So if I buy a car from you, and we don't consult everyone else "affected" by that transaction, such as everyone else that wanted to sell me a car and everyone else that may have wanted to buy yours, then we denied them all "personal autonomy" and violated their (human) rights? Baloney.vertices said:If a transaction between yourself and myself affects a third person not party to this transaction, what we are doing, by not even bothering to consult them, is denying them personal autonomy, which is a violation of their (human) rights.
Al68 said:So if I buy a car from you, and we don't consult everyone else "affected" by that transaction, such as everyone else that wanted to sell me a car and everyone else that may have wanted to buy yours, then we denied them all "personal autonomy" and violated their (human) rights? Baloney.
Are we through with this nonsense?
That's exactly why I used this example: A third party is "affected" but does not have his rights violated.vertices said:But our transaction will not materially affect these 'third parties' - nobody else* will have gained or lost anything, let alone personal autonomy, as a direct result of our transaction.
Al68 said:That's exactly why I used this example: A third party is "affected" but does not have his rights violated.
The right to contract is the right to agree to actions that each party to the contract is at liberty to perform. The parties are not at liberty to violate a third party's rights, and the right to contract doesn't change that.
The right to contract, even an absolute right to contract, does not endow the parties to it with any extra liberties regarding third parties. That's just not what the word contract means.
Galteeth said:The action that causes the consequence must be considered independent of the contract.
However, not all consequences of an action are an active restriction of the liberty of the third party. Note the key word "active." I think even most die hard right wing libs would admit that say, dumping poison in a water supply is an aggressive act.
The line then becomes murkier as you abstract the consequences more. For example, releasing chemicals into the air that are potentially harmful, but not enough so to kill someone in a short period of time.
What a libertarian does not believe is an active violation of liberty is all possible consequences of action, which would render the principle of individual responsibility meaningless. For example, if one were to argue that by me giving money to person x, I created the consequence of person y dying because I did not give person y the money he needs for medicine, a libertarian would not find that an active restriction of person y's liberty.
For an action to be aggressive, it must cause active direct harm that is unavoidable by person being aggressed upon, meaning that in the absence of that action, direct harm (of the type caused by the action) does not come. Aggression is not indirect harm (harm caused through some chain of events as oppossed to a direct cause-effect relationship) nor is it harm that would not necessarily be removed by not doing the action.
If they gained or lost something directly in the transaction, then they are by definition not a third party.vertices said:I use the word 'affected' in a very literal sense - namely being materially affected, ie. whether the person has gained or lost anything of value, perhaps capital, if you will.
You haven't even specified what actions you oppose, much less why. You claim a third party has risk "transferred" to them. That's simply not a description specific enough to have any logical meaning relevant to this issue.The point is simply this: an unregulated free-market is not free at all - in such a system, entities that we call corporations essentially become externalising machines, transferring risk to others, not party to their transactions.
Huh? I haven't defined them at all. I used murder as an obvious example, not as a comprehensive list of possible violations.I do think that you (like Al68) are defining these rights too narrowly.
Still making no sense. A person directly involved in a transaction is by definition not a third party to it.A transaction that ignores the opinions and wishes of affected third parties does by definition violate their rights to personal autonomy.
Because that's logically coherent. It's not logically coherent to suggest that a contract itself, instead of the actions performed by the parties to it, violates the rights of a third party.vertices said:why?Galteeth said:The action that causes the consequence must be considered independent of the contract.
Al68 said:If they gained or lost something directly in the transaction, then they are by definition not a third party.
Because that's logically coherent. It's not logically coherent to suggest that a contract itself, instead of the actions performed by the parties to it, violates the rights of a third party.
Of course, I never said otherwise. And polluting the environment violates our rights regardless of any contract. That was my whole point: The right to contract doesn't give the parties to it any extra liberties it didn't already have. A contract between a paper mill and OfficeMax, for example, has no effect whatsoever on whether either of them has the right to pollute the environment or violate others' rights in any other way. Yes, they both have the right to contract. But a paper mill can't obtain a right to pollute from OfficeMax in a contract between them, because OfficeMax doesn't have that right to give.vertices said:You said it! So, going back to Galteeth's example, if a corporation pollutes the environment (a 'public good' that everyone shares), the general public are all directly involved in this 'transaction', no?
It's only legally enforceable against the parties to it. That's why there is no basis for denying the right to contract, because everyone who could ever be sued for contract default agreed to the contract.In legal parlance though, a contract is something that is legally enforceable.
The leader worship characteristic of facism does seem to be present in totalitarian socialism cases, including:RenasontsMan said:Adolf Hitler's party was the Social Democrats. You cannot have socialism without fascism.
Impossible. Witness North Korea, and of course that Democrat nirvana, Cuba.
RenasontsMan said:Since libertarianism is toward the right extreme of the political spectrum, while socialism is toward the left extreme, libertarian socialism would seem to be the equivalent of wet dryness, cold heat, and black white.
Adolf Hitler's party was the Social Democrats. You cannot have socialism without fascism.
Impossible. Witness North Korea, and of course that Democrat nirvana, Cuba.
RenasontsMan said:Since libertarianism is toward the right extreme of the political spectrum, while socialism is toward the left extreme, libertarian socialism would seem to be the equivalent of wet dryness, cold heat, and black white.
Adolf Hitler's party was the Social Democrats. You cannot have socialism without fascism.
Impossible. Witness North Korea, and of course that Democrat nirvana, Cuba.