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