RE: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Prop. 75

Thanks Franklin,

As libertarians are warm and generous individuals who care about
freedom...and you aren't Libertarian, what are you doing on this list?
There's no conflict between contracts and inalienable rights except
those in the minds of those capable of imagining extreme examples (straw
man) that run contrary to the bulk of day to day reality.

A contract is not an inalienable right. This is not a conflict. This is
a clear understanding of what is and what isn't. A contract is something
offered in advance between buyers and sellers with conditions. Those who
expect the seller to beware have turned the nature of the transaction
around. The traditional term for transacting is "caveat emptor". See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caveat_emptor. Short of fraud (and being a
limited liability organization isn't fraud) the limited liability
organization is a blessing to consumers on a budget...most of us.

What you are describing (as is Mr. Ellerman) is a complete upset of the
traditional understanding of risk, liability, reward and responsibility.
You are always welcome here but hopefully you will find more committed
friends with the Democrats.

Michael Denny

As libertarians are warm and generous individuals who care about
freedom...and you aren't Libertarian, what are you doing on this

list?

Just checking if anything has changed since I left the Libertarian
Party.

There's no conflict between contracts and inalienable rights

I suggest looking at the definition of "inalienable":

"That cannot be transferred to another or others: inalienable
rights."
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/inalienable

This clearly conflicts with a contract that does transfer rights.

The traditional term for transacting is "caveat emptor".

If you buy an apple that was sprayed with a poisonous pesticide, and
you get sick as a result, do you think you should have legal recourse?

What you are describing (as is Mr. Ellerman) is a complete upset of

the

traditional understanding of risk, liability, reward and

responsibility.

Ellerman is quite radical, which is one reason why I like him. But
what I am suggesting is actually a more modest change than what
libertarians suggest. The current system is one of government
regulation. I would like to see consumer regulations replaced with
unlimited liability. This simply moves consumer protection from
government bureaucrats to the courts. And I would like to see worker
protection regulations replaced by deregulation of labor unions.
Libertarians want to eliminate government regulation without replacing
it with anything. That is a bigger change than what I am suggesting.
Ellerman suggests a very big change by eliminating the concept of
employment. This is interesting but I am not sure if it is workable.

You are always welcome here but hopefully you will find more

committed

friends with the Democrats.

Do I sound like a Democrat to you? With libertarians, at least I can
get a coherent debate. Democrats have no idea what I am talking
about. So why am I a Democrat? Think of it this way:

-Lib-| |-me---------------------Dem---------------------|

Even though I am closer to Libertarians than Democrats, Libertarians
are so narrow that they won't accept my views. Democrats are far from
my views but they are broad enough accept a great variety of views.
Wouldn't this picture be better?

-Lib-----me-| |-----------------Dem---------------------|

I wish libertarians would become broader and unite all viewpoints that
value freedom.

Mr Schmidt,

No disrespect intended for Brian Holtz, but your little picture
below has I think encapsulated one of his central ideas better than
any thousand of his well-reasoned words.

Thank you.

Allen Rice

"Do I sound like a Democrat to you? With libertarians, at least I
can get a coherent debate. Democrats have no idea what I am talking
about. So why am I a Democrat? Think of it this way:

>-Lib-| |-me---------------------Dem---------------------|

Even though I am closer to Libertarians than [most] Democrats,
Libertarians are so narrow that they won't accept my views.
Democrats are far from my views but they are broad enough [to]
accept a great variety of views.

Wouldn't this picture be better?

-Lib-----me-| |-----------------Dem---------------------|

I wish libertarians would become broader and unite all viewpoints
that value freedom."

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Franklin Schmidt"
<fschmidt@g...> wrote:

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Denny" <mike@d...>

wrote:

>
> As libertarians are warm and generous individuals who care about
> freedom...and you aren't Libertarian, what are you doing on this
list?

Just checking if anything has changed since I left the Libertarian
Party.

> There's no conflict between contracts and inalienable rights

I suggest looking at the definition of "inalienable":

"That cannot be transferred to another or others: inalienable
rights."
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/inalienable

This clearly conflicts with a contract that does transfer rights.

> The traditional term for transacting is "caveat emptor".

If you buy an apple that was sprayed with a poisonous pesticide,

and

you get sick as a result, do you think you should have legal

recourse?

