Libertarianism: the baseline problem.

[Gadarene]

Two quotes, first:

When we speak of freedom, liberty, or rights it seems to me essential that we go beyond answering the question, "What liberty or right?" An answer to that question only specifies the domain of liberty. But we are also obliged to answer the question, "Liberty for whom?" --Robert Dahl, How Democratic is the American Constitution?, p. 133 (emphases in original)

Libertarians must think it important that people should have liberty. Given this, questions would immediately arise regarding who, how much, how distributed, how equal. Thus the issue of equality immediately arises as a supplement to the assertion of the importance of liberty. --Amartya Sen, [u]Inequality Reexamined[u], p. 22 (emphasis in original)

When implementing new systems of government or strictures of the market (or new contexts in which governmental systems or market strictures might be variously conceived), it's really tough to start from scratch. That's because in the real world, on real property heretofore existing within the aegis of a real government, we have to begin not only with a) a preexisting bundle of legal norms, structures, rules, and expectations but with b) divergences in property ownership occurring directly as a result of those preexisting norms and structures.

To take an extreme example: In China, there exist many public officials who have amassed wealth through corruption and abuse of station, yet who are dealt with leniently (when they are caught) by communist party discipline inspection committees. In a very real sense, their corruption is sanctioned by the state. Were China tomorrow to reinvent itself within a libertarian context, these corrupt officials would find themselves with property to which they would not have been entitled had the libertarian reinvention occurred, say, fifty years ago. More broadly, the scope of anyone's property ownership today under any non-libertarian context has been shaped and described by the terms of their present context. Any transition to libertarianism must, absent the kind of redistribution anathema to consensus conceptions of liberty, begin with a landscape of wealth and property distribution dependent upon the government that came before. Like I said, we can't start from scratch.

Therefore, equal liberty given to all peaceful and honest citizens--specifically, protection from the initiation of force and fraud--would, given existing distributions, result in vesititure of rights which, while commensurate with the extent of each person's ownership of property, would be predicated on circumstances established under a previous, non-libertarian regime: equal liberty (allowing the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to paraphrase Anatole France) building upon unequal conditions to result in unequal outcomes.

How to resolve the problem of the existing baseline, in order to transition to a libertarian context? Is it a problem? Do we need to ask, not only "What kind of liberty?", but "Liberty for whom?" Or, y'know, not?

[Apos]

I think an important question is: just because someone doesn't "deserve" what they have, does that mean its then more justifiable to take it? Kids born into rich families didn't deserve to be born into rich families anymore than poor people deserved to be born into poor families. But does that lack of desert justify taking away what they have at whim?

Clearly, riches gained by theft are due their victims... but sometimes the theif and the riches are both long gone by the time any justice catches on. What then? Should other previously uninlvoved parties have their wealth taken from them? When Paul steals from Jim, and then Paul dissappears, does it become justifiable to take from Mary to reimburse Jim?

The major argument here is Rawlsian, and I think it is the biggest serious challenger to the moral core of libertarian ideas.

[cckerberos]

I was actually thinking about this topic just a few days ago as I was reading a wonderful essay that mentioned land reform in occupied Japan.

I don't think your China example is a very good one. I think that the new libertarian government would be quite justified in stripping property from the corrupt official. The man is a thief, and has absolutely no right to his stolen property. A better example would be the case of the son of such an official who has inherited all those tainted goods. I don't think there's anything immoral about the son keeping those goods provided he returned those things that others had a personal claim to.

I personally believe that 'unequal conditions' will not result in 'unequal outcomes' if the governmental and legal systems remain honest and libertarian. I think that it would take perhaps a few generations, but that as long as there were no unfair mechanisms in place to facilitate the maintaining of wealth that eventually the status of wealth in the country will become, perhaps not equal, but at least fair.

[cckerberos]

Originally posted by Apos
Clearly, riches gained by theft are due their victims... but sometimes the theif and the riches are both long gone by the time any justice catches on. What then? Should other previously uninlvoved parties have their wealth taken from them? When Paul steals from Jim, and then Paul dissappears, does it become justifiable to take from Mary to reimburse Jim?

It seems to me that in most cases when both the thief and riches are long gone, the victim most likely is as well. The victim's descendants or relatives may still be around, but I don't seem what claim they have to anything. If the victim himself is still around, then I can see him having a claim against the thief's descendants, however, provided they are still in posession of what was his property. To do otherwise would seem to buy into concepts of collective identity and responsibility that I can't accept.

