D, is right, using Libertarian in the title of the blog means you already groks basics MUSTS. Thomas adds a bit, so does Brian, most everyone else is bonkers. Chairman, the REALITY is we' simply about to force Public Employees to go for salary right upfront, because the promises of deferred compensation are fraught with moral hazard. The GENIUS of this of course, is that when you don't get the raises you want, you will be forced to strike, and we'll get down to brass tacks on who really gets what.

You miss quite a bit, start here: "The fear was that such views cannot explain why it is permissible for me to throw a stick for my dog when there is some small chance that the stick would violate the property rights of others." I'm not harmed by the risk you took, I'm only harmed if your stick breaks my window, or if I have to go pick up the stick from my fenced property, etc. But the .0001% freak thing vs. the 1% thing - these are risks YOU weigh, and choose. You self insure. Similarly, Dale Miller makes generally the same mistake, "I think that libertarians would want to say that prima facie, every violation of a property right calls for compensation. This doesn't mean that I am justified in violating your property right as long as I am willing to pay compensation later, of course; normally, I'm required to obtain your consent in advance, which may mean negotiating a price." First, throwing the stick is not a violation. Second, OF COURSE, you KNOW before hand generally what the compensation is and you are willing to pay the price. Civil disobedience, or say Rand's hero demolition flows from this - you go ahead and do the deed, KNOWING if you cause a harm, not a "risk" of a harm, about what the price will be. Which gets to the next thing - more hard core libertarians are more than cozy with the idea of private binding arbitration. That judges can be private and sell impartiality, and free people can generally go about negotiating in good faith with one another. Incidentally, one of the underlying reasons for the rise of libertarian thought is simply a reflection of the Internet making the world smaller - making it easy to KNOW LOTS about your trading partners before you trade.

Jason, I almost 100% sure I can add a layer you'll accept. If you wish to assert that there is a positive liberty, then morally you'll certainly grant there is an obvious requirement to achieve that positive liberty with the least harm done to negative rights. This isn't "first do no harm," this is much more reflective - the more gingerly you step on the others property rights, the more respect you pay them. ----- This is where most of the jackals masquerading under the neo-liberal banner are exposed. If what I need from you is enough money to do X, and I want to assert that you really don't have any choice, since my cause is so good. I can AT LEAST, be willing to sit down with you and go through the transmission mechanism, the funding methodology, etc. and where you point out to me obvious cost saving advantages, the respectful thing to do opt towards frugality. Not only to reduce the harm, but also to do my best to convince you my motives were indeed PURE. And therein is statement of first principle that any bleeding heart libertarian admit outright: Good Government is Frugal Government. The question is not not just IF, but also always HOW. ---- The error of other comments discussing protection services: 1. Attempting to call them "positive rights" betrays their early function agreed on by society, namely smaller guys with lots of stuff, got together and paid bigger guys to make sure they kept it. Whether this is "organized crime protection" or the police or private security - it was a bought and paid for service - not done for those without, but largely done TO those without - so they couldn't steal to eat. 2. And then again, the very function of personal protection, guns, the constitution, and the like was to ensure that the easy damns for positive liberty would be thwarted in many many ways. ---- No, the natural order of society's creation laid out the game: we started off with property, we codified negative rights, and there have been compelling arguments for granting positive rights, that infringe of the first states. But none of that justifies the lack of government productivity gains in the public sector we are asked to stomach. They are abject reports. Bleeding Heart Libertarians must be willing to run the government like a company.