Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles; site uicsl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!keller
From: keller@uicsl.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Attention Libertarians - (nf)
Message-ID: <21700004@uicsl.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 29-Jul-84 18:01:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: uicsl.21700004
Posted: Sun Jul 29 18:01:00 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 31-Jul-84 00:35:03 EDT
References: <919@pyuxa.UUCP>
Lines: 108
Nf-ID: #R:pyuxa:-91900:uicsl:21700004:000:5089
Nf-From: uicsl!keller    Jul 29 17:01:00 1984

#R:pyuxa:-91900:uicsl:21700004:000:5089
uicsl!keller    Jul 29 17:01:00 1984

And the answer is:

1. Unvented kerosene stove.

A law prohibiting the use of such a stove would seem to be a good thing to
have if you thought that government should protect people from their own
lack of knowledge. I wonder how many such laws it would take to protect
people from every possible danger. What we have here is an attempt to
create an AI rule-based expert system in the law. It won't work, as most
AI researchers know. Anyway, the government expects us all to go to the
library to update our knowledge of the law every few weeks so that we know
what's illegal. I'm sure that all my friends do this else why aren't they in
jail?

The libertarian view is obviously that no such law should exist. You have to
be responsible for your own actions. Thus if you are alone in your own house
and you kill yourself by breathing fumes it's either tough luck or suicide
and the government couldn't care less. However, if you manage to injure or
kill someone else or just damage their property you are responsible and must
pay the penalty. Thus if you survive but your child and wife don't it should
be negligent homicide or murder and the courts will determine the penalty.
In real life I would expect that the manufacturer would tell you about the
dangers in the instruction manual or with a warning label since dead
customers seldom make a second purchase. Maybe a case could be made that
there is an implicit contract between a purchaser and a seller such that
the seller must not deceive the purchaser about the true nature of the
product. I know that Libertarians would not approve of deceit, but I'm
not sure how the law would deal with that.

2. Fenced swimming pool.

Sniff sniff. Is there a abstract thread relating these questions? Is it
about laws that cost you but may benefit others? I'll try to go briefly
through each question, but I think that you will find that in each case
bad things would still be punished but that many more options for life
would be available. The problem with thinking about these questions for
people not used to thinking in terms of minimal government is that they
will assume certain things that probably wouldn't be true in a Libertarian
society. Generally this has to do with property rights since essentially
nothing would be owned by the government or the added complexity of private
contracts covering lots of things that government law covers now. Most
people want to live in a civilized society and will work to make one.

Anyway back to the fenced swimming pool. No law. If the neighbors kid falls
in he's dead and you are not to blame. Maybe your neighbor should put a fence
around his yard. Maybe this is covered in the neighborhood associations
contract. Next question.

3. Buisness in residential neighborhood.

No law. If you have a nightmare of 7-11's popping up all over I will calm
you by telling you that there are places in the country without zoning that
prevent this kind of thing by having contracts with each other and the builder
and banks that effectively zone the neighborhood. The magazine REASON had
and article on this not too long ago. BTW, REASON varies greatly in quality
from article to article. Zoning is one of the greatest bits of BS ever to be
implemented. Local governments love to condem whole blocks so that the local
big bank can put up a marble coated box with federal UDAG money. Why we have
several lovely banks and parking lots where we used to have a downtown.

4. Clams

No law. Who owns the clams? Do they want you taking them. Too easy. Give
me something harder. So who owns the ocean floor? I don't know, but I'm
sure someone does. Maybe there is such a thing as National Property but
I doubt it. Who owns the air? Who owns geosynchronos orbit space? Maybe
you should have asked who owns the air.

5. Storing junk.

No law. Might want to put up a fence if you live next door. If the odors
come over or there's too much noise you have a complaint. If the pile
gets so big that it threatens to fall on your house you can take legal
action. If the oil starts seeping over to your side you have a valid legal
complaint too. This is property rights stuff. If you just don't like the
looks of things when you drive by that's too bad.

6. Building permit.

No law. Yawn. So you f**k it up. Negligence when it hurts someone is
punishable. If it hurts you too bad. When you have a party to celebrate
your new deck you have an implicit contract to insure the safety of your
guests. What do you think Libertarian ideals are all about? The Democrats
and Republicans are the parties of practical jokes. This ain't the Three
Stooges.

7. Door-to-door salesmen

No license. Trespassing is a crime. Next question.

8. Right hand fish.

Is this for safety's sake? Who owns the bridge? Does their insurance company
want them to make this a regulation? Sounds like safety survives in a
Libertarian environment. Confusion over ownership of property may be behind
this question.

9. Fireworks

See question number 1.

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((T))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Did I pass?

-Shaun