarian society.
If we lived in a Libertarian society and you wanted the state, don't you think it would be ridiculous to ask you ''how would you tax people without violating the non-aggression principle?''. You wouldn't. It would be a silly question.
>>71928217
>leftypol
Git out.
Libertarians are no-good morons but you're not in any position to criticize them.
>>71928861
>leftypol trying to reverse engineer our memes
Poorly executed senpai
>>71928217
>Overfishing is a real thing,
yeah it is you fucking nigger, gibe back cod now
>>71929611
Yeah, it's real bad.
Dude isn't even using the right tool in paint.
>>71929057
>How would that work out? Fishermen would have to pay a tool to fish?
You would treat water areas like property, just like land. People can charge for the fishing rights etc.
>Am i missing something? Is it irony?
The tragedy of the commons is an economic law that says that people will always exploit common resources as efficiently as possible, without regard for consequences to the regrowth of the resources. If you instead have private property, people will account for the regrowth and thus be more careful to not overfish. The same thing goes for hunting, etc.
>>71929539
>>71929611
You mad bro?
> trying to reverse engineer our memes
Not my OC. I got it in here, and iirc it was from a australian poster
>>71929612
Gladly, i fucking hate codfish. A expensive, disgusting fish that is not even fished on our shores
>>71929857
What is that bad about it?
>>71929933
>tragedy of the commons
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
The tragedy of the commons is an economic theory of a situation within a shared-resource system where individual users acting independently and rationally according to their own self-interest behave contrary to the common good of all users by depleting that resource.
>If you instead have private property
Why? If i were a rich guy, and if i didn't care, i would just overuse it, then leaven the fishing part and buy another area far away, you know, like they already do.
>>71930384
> if I were a rich guy who didn't care
You'd be reducing the further income of your land. No farmer wants to exhaust their soil, no matter how rich they may be.
Having a non producing asset doesn't help you, you don't get anything from it, moor.
>>71930384
>The tragedy of the commons is an economic theory of a situation within a shared-resource system where individual users acting independently and rationally according to their own self-interest behave contrary to the common good of all users by depleting that resource.
As I explained, perhaps a bit haphazardly.
>Why? If i were a rich guy, and if i didn't care, i would just overuse it, then leaven the fishing part and buy another area far away, you know, like they already do.
You would go at a loss if you did that. The sea property would be fairly valueless after you took all the fish in the lake, and you wouldn't be able to make any more profits from the fish, because there wouldn't be any left.
>>71930384
>using a tripcode
>on /pol/
>where you have a post id
Next level autism
>>71930807
I'm done with the moor, he seems to think that all rich people just want to waste resources. He doesn't seem to Instagram that rich people are rich, because they can utilize their resources without going dry.
Poor kid, I feel bad for him, but it isn't his fault he's retarded. It's in his blood.
>>71930384
>Why? If i were a rich guy, and if i didn't care,
then you'd ruin your business and fuck yourself over in the long run
>>71930743
>No farmer wants to
But they do, because thinking up front is not a thing amoung 99% of people. Western soils are almost all depleted, and only continue to give resonable crops solely due to the huge amount of chemichals poured.
>Having a non producing asset
They would just sell the depleted part of ocean for other means, or keep it to collect tools from passing boats
>>71930807
>You would go at a loss if you did that.
No you wouldn't. You would collect a enourmous amount of wealth from overfishing, and then you would move to another part of ocean to do the same all over again. What happens to the depleted part is of no concern.
Have you ever heard about mines?
>>71931245
>Have you ever heard about mines?
Have you ever heard of comparing apples to oranges? Mines have finite resources. Fish are practically infinite.
>>71930982
>dat pic
The ass must be fake, or photoshoped. I've seen many great asses, but never something like it
> think that all rich people just want to waste resources.
They want to make money, how doesn't matter.
>because they can utilize their resources without going dry.
Just like the banks in '08? They are all poor now, since they used their resources so carelessly....