> What you are describing (as is Mr. Ellerman) is a complete upset

of

the
> traditional understanding of risk, liability, reward and
responsibility.

Ellerman is quite radical, which is one reason why I like him. But
what I am suggesting is actually a more modest change than what
libertarians suggest. The current system is one of government
regulation. I would like to see consumer regulations replaced with
unlimited liability. This simply moves consumer protection from
government bureaucrats to the courts. And I would like to see

worker

protection regulations replaced by deregulation of labor unions.
Libertarians want to eliminate government regulation without

replacing

it with anything. That is a bigger change than what I am

suggesting.

Ellerman suggests a very big change by eliminating the concept of
employment. This is interesting but I am not sure if it is

workable.

> You are always welcome here but hopefully you will find more
committed
> friends with the Democrats.

Do I sound like a Democrat to you? With libertarians, at least I

can

get a coherent debate. Democrats have no idea what I am talking
about. So why am I a Democrat? Think of it this way:

>-Lib-| |-me---------------------Dem---------------------|

Even though I am closer to Libertarians than Democrats,

Libertarians

are so narrow that they won't accept my views. Democrats are far

from

my views but they are broad enough accept a great variety of

views.

Wouldn't this picture be better?

>-Lib-----me-| |-----------------Dem---------------------|

I wish libertarians would become broader and unite all viewpoints

that

Mr Schmidt,

No disrespect intended for Brian Holtz, but your little picture
below has I think encapsulated one of his central ideas better than
any thousand of his well-reasoned words.

Thank you.

Allen Rice

"Do I sound like a Democrat to you? With libertarians, at least I
can get a coherent debate. Democrats have no idea what I am talking
about. So why am I a Democrat? Think of it this way:

>-Lib-| |-me---------------------Dem---------------------|

Even though I am closer to Libertarians than [most] Democrats,
Libertarians are so narrow that they won't accept my views.
Democrats are far from my views but they are broad enough [to]
accept a great variety of views.

Wouldn't this picture be better?

-Lib-----me-| |-----------------Dem---------------------|

I wish libertarians would become broader and unite all viewpoints
that value freedom."

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Franklin Schmidt"
<fschmidt@g...> wrote:

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Denny" <mike@d...>

wrote:

>
> As libertarians are warm and generous individuals who care about
> freedom...and you aren't Libertarian, what are you doing on this
list?

Just checking if anything has changed since I left the Libertarian
Party.

> There's no conflict between contracts and inalienable rights

I suggest looking at the definition of "inalienable":

"That cannot be transferred to another or others: inalienable
rights."
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/inalienable

This clearly conflicts with a contract that does transfer rights.

> The traditional term for transacting is "caveat emptor".

If you buy an apple that was sprayed with a poisonous pesticide,

and

you get sick as a result, do you think you should have legal

recourse?

> What you are describing (as is Mr. Ellerman) is a complete upset

of

the
> traditional understanding of risk, liability, reward and
responsibility.

Ellerman is quite radical, which is one reason why I like him. But
what I am suggesting is actually a more modest change than what
libertarians suggest. The current system is one of government
regulation. I would like to see consumer regulations replaced with
unlimited liability. This simply moves consumer protection from
government bureaucrats to the courts. And I would like to see

worker

protection regulations replaced by deregulation of labor unions.
Libertarians want to eliminate government regulation without

replacing

it with anything. That is a bigger change than what I am

suggesting.

Ellerman suggests a very big change by eliminating the concept of
employment. This is interesting but I am not sure if it is

workable.

> You are always welcome here but hopefully you will find more
committed
> friends with the Democrats.

Do I sound like a Democrat to you? With libertarians, at least I

can

get a coherent debate. Democrats have no idea what I am talking
about. So why am I a Democrat? Think of it this way:

>-Lib-| |-me---------------------Dem---------------------|

Even though I am closer to Libertarians than Democrats,

Libertarians

are so narrow that they won't accept my views. Democrats are far

from

my views but they are broad enough accept a great variety of

views.

Wouldn't this picture be better?

>-Lib-----me-| |-----------------Dem---------------------|

I wish libertarians would become broader and unite all viewpoints

that

This is a classic example of why direct democracies are preferable. They allow everyone's views to be represented - not just those that fit into contrived clusters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy

-- Steve