[Apos]

Well, in general, no moral or political system seems to have much of a handle on what is owed to the unborn. Adding in their interests, along with the almost always involved "woulda, coulda, shouldas" tends to lead to extremely wacky outcomes for just about any system of ideas. Unfortunately, not taking them into account at all ends up with even more wacky results. It's a real problem...

[Liberal]

Apos

Keeping in mind that libertarianism is not a political system, but a political philosophy upon which any arbitrary system may be based, I'd like to know what you mean exactly by this:

The major argument here is Rawlsian, and I think it is the biggest serious challenger to the moral core of libertarian ideas.Are you suggesting that Rawls is somehow more moral than say, Locke?

[erislover]

Of course, if we consider that we cannot ex post facto try someone under Libertaria's laws for what they did under the previous regime I don't see what affect the OP has. Unless I am missing something.

[xenophon41]

erl, I think the specific "affect" questioned by the OP is that the equal liberty sought by adoption of a libertarian political philosophy, because it is "predicated on circumstances established under a previous, non-libertarian regime" would be:

from the OP:

...equal liberty (allowing the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to paraphrase Anatole France) building upon unequal conditions to result in unequal outcomes.

(emphasis added)

(NOTE to Gad: Sleeping under someone else's bridge without permission is coercive. Tsk.)

[xenophon41]

Woops; didn't mean to immediately hit "submit".

I believe that the thing which makes Gad's Baseline Problem critically important could be termed the Resource Problem. There's a limited amount of real property available, and without either an equitable division of formerly public property or some program of wealth redistribution (anethema, as Gad noted, to libertarian philosophy), then the opportunities which present themselves to the new residents of Libertaria will not only be greatly disparate, in a manner predicated on the injustices allowed (or missed) under the previous system, but will also be made semi-permament due to enforcement of the idea that rights derive from property.

[hawthorne]

Libertarian
Are you suggesting that Rawls is somehow more moral than say, Locke?Without wanting to cut Apos' lunch, how about this:

The notion of constitutional choice from behind a veil of ignorance - which has a long history, but is frequently associated with Rawls - presents a challenge to (broadly defined) liberals, since it is squarely based on (admittedly hypothetical) agreement.

Libertarians are left in the unfortunate (although not original ;)) position of either having to defend starting from - and effectively entrenching - the unjust (from their PoV) status quo or coming up with some scheme to figure out how to redistribute property from the ruck of history.

Libertarian
Keeping in mind that libertarianism is not a political system, but a political philosophy upon which any arbitrary system may be based, [...]Sure. But what's your reform programme? As James Buchanan always says, "We start from here." Without a reform programme you're a crop in search of a virgin field.

[xenophon41]

(Damn recaclitrant hamsters… obstinate little rodents.)

[Previous Post after intended editing:]

I believe that the thing which makes Gad's Baseline Problem critically important could be termed the Resource Problem. There's a limited amount of real property available, and without either an equitable division of formerly public property and some program of wealth redistribution (anethema, as Gad noted, to libertarian philosophy), then the opportunities which present themselves to the new residents of Libertaria will not only be greatly disparate, in a manner predicated on the inequalities allowed (or missed) under the previous system, but will also be made semi-permament due to enforcement of the idea that rights derive from property. –Those who begin with a “high value”, the advantages of much property, regardless of how that property was previously obtained, will be able to safeguard their advantages at the expense of those who begin with only the property of their persons. It is a self-sustaining system of inequality.

[Gadarene]

Very well-articulated, xeno; that's exactly what I'm talking about.

hawthorne:
Libertarians are left in the unfortunate (although not original ) position of either having to defend starting from - and effectively entrenching - the unjust (from their PoV) status quo or coming up with some scheme to figure out how to redistribute property from the ruck of history.

Right. A position made particularly poignant (more so than many other new contexts) because the goal of libertarianism--equal liberty to do what thou wilt, peacefully and honestly--conflicts so precisely both with the existing, entrenched status quo and with most programmatic reforms. Or maybe I'm being too consequentialist--perhaps liberty qua liberty is the point, and actual outcomes don't matter. If this is the case, then it wouldn't matter where we started. Or perhaps cckerberos is correct here:

I think that it would take perhaps a few generations, but that as long as there were no unfair mechanisms in place to facilitate the maintaining of wealth that eventually the status of wealth in the country will become, perhaps not equal, but at least fair.

Could you explain this, though? Your statement indicates that in Libertaria, fewer "unfair" mechanisms would exist to facilitate the maintaining of wealth. How do you mean, exactly? And what do you see as the "more fair" status of wealth towards which libertarianism would settle (like a house rather than a defendant) in a couple generations?

