I’m not entirely sure about what are the reasoning behind your comment, but i see it as : llibertarian implies no state + parks and forest require state = incompatibility. I’d disagree on the parks and forest require state, i thinl they only need organization, meaning one or more NGO could handle it. Accepting this, not that much incompatibility between libertarian and forest remains (accepting libertarian as left wing meaning that does not imply private property)
In a purely libertarian society, parks wouldn’t last long. They would either become prohibitely expensive and yet another thing only for the rich, or they would be harvested and the land mined.
Making them public is the only way to ensure they remain as they are.
Oh yeah, right wing libertarian (based on private property) seems a bad thing for forest, without specific system. I was talking about left wing libertarianism (without private property).
Conversely, I shouldn’t have to spell out my beliefs in order to be treated as a person
I’m certain that you’re aware that words like communism, socialism and Marxism have a plethora of negative propaganda associated with them. Likewise, terms like libertarian are also dragged through the mud routinely.
I hope that in the future we can stop using the worst monsters and strawmen from our peers chosen political affiliation to color our view of those peers.
I’m not entirely sure about what are the reasoning behind your comment, but i see it as : llibertarian implies no state + parks and forest require state = incompatibility. I’d disagree on the parks and forest require state, i thinl they only need organization, meaning one or more NGO could handle it. Accepting this, not that much incompatibility between libertarian and forest remains (accepting libertarian as left wing meaning that does not imply private property)
In a purely libertarian society, parks wouldn’t last long. They would either become prohibitely expensive and yet another thing only for the rich, or they would be harvested and the land mined.
Making them public is the only way to ensure they remain as they are.
Oh yeah, right wing libertarian (based on private property) seems a bad thing for forest, without specific system. I was talking about left wing libertarianism (without private property).
Conversely, I shouldn’t have to spell out my beliefs in order to be treated as a person
I’m certain that you’re aware that words like communism, socialism and Marxism have a plethora of negative propaganda associated with them. Likewise, terms like libertarian are also dragged through the mud routinely.
I hope that in the future we can stop using the worst monsters and strawmen from our peers chosen political affiliation to color our view of those peers.
Annnnnnnd what? When did I dehumanize you? Human nature is precisely why I think a libertarian system would be a disaster.
I agree.
Whenever I see discussions about Libertarians, I always think about that town, Grafton, that got overrun with libertarians. Human nature indeed.
https://newrepublic.com/article/159662/libertarian-walks-into-bear-book-review-free-town-project
The book is a very nice read.