Opinion of the Issue, part 37

[Associate Justice PiT]

32	Criminal Trials by Jury	81.3; 9.4; 0.0; 3.1; 6.3
1	Women in the Military	83.3; 5.6; 11.1; 0.0; 0.0
9	Legalize Prostitution	73.1; 11.5; 0.0; 3.8; 11.5
19	Legalize Marijuana	74.0; 10.0; 0.0; 6.0; 10.0
31	Jury Nullification	79.2; 4.2; 4.2; 4.2; 8.3
25	Job Outsourcing	58.6; 20.7; 6.9; 0.0; 13.8
6	Allow Gay Marriage	75.9; 6.9; 0.0; 0.0; 17.2
17	Government-Sponsored Health Care	62.5; 15.0; 0.0; 7.5; 15.0
26	Line-Item Veto	47.8; 26.1; 0.0; 8.7; 17.4
22	Nuclear Power	58.6; 13.8; 6.9; 6.9; 13.8
18	Eliminate the Deficit	40.0; 32.0; 12.0; 4.0; 12.0
29	Doctor-Assisted Suicide	56.7; 13.3; 0.0; 10.0; 20.0
30	Reduce Military Fudning	60.0; 8.6; 0.0; 8.6; 22.9
4	Free Trade Expansion	41.7; 25.0; 2.8; 11.1; 19.4
10	Legalize Selling Human Body Parts	44.0; 16.0; 0.0; 8.0; 32.0
5	Legalize Hard Drugs	31.3; 28.1; 6.3; 9.4; 25.0
23	Protect Strikers' Jobs	50.0; 7.7; 0.0; 19.2; 23.1
15	Campaign Finance Reform	40.6; 15.6; 3.1; 6.3; 34.4
16	Funding of Religious Charities	19.4; 35.5; 3.2; 16.1; 25.8
21	Offshore Drilling	30.3; 24.2; 15.2; 12.1; 18.2
33	Reduce the Corporate Tax	36.7; 10.0; 6.7; 16.7; 30.0
34	Limit CO2 emissions	27.3; 18.2; 18.2; 18.2; 18.2
8	Punish Illegal Immigrants	26.9; 11.5; 0.0; 7.7; 53.8
14	Privatize Social Security	31.3; 3.1; 9.4; 12.5; 43.8
35	Require Helmets for Skiing	18.2; 15.2; 3.0; 3.0; 60.6
13	Reduce Federal-Owned Lands	24.0; 8.0; 24.0; 12.0; 32.0
12	Stricter Gun Control	22.6; 3.2; 9.7; 16.1; 48.4
7	Eliminate the Income Tax	16.1; 9.7; 0.0; 6.5; 67.7
11	Restrict Abortion	22.9; 0.0; 5.7; 20.0; 51.4
27	Allow Procedural Filibuster	13.6; 9.1; 4.5; 9.1; 63.6
28	Government Price Controls	14.8; 3.7; 7.4; 18.5; 55.6
20	Censor Indecent Broadcasts	3.7; 14.8; 0.0; 18.5; 63.0
24	Support NCLB	8.0; 8.0; 4.0; 32.0; 48.0
3	Return to the Gold Standard	9.1; 4.5; 4.5; 9.1; 72.7
2	Support the Patriot Act	4.0; 4.0; 4.0; 12.0; 76.0
36	Ability to ban Films and Video Games	5.6; 0.0; 2.8; 13.9; 77.8

     Question courtesy of Marokai Blue.

[dead0man]

What do you mean?

[Associate Justice PiT]

     No one can be effectively excluded from consuming it, basically. There's a lot more to say about it, though you can read about it here.

[Earth]

Yes.

[dead0man]

     No one can be effectively excluded from consuming it, basically. There's a lot more to say about it, though you can read about it here.

rgr

Then yes is my answer.

To clarify, nobody can deny another individual access to water.  On the flip side, nobody (including a govt) should be required to make clean water available for whomever wants it whenever they want it.  Meaning, water is a public good but MY water isn't.  (not that I would deny MY water from an individual that needed it.  But if that individual comes back several times a day over a period of time I should have the right to tell him/her to go suck eggs)

[Earth]

     No one can be effectively excluded from consuming it, basically. There's a lot more to say about it, though you can read about it here.

rgr

Then yes is my answer.

To clarify, nobody can deny another individual access to water.  On the flip side, nobody (including a govt) should be required to make clean water available for whomever wants it whenever they want it. 

The issue is availability in regards of private ownership of a reservoir, dissemination, etc,. People do get denied access to clean water, and I'd make a strong case for the responsibility of ownership to deliver clean water, whether public or private.

[dead0man]

Where are people denied access to clean water?

[Lief 🗽]

Yes, duh.

[k-onmmunist]

Yes, yes and yes.