Oh
And the looging companies in Amazonia, surely they are all failling, since they are not using their resources very efficiently.
The amount of brainwashing some of yoou guys have is ridicolous
>"with the moor"
>Trying to dehumanize me, and my posts, by spouting a meme, wich is a lie.
>>71931218
How would they destroy their bussiness?
>>71931610
>How would they destroy their bussiness?
I just explained it to you. You would lose money because the property would be worthless and you only got so much fish.
>>71931426
>Fish are practically infinite.
So we thought. But nowadays it seems a better comparison.
But it's not what i meant. Rich explore the mine. Sell the minerals, and yadda yadda. Then the mine deplets. Is the bussiness going to fail? Or would they simply take their profits and move somewhere else?
Nice cherrypicking btw
>>71931768
>You would lose money because the property would be worthless
Then just sell it and move somewhere else.
>>71931245
Your arguments are pathetic, kek. Just because someone is rich doesn't mean they are wasteful and retarded, buying whatever they please and tossing the personal penalties out the window. Destroying the valuable resources and commerce given from the ocean would be foolish, any self respecting and prospective private property owner looking for profit would want to maintain said profit, in the long term. They wouldn't be rich in the first place if they were thinking impulsive, short term gains over stable income.
Also western soils are not depleted, we have very large amounts we aren't using in rural states, but a poor economy and lack of ambitious businessmen looking to establish businesses/towns in these areas, like the trend that blew up in the 1800's, is lacking.
>>71931245
>But they do, because thinking up front is not a thing amoung 99% of people.
>people can't think ahead, therefore we need central planned economies
this is what communists actually believe
>>71931610
>How would they destroy their bussiness?
responsible fishing produces infinite value over the long term, overfishing produces temporary higher value in exchange for destroying it in the long run
>>71931856
>Then just sell it and move somewhere else.
so fish are finite but fishing banks are infinite?
>>71931790
>Nice cherrypicking btw
it was your example you idiot
>>71931856
I give up, you're retarded.
>>71931856
its value would be greatly diminished if you over fished to the point of extinction
>>71928217
GET OUT COMMIE
OR I'LL GIVE YOU A COMMIE COLLAR
>>71931957
>Just because someone is rich doesn't mean they are wasteful and retarded, buying whatever they please and tossing the personal penalties out the window. Destroying the valuable resources and commerce given from the ocean would be foolish, any self respecting and prospective private property owner looking for profit would want to maintain said profit,
How do you explain overfishing? And overfarming?
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120920-are-we-running-out-of-fish
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/02/arable-land-soil-food-security-shortage
>wouldn't be rich in the first place if they were thinking impulsive
So rich are made of a different clay then the rest of us?
>>71931972
>responsible fishing produces infinite value over the long term
The surely all the fishing companies are going bankrupt, because responsible fishing is not what we call that is happening.
>so fish are finite but fishing banks are infinite?
Codfish is over in the north Atlantic? Just move operations to Sardines in the mediterranean? Over? Move to whales in Japan...
>>71932402
Doesn't matter, just reallocate to another place and sell the worthless ocean plot, or use to somthing else.
>>71932584
I'm not communist. I am a sort of national socialist. I would vote for Trump if i were american. I am aligned with most of /pol/, in some issues
>>71932997
>The surely all the fishing companies are going bankrupt, because responsible fishing is not what we call that is happening.
in civilised countries it is, but you portuniggers are bent on destroying the ocean so you think everyone is as savage as you are
>>71933290
>in civilised countries it is
Only because of gov regulation. Most of the fisheries evade this by corrupting African governments and reallocate there
http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2014/jun/19/why-illegal-fishing-africa-must-be-stopped
http://www.greenpeace.org/africa/en/campaigns/Defending-Our-Oceans-Hub/
Surely all these companies should be nearing collapse, with such irresponsible practices and lack of long term thinking
>>71928217
Private institutions can set rules on their property
Was that so difficult?