Also from cckerberos:

I don't think your China example is a very good one. I think that the new libertarian government would be quite justified in stripping property from the corrupt official. The man is a thief, and has absolutely no right to his stolen property.

Well, your example of his son is just as good, but the thing about the Chinese official is that functionally, under Chinese law--well, communist party discipline, but the point remains--he's been punished for his crime, yet still retains much of his wealth. As erl says, you'd be ex post punishing him a second time following the regime (sorry, context) change. I'd be happy abandoning the specific example, though--all I know about Chinese corruption is what I read last night for my Law & Economics Seminar; besides, xeno's fleshed out my larger point masterfully.

Lib, now that you've made an appearance, you've gotta know that I want to hear your take on this. :)

[Liberal]

But I still don't get it.

Are you people talking about how to divide the spoils of a nation-state libertarianly? If so, that's a bit like asking what is the Christian way to split the money from a robbery.

[Gadarene]

Well...okay, yeah. Except that the analogy is imprecise--presumably, the Christian way to split money from a robbery (assuming the Christians aren't the robbers, but acquired the money after the fact--I dunno, found it by the side of the road) would be either to return it to the victims of the robbery (the "rightful" owners, so to speak) or, should that prove impossible, to donate it to charity. Neither of which can practicably be done with the, um, spoils of the nation-state (and I prefer the more neutral and cumbersome term "existing distributions of wealth and property (and therefore rights)," myself).

So I guess we're talking not about how to divide the spoils of a nation-state libertarianly, but how to deal with the fact that there are spoils left over from a nation-state even after the libertarian transition has been made. Or, more to the point: is there anything, other than the instant fact of liberty itself, that is a desired goal of libertarianism? If so, how is this ancillary goal or goals obstructed in a libertarian landscape which retains from the beginning the substantive wealth and property (and rights) inequalities promulgated by the previous, non-libertarian system of governance?

[xenophon41]

beautifully opined by Lib:

...that's a bit like asking what is the Christian way to split the money from a robbery.
Exactly the point! A libertarian context introduced (or transitioned) (if you'll forgive the "verbization" of a noun) onto an existing society where inequality of wealth exists would create a new and possibly ineradicable system of inequality of opportunity precisely because libertarian philosophy prohibits any possible means of correcting the initial inequalities of wealth.

[xenophon41]

I suppose I should have put the word "correcting" in quotes, to indicate that the very need for correction is an open question. Wealth distribution is not a clear cut moral dilemma.

[Liberal]

Okay. I really don't mean to be so dense, but I've charged into some of these discussions before only to find that I've upset people by making unwarranted assumptions. I'd like to avoid that this time around.

Can anyone explain to me why you would expect a libertarian government to address anything other than suppression of coercion on behalf of those who have freely given it consent to govern? Why would it be concerned about who is wealthier than whom? Or whether there is material equality among its citizens? And especially why would it be concerned with the distribution of property previously owned by someone else whom it did not govern?

[erislover]

The point that could also be made, however, is that some of the wealth is had now by anti-libertarian principles; should Libertaria come about, that method of maintaining this wealth would vanish.

xenThose who begin with a “high value”, the advantages of much property, regardless of how that property was previously obtained, will be able to safeguard their advantages at the expense of those who begin with only the property of their persons. It is a self-sustaining system of inequality.This argument can be made with or without appeal to redistribution of wealth or libertarian ideals, though. The notion of rights deriving from property doesn't just include real estate, and it isn't limited to Libertaria.

I, for example, have bad credit. This means I cannot purchase a home. However, for what I am very clearly paying in rent I could be using for a mortgage; in all likelihood it would be almost cheaper for me to own my own house (at least for the tax deduction the interest payments would present me!). And yet I cannot own a house. Barring a rather miraculous increase in income I will be renting for a long, long time, living right on the edge of bankruptcy and lower, lower class.

See, the banks in our fabulous redistributive society feel that I am too risky to invest in for property purchase, much like they would in a libertarian society now. That I pay my rent each month doesn't phase them. That what I pay in rent each month would account for a mortgage payment doesn't phase them.

I don't know what definition you have of "opportunity", but I don't see it where I live. I can think of more than a few dopers (who I won't name) that have agreed with me both on and off the boards on this count.

