You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Libertarianism and Mining GORP (Trail Mix) [about to hit 9k follower!!!]

in #life7 years ago

Please note that "just" and "fair" are not synonyms

They aren't, but they are related. This system allows the ones with most Power define what is Just and what is not.

If you violate someone's property rights to safe a life, this is not justice but injustice

Then the right to property is above the right to live? That seems pretty imoral (and evil)

but also the situation is highly unrealistic

Not that unrealistic. Real world have a lot of historical exemplas of Monopoly of natural resources. Here in Brazil there was a period where small communities were 'ruled' by big land owners "coronéis". They had the true Power over the community, not the government. There were no competition since they held all natural resources on the area, and other area owners wouldnt act on each other delimited areas.

Similarly a right to healthcare entitles you to a docto's labour which violates his rights

Dont know How It is on other places, but here a doctor have the right to not accept an specific healthcare. It is still his choice. There is still a public health system that provides health services to those that cant afford.

But under medic oath (and law) It is still not allowed to a medic to not provide emergency procedures.

It is much more profitable for the monopolist to leave the area alive. In that way he does not need to move.

Maybe not. Maybe he is stablished in another area, and Go to this one only to exploit It for a Quick big profit and then go back to the área he lives is and dont exploit. Also, real life examples are there.

The demand for water is still not satisfied and more capitalists can come in and do the same

Or maybe they reach an agreement to forma a cartel and have an even bigger influence.

Sort:  
This system allows the ones with most Power define what is Just and what is not.

No. Our current system allows this. In an anarcho-capitalist society justice dealing is decentralized.

Then the right to property is above the right to live?

No. Your right to live does not include the right to be kept alive. You have the right to live, you do not have the right to force other to support your life.

We are going in circles now. Your idea of justice includes stealing from haves and giving to have nots. My idea of justice includes respecting everyone's rights. This includes the right to property AND the right to life. Your idea of justice does not include the right to property and this is where we disagree.

No. Your right to live does not include the right to be kept alive. You have the right to live, you do not have the right to force other to support your life.

there is a paradox right there.
Wich is worth more? the right to live or the right to property?
If it is the right to live, then i am allowed to do anything in my power to attend my basic needs like food and water, including taking private property
If it is the right to property, then i can go against the do no harm since it is possible that i control the basic resources needed for people to live and refuse to share them at a fair price, wich might kill people.

Its not about stealing from who have and giving to dont have. Its about allowing a fair playfield for everyone. An things like monoply, cartel, price dumping make things unfair and unjust.