>>71933646
>Only because of gov regulation.
that was needed because Portuniggers don't respect property rights and poach other people's fish
>>71933646
>Only because of gov regulation. Most of the fisheries evade this by corrupting African governments and reallocate there
Libertarians don't advocate for corporatism. In a free market, you would compete for these fishing rights through voluntary transactions.
>>71928217
Educate yourself:
https://mises.org/library/6-conservation-and-property-rights
>>71933904
Sure, but how could overfishing be addressed?
>>71933929
>Portuniggers
Why? Just Why? I never use this cheap tactic of insulting one nationality. Why? I could be memeing with your prime minister, but i don't, because it's pointless.
>>71933963
>Libertarians don't advocate for corporatism. In a free market, you would compete for these fishing rights through voluntary transactions.
Nice, you just recited party line. Boy, how i am proud of you!!!! ;)
>>71928217
international waters are a gigantic tragedy of the commons. privatize it and watch people start caring about their piece of the ocean not becoming worthless
>>71934246
>Sure, but how could overfishing be addressed?
by genociding the Portuguese
>Portuniggers
>Why? Just Why?
because the Portuguese are directly responsible for the collapse of fish stocks in the Atlantic
>>71934188
>Some shady logic of free market fixes it
>comunist oceans (lol)
>[...] is fascistic (kek)
>[...] is because of government intervention
Literally libertarian the article. All is about muh feelz, blaming others, and trusting the rich to take care of us, because they are better then us
Reminder that libertarians are not anarchists.
Any inherently finite resource whose capacities are so scarce that it can't be distributed effectively through supply and demand alone warrants regulation. This would be the case for land, water and water access, right-of-way and certain natural resources.
Similarly, issues where direct competition leads to significant downsides compared to indirect competition warrant some degree of central organization. This would include national defense, law enforcement, law making and sewage.
Finally, actions affecting the entire community like air pollution, water pollution and immigration are to be regulated centrally by the entire community.
>inb4 not a true libertarian
NAP breaks apart for the first set of issues. Second set of issues is to prevent decomposition into anarchy, which can secure no liberties at all. Third set of issues deals with indirect acts of aggression. All of these are large net positives in terms of individual freedom.
>muh taxes are theft
None of this decides how these things are paid for. You can run a voluntary tax system, or offer ways to opt-out of the government and its costs and services. You can also make concessions and warrant small tax rates. That is up to the community itself, but the principles outlined here don't, by themselves, necessitate a mandatory tax system.
>>71934571
>the Portuguese are directly responsible for the collapse of fish stocks in the Atlantic
Of codfish, right? don't think us have a very big effect in the rest of fishing stocks. We are a small country nevertheless
>>71931245
>99% of people are idiots
>let's get arbitrarily selected people to make decisions for everyone else, that'll fix it
>>71934842
>Any inherently finite resource whose capacities are so scarce that it can't be distributed effectively through supply and demand alone warrants regulation. This would be the case for land, water and water access, right-of-way and certain natural resources.
So the free market can't fix it? I am getting different tunes here. Some say that free market would solve this, and now you say it's best for the gov to regulate.
>>71934735
Listen to the audio you lazy-minded attention whore.
I'm not wasting more time on you.
Fishing has stupid fucking regulations
you will get arrested if you even bring a extra pound of fish home just for yourself.
>>71928217
libertarians arent fucking anarchists you tard, there has to be some level of government regulation to maintain order.
>>71935074
>99% of people are idiots
Not idiots, simply common people. Most of us rarely plans for the future.
>let's get arbitrarily selected people to make decisions for everyone else, that'll fix it
That is not how it should work. But make no mistake. I am as much disilusioned with the gov as you guys. I simply want a better gov, while you want none, or smaller.
>>71935393
Most of libertarians have been arguing that the free market will fix it, and regulations are not needed, in fishing at least. I am getting very different vibes. Everyone except you and the Chilean poster itt where ancaps?