It is not enough that Libertaria would in some ways maintain the status quo, it must make things worse. I think the case can be made for education becoming poorer (at least, you've convinced me here on the boards), but I'm not that comfortable in believing this charge of stagnacy and missed opportunity....onto an existing society where inequality of wealth exists would create a new and possibly ineradicable system of inequality of opportunity precisely because libertarian philosophy prohibits any possible means of correcting the initial inequalities of wealth.Same shit, different day, to this Discordian. You make it sound like the instant Libertaria happened all welath would stagnate. But the motivation to sell property, purchase property, and so on, wouldn't really have changed. So why would the behavior with respect to it?

[Apos]

---Are you suggesting that Rawls is somehow more moral than say, Locke?---

Sometimes I don't understand you Lib. I'm not even sure what you're asking, or why what I said confused you. I wasn't talking about comparing Rawls or Locke personally as moral beings.

I was suggesting that the Rawlsian concept of justice provides a major philosophical challenge to both utilitarianism and the various libertarian philosophies as far as considering both the "baseline" of distribution as well as what to do afterwards. I'm of the mind that the Rawlsian ideas don't ultimately hold up under scrutiny, but at this point in the discussion it's probably important to get a lay of the land, and Rawls and others in his tradition are a major factor in this "baseline" problem.

[Gadarene]

Fair questions, Lib. Before I tackle them, though, do you grok me well enough to answer my questions above (I'll reprint them for you)? That'll tell me the degree to which you and I will be at cross-purposes.

[I]s there anything, other than the instant fact of liberty itself, that is a desired goal of libertarianism? If so, how is this ancillary goal or goals obstructed in a libertarian landscape which retains from the beginning the substantive wealth and property (and rights) inequalities promulgated by the previous, non-libertarian system of governance?

To supplement the question, or put it more plainly: What does a transition to libertarianism hope to accomplish, other than liberty for the sake of liberty? Anything?

I hope you realize the inquiry is meant sincerely as an attempt at dialogue; I'm not taking the piss.

Oh, one more question: Are you familiar with the Supreme Court decision in Johnson v. McIntosh (http://www.healingtheland.com/johnson_v_mcintosh.html), 8 Wheat. 543 (1823)? If not, take a look at it. That case may help to explain what I'm talking about, and I'll address it more fully the next time I post.

[Liberal]

Gad wrote:

To supplement the question, or put it more plainly: What does a transition to libertarianism hope to accomplish, other than liberty for the sake of liberty? Anything?No, not really. Libertarianism really has no goal per se, other than suppression of coercion if that can be called a goal. It's pretty much up to each individual to decide what his own goal is and to pursue it.

Oh, one more question: Are you familiar with the Supreme Court decision in Johnson v. McIntosh, 8 Wheat. 543 (1823)?I wasn't familiar with it, and looking it over now I guess what strikes me is the notion of "discovering" the land they claimed. That's a bit like me taking a wrong turn off the freeway, discovering your house, and claiming it.

With respect to all this (material) equality business, it is a generally accepted axiom among libertarians that freedom and equality are mutually exclusive. If men are free, they will not be equal; and if men are equal, they are not free.

[xenophon41]

[i]originally posed by Libertarian:

Can anyone explain to me why you would expect a libertarian government to address anything other than suppression of coercion on behalf of those who have freely given it consent to govern?
I don't think anyone posting to the thread expects anything other than the noncoercion principle from a libertarian government, Lib. But I'll let Gad follow this up.

[i]originally from erislover:

The notion of rights deriving from property doesn't just include real estate, and it isn't limited to Libertaria.
True enough. Plutaria effectively limits the rights of non-propertied individuals as well. But the questions are whether, as you say, libertarianism would make things worse in terms of inequality of opportunity, and whether in real terms the effects of that inequality of opportunity would outweigh the effects of equality of liberty.

[erislover]

Perhaps we should start a thread on property and the rights derived thereof. We seem to not be talking about the same thing. If we were, Libertaria would analytically reduce to a plutocracy. This seems far from the OP.

The motivations for exchanging property would not change as fundamental rights are derived from porperty already, except in cases like victimless crimes where the state has decided to redistribute happiness (:p deliberate joke, let's not mix our fiscal comments with social ones). I really do have more rights when I own my own property. For example, I would have the right to own a cat, or walk around naked in the halls. The biggest rights we think of when we think of "rights" are basically derived from the union of two propositions: one, you exist, and two, you own yourself (and by extension the products of yourself). This means that we recognize, instantly and universally, that all humans begin with property: themselves.

[Apos]

---Why would it be concerned about who is wealthier than whom?---

Because inequality in power over a society, whether politically or economically, which roughly gravitates towards wealth, is the heart of coercion. No matter how well designed and minimal a state you start with, you either have people filling that power vacuum outside