[SPC]

Answered No misunderstanding the question. Water should be provided by the market, but no one should prevent another person from accessing water. However, they can prevent that person from accessing their water.

[k-onmmunist]

Answered No misunderstanding the question. Water should be provided by the market, but no one should prevent another person from accessing water. However, they can prevent that person from accessing their water.

I misunderstood and answered No too.

[Torie]

It obviously is a public good, but that does not mean that the government should own every drop.

[A18]

How so?

Water is entirely "excludable," and it is also "rivalrous."

[Earth]

Where are people denied access to clean water?

All over the world, mainly the third world.

[Mint]

Obvious Yes. Ideally it would be free.

[dead0man]

Where are people denied access to clean water?

All over the world, mainly the third world.

Well yeah, but what are we going to do?  We don't care about the third world and you know it.  If we cared we wouldn't sit by and let warlords kill millions while we twiddle our thumbs and argue about it on the internet.

[Joe Republic]

Well yeah, but what are we going to do?  We don't care about the third world and you know it.  If we cared we wouldn't sit by and let warlords kill millions while we twiddle our thumbs and argue about it on the internet.

(This message is brought to you by the United States Libertarian Party.)

[dead0man]

Are you just trying to be funny or is that a subtle jab that I'm not smart enough to get?  My best guess is "libertarian advocating invading 3rd world countries to save the helpless seems like a contradiction" thing?  If that's it I'll try and answer as best I can, but I certainly don't speak for (or even belong to) the Libertarian Party.

[Earth]

Where are people denied access to clean water?

All over the world, mainly the third world.

Well yeah, but what are we going to do?  We don't care about the third world and you know it.  If we cared we wouldn't sit by and let warlords kill millions while we twiddle our thumbs and argue about it on the internet.

Of course. I'm just pointing out many are without access to clean water. The conservative responses in this thread just strike me as silly.

[SPC]

Where are people denied access to clean water?

All over the world, mainly the third world.

Well yeah, but what are we going to do?  We don't care about the third world and you know it.  If we cared we wouldn't sit by and let warlords kill millions while we twiddle our thumbs and argue about it on the internet.

"Letting them" isn't as much of a problem as "encouraging them" by sending them hundreds of millions of dollars in aid and propping them up with our CIA.

[Rob]

Yes, of course.

[Joe Republic]

Are you just trying to be funny or is that a subtle jab that I'm not smart enough to get?  My best guess is "libertarian advocating invading 3rd world countries to save the helpless seems like a contradiction" thing?  If that's it I'll try and answer as best I can, but I certainly don't speak for (or even belong to) the Libertarian Party.

The fact the you openly admit to not caring about the Third World.  Sure, I doubt any of us on this forum have actually been there to literally help out, but often just financial contributions are a step in the right direction.  Your comment seemed to me to be typical of the libertarian philosophy.

[Lunar]

I think it was a valid point that if our talk wasn't mostly hollow we'd be doing a hell of a lot more than we are.  It may have come across as dismissive, but I don't think it was.

Obvious Yes. Ideally it would be free.

Food and shelter too?  (The latter is important so the farmers can farm for free).

[dead0man]

Are you just trying to be funny or is that a subtle jab that I'm not smart enough to get?  My best guess is "libertarian advocating invading 3rd world countries to save the helpless seems like a contradiction" thing?  If that's it I'll try and answer as best I can, but I certainly don't speak for (or even belong to) the Libertarian Party.

The fact the you openly admit to not caring about the Third World.  Sure, I doubt any of us on this forum have actually been there to literally help out, but often just financial contributions are a step in the right direction.  Your comment seemed to me to be typical of the libertarian philosophy.

Wha, what?  What I typed gave little inclination as to whether I cared about the third world or not, if anything it should read as support for them.  Sending $100 every couple of years isn't helping.  If you want to actually help these people over the long run you should be petitioning your govt to knock off their govt.  There is well more than enough food in the world to feed everybody and there has been for decades, the reason people are starving is horrible govts not droughts or the West's lack of caring.  We care, we just don't know how to fix it because the only answer (toppling corrupt govts in third world countries) is too violent, costly and hard.  It's easier to write a check and hope more of it makes it to the poor than to those oppressing the poor.


(and what makes you think I don't or libertarians don't give to charity?  Again, we libertarians are doing a horrible job of explaining our ideology or you guys aint listening.  We're very big on charity.  We're against the govt doing charity work because they are horribly inefficient, but we aren't stupid.  We acknowledge that charity is needed.)

[SPC]

It might be more effective albeit more dangerous to take it into your own hands to arm people in third-world countries. I don't think most people would want to die in the name of toppling some third-world government. Also, given the sheer number of third-world countries they are, do you have any idea what that would do to our debt? Even if it were a good idea to use the American armed forces to topple third-world governments, we simply cannot afford to. A more effective solution would be to cut off all foreign aid and abolish the CIA.