Or are most Libertarians mostly clueless about what they are talking
>>71935100
It's almost like different people have different opinions and approaches to solving certain problems!
As for me, seeing as the NAP leads to contradictions in these issues, I am willing to suspend it in favor of actually functioning solutions. I am also convinced that the majority of people calling themselves libertarian think the same way.
>>71928217
Sorry OP but I can't help but feel like you want to hear answers from people who think like you, not by actually Ancaps. Why else would you name the thread lefty /pol/ if not to create an eco chamber. You're just as likely to get a well thought out answer about Bernie Sanders policies in the trump general as you are to get one about ancap policies in this thread.
>>71935607
>different opinions and approaches
But they are posting contradictory opinions. Some are saying that the free market would handle fishing better, and you are saying that gov would handle it better with regulation (i.e. not free market).
It's the same as 2 marxist socialists discussing if they should give the means of production to the workers.
It seems more like Ancaps and libertarians
>>71934246
>Nice, you just recited party line. Boy, how i am proud of you!!!! ;)
Yeah, I'm really into party politics, fuckhead.
>>71935666
> thread lefty /pol/ if not to create an eco chamber.
>leftist eco chamber
>on /pol/
I even wonder how many times this thread is reported. MAny are so rabid agaisnt me beacuse they perceive me as invading their safe space.
> help but feel like you want to hear answers from people who think like you
It's partially truth. I don't think there is any way that leaving fishing solely to private interests ends up in anything good to the common men. I would like the hear how do Ancaps and lolbertarians sin this put.
>>71935607
>As for me, seeing as the NAP leads to contradictions in these issues, I am willing to suspend it in favor of actually functioning solutions.
What parts of state competence do you think should be dropped, or at least gratly diminished?
>>71935596
It seems like you're trying to understand the libertarian approach and most responses in this thread have been bad and just plain dismissive. However, if you actually want a productive thread, you should get rid of that majorly retarded trip code. It is the main reason people don't respect you enough to give you proper answers.
>>71936151
Of course they are contradictory, otherwise there wouldn't be a disagreement. There is no middle ground in politics when it comes to policies, either you have a law or you don't. They can still be libertarians, they just think this particular issue doesn't warrant government intervention.
I will draw you a picture in a second that may illustrate why I don't care much about whether they or I or you call them ancaps or libertarians.
I'm willing to bet enough people would care about overfishing to fund private mercenaries and pirates to sink fishing vessels.
>>71936580
>It is the main reason people don't respect you enough to give you proper answers.
I appreciate the (you) i get from mad guys
Then people should stop judging people from the book cover
>this particular issue doesn't warrant government intervention.
So what do libertarians truly want?
>>71936901
If this is an actuall real non ironic respnse, then great, lets turn our oceans in battlefields
>>71937139
Ships already overfish and do so well past the countries they originate from.
Countries prob should be more aggressive in protecting their fishing stocks
>>71937265
I do aggre with you, and i already pointed out in this thread of the overfishing in west africa, a thing that nobody gave an actual answer. This could be resolved with tighter controls.
And yes, ships that are caught sailing without flag and are unindentifiable should be sent to the bottom of ocean
>>71932584
Isn't that against the NAP? Peace be upon it.
Don't bump this shitty thread you irrelevant failed empire.
>>71938859
The NAP only applies when it doesnt hurt MUH FEELZ
>>71938906
Why? Are you mad bro?
>>71937095
>Then people should stop judging people from the book cover
No. The point of this site is anonymous discussion. People like you are actively working against that, thus working to undermine the culture of our community. They are right to be critical and taking a dislike in you.
>So what do libertarians truly want?
They are not a hivemind, especially since libertarianism is more of an umbrella term describing people who are critical of government intervention.
You are purposefully picking out issues (in this case fishing rights) which different types of libertarians are divided on, and then surprised that they can't find a consensus. You would be better off listening to both sides, no matter what label they use for themselves, and try to determine your own position on the issue.
>>71939200
Tis true.
But to answer your question. Fishing corporations would still follow the same laws that we have, not for faggoty green peace reasons but because they will want to continue to make money, and they understand the only way to do so is to not completely rape the environment. Much in the same way loggers plant trees after the clear cut a forest.
>>71940021
>The point of this site is anonymous discussion.
And who am i?
> People like you are actively working against that, thus working to undermine the culture of our community.
lol
I don't get this. Libertarian is based upon the "fact" that free market is more efficient then the gov. But then Libertarians are in favor of government in some areas.
>>71940161
> Fishing corporations would still follow the same laws that we have
Why, if they go to lenghts to evade the regulations?
> they will want to continue to make money, and they understand the only way to do so is to not completely rape the environment.
Check the fishing reserves depletion, m8.
>>71941078
Good job not responding to anything on-topic I had to say.
You are pretending that all libertarians everywhere are completely convinced and will defend to their deaths that everyone everywhere should always be able to do everything they want. When it is pointed out to you that this is retarded, you go full BUT WHAT IS REAL LIBERTARIANISM IF ITS NOT THE STRAWMAN I CREATED??? and dismiss any and every serious answer you were given.
Stop bumping your own thread. You are at the 'i was only pretending' point already. Just stop posting
>>71941078
>But then Libertarians are in favor of government in some areas.
They are Libertarians and not anarcho capitalists.
>>71941179
>Check the fishing reserves depletion, m8.
That's what happens when third world nations can't understand how to fish properly.
Also we already have a strong state. So why are fish populations decreasing?
>>71941645
This is important to understand OP.
Libertarian≠AnarchoCapitalist
>>71941645
>especially since libertarianism is more of an umbrella term describing people who are critical of government intervention.
So i am a libertarian when i complain about any gov intervention?
You didn't make any other point.
>You are pretending that all libertarians everywhere are completely convinced and will defend to their deaths that everyone everywhere should always be able to do everything they want.
No that is anarchism. I understand this. But when we talk about libertarianism they always take a ancap position.
>When it is pointed out to you that this is retarded
You mean those posts :"HURR DURR Libertarianism is not Anarchism" without any further input? Sure, got it.
> BUT WHAT IS REAL LIBERTARIANISM IF ITS NOT THE STRAWMAN I CREATED
I've never say anithing about real. I'm just very confused about the line betwen anarcho and libertarian.
>I don't get this. Libertarian is based upon the "fact" that free market is more efficient then the gov. But then Libertarians are in favor of government in some areas.
Answer this and stop crying
>>71941782
>I don't get this. Libertarian is based upon the "fact" that free market is more efficient then the gov. But then Libertarians are in favor of government in some areas.
Don't cherrypick the sentence. It's a very dishonest thing to make
>That's what happens when third world nations can't understand how to fish properly.
For the most it's western companies that corrupt western african countries
>So why are fish populations decreasing?
BEcause most of the world stil doesn't have a strong fishing regulation
>>71942075
>Mandatory post
Where do we draw the line?
>>71937581
Whut. We are sinking ships for not having flags now? The fuck kind of world do you live in?
>>71942679
I grew up, in part, in the northwoods. The lakes that are, to this day, the most well-maintained and whose fishing stocks are the most well-preserved are not those in which the government has taken an interest, but those that are entirely surrounded by land owned by one person or a group of individuals who have formed a collective and fenced off the lake for private club access - thus, de facto (if not de jure) private ownership of the lake. The greatest problem for these people is shitty government regulations trying to fuck up their work preserving a lake that they want their grandkids to be able to enjoy (by applying shitty generalized regulations to specific local conditions about which the regulators are ignorant).
The lakes that are the hardest-hit are those that environmentalist activists have successfully intervened in. Since those people are also largely full-on delusional white-privilege leftists, they've also brought in intervention to compel local compliance with 'native' tribes practicing their ancient traditional practice of mounting searchlights on motorboats to kill female fish en masse as they are full of eggs and preparing to spawn every year (making the maintenance of fish populations an expensive and risky proposition).
>>71932997
>so rich are made of different clay than the rest of us?
According to you, yes. You believe they have absolutely no forethought at all, and would be completely susceptible to overfishing their waters. If we were the same as them, we wouldn't even be having this conversation about conservation. If they are the same as us, which they most likely are, they've had this same conversation multiple times.
>>71943726
>for not having flags now?
For not being unindentifiable in a sovereign seas. i think ships need to carry a flag, or am i wrong?
>>71943871
> The lakes that are, to this day, the most well-maintained and whose fishing stocks are the most well-preserved are not those in which the government has taken an interest, but those that are entirely surrounded by land owned by one person or a group of individuals who have formed a collective and fenced off the lake for private club access - thus, de facto (if not de jure) private ownership of the lake.
This is almost a communist argument.
>The greatest problem for these people is shitty government regulations trying to fuck up their work preserving a lake that they want their grandkids to be able to enjoy (by applying shitty generalized regulations to specific local conditions about which the regulators are ignorant).
I agree that there are some regulations that are wrong. But my swolution is not to drop all regulations, or a good part of them.
I aggre that small bussiness have too much bureaucracy and regulations
>>71942418
>Libertarian is based upon the "fact" that free market is more efficient then the gov
Not true at all. The main argument behind libertarianism is that it is immoral to pose aggression towards a non-aggressive individual. The fact that applications of the theory of supply and demand have been significantly more efficient than any alternative theory of value simply ties up nicely with libertarian beliefs. It also poses another hurdle to anyone arguing for a central monopoly on a commodity or service. As many posts you have gotten in this thread show, this doesn't mean arguments in favor of such a central monopoly are completely impossible, even while recognizing these principles.
>I'm just very confused about the line betwen anarcho and libertarian
I made a neat picture that you didn't even bother to address.
>No that is anarchism. I understand this.
Then why do you keep making posts about your confusion?
>You didn't make any other point.
Points I made you didn't address:
-Things that affect the entire community warrant regulation. Overfishing arguably falls in this category
-Very limited, basic resources can't effectively be distributed through supply and demand. Water, water access and fishing rights may fall under this category.
-When direct competition fails, indirect competition may be a better alternative. Seeing as direct competition encourages overfishing, indirect competition in form of issuing private companies to fish for a predetermined yield that keeps the ecosystem in balance might be a consideration.
I might have made more points or detailed them more if you didn't keep on harping on your misunderstanding of libertarians.
Look I'm glad you faggots took Nincics class but no one cares about your retarded Global studies Dept.
>>71944531
1. Individuals and private clubs. Individuals who pay out of their own pockets and private clubs who do the same. They do it because they have a private stake in the lake. They don't do this for other lakes that have been in a downward spiral in spite of (rather, because of) extraordinary federal intervention.
2. It is not a communist argument, it is at most a federalist argument. But it is unnecessary. Private individuals and clubs suffice. There is no need for the regulations where private ownership is available. Even if you have regulations, experience has shown that federal intervention just applies broadly-drafted rules that fit no lake's particular ecosystem to all lakes that they regulators arbitrarily decide to intervene in.
It's this same fucking poortuguese commie thats been posting these bait threads for the past couple of days
Shoo shoo Marxist shill
>>71944000
> You believe they have absolutely no forethought at all
Go search my quote about this.
Nice strawman btw. I only think they are not different from the rest of us, in wich the majority doesn't care nor has the ability to think upfront with skill.
You know how there aren't any cows in the wild anymore, and now they're all on farms?
That's the future of fish too, whether you like it or not. Stop being a hippy.
>>71944906
> The main argument behind libertarianism is that it is immoral to pose aggression towards a non-aggressive individual.
Social contract. And bam, there goes your special economic school
>I made a neat picture that you didn't even bother to address.
There is nothing worthy to adress in that pic. At least to this discussion
>-Things that affect the entire community warrant regulation. Overfishing arguably falls in this category
I aggree with you. What do you want me to do, give a pat in the back?
>-Very limited, basic resources can't effectively be distributed through supply and demand. Water, water access and fishing rights may fall under this category.
Same
>-When direct competition fails, indirect competition may be a better alternative. Seeing as direct competition encourages overfishing, indirect competition in form of issuing private companies to fish for a predetermined yield that keeps the ecosystem in balance might be a consideration.
Same as above
>>71945878
Bait?
>>71946283
The thing is oceans without fish are not the same. Go google what happens when the oceans "die".
>>71928217
>lefty/pol/s attempt at memes
Also,every single one of your posts are pure cancer,you Portugese faggot,Ive seen hundreds in the past few months.
End your life.
>>71947193
Not OC
Thanks for bump bro
>>71946645
>How do libertarians deal with fishing regulations?
As a libertarian, the arguments X,Y,Z convince me of solution A.
>BUT THATS NOT WHAT OTHER LIBERTARIANS THINK (stretched over 4 posts)
Other libertarians may come to different conclusions on this specific issue. Here are a bunch of reasons why I don't see my solution contracting the core beliefs libertarianism is founded on.
>I agree
Well good then. As you can see, it is possible to hold libertarian values while still coming to similar conclusions as yourself.
>Social contract. And bam, there goes your special economic school
You are now arguing about how the philosophy of libertarian principles. Make a different thread about that if you want, but it is unrelated to the question in your OP. I can already tell you that it is a weak argument, because calling something a contract doesn't make it one. I have not signed this supposed social contract, therefore it doesn't grant you any rights of aggression over me.
It's clear at this point, though, that you have no interest in getting honest answers to your initial question. You are just looking to outlast people giving serious answers and claim dismissive answers as signs you have 'BTFO LIBERTARDS'. I should have just stopped answering when I starting sageing.
>>71928217
I've been wondering this a lot. I'm in the lobster fishing industry.
We have regulations which reduce how many trawls we're allowed to have in the water, and have regulations whether our traps are up to code, and we have to tag them by law. We have seasons, which people with Indian status are exempt from, to prevent over-fishing. I ask libertarians these questions, like how would libertarianism help me, but they can't seem to understand that "freedom" causes starvation.
>>71929318
>There would be nothing to prevent people from overfishing. Period. It's just something you'd have to deal with in a Libertarian society.
Then sea life is going to disappear around here, and it will be even more expensive.
>>71929933
>If you instead have private property, people will account for the regrowth and thus be more careful to not overfish.
But they don't. People used to scrub the eggs off of lobsters to sell them until they realized that it was killing the population. If someone wanted quick money, in a libertarian society, there'd be nothing stopping them from scrubbing eggs off and selling small lobsters for a quick buck. I see the coast guard and department of fisheries on the water all the time; they go around patrolling the water, and it's justified, because some people fish without licenses, or some things that I've mentioned.
What economic incentive would any business have to patrol the water?
Also, in Canada there are over 30 processing plants for lobsters, yet in maine there are like 3; the regulation has caused us to be more competitive; competitive businesses is why people buy Canadian lobsters more than American ones.
>>71947863
>BUT THATS NOT WHAT OTHER LIBERTARIANS THINK (stretched over 4 posts)
I was just wondering why people that belong to the same ideology have so wildly different, and opposite, solutions to the same problem. It seems like that people did not really gave it a really long time of thought before accepting "libertarian" ideology.
>I can already tell you that it is a weak argument, because calling something a contract doesn't make it one.
It's the social contract, not exactly a legal one.
> I have not signed this supposed social contract
Then i say the same thing you guys say to me. You are free to leave. To gather you and like minded people and change it.
>therefore it doesn't grant you any rights of aggression over me.
You are free to leave. By staying and not trying to change you are accepting the aggrement.
When people abide the social contract, it's legitimacy is established.
"Muh name writte in a paper" has just as much legitimacy in my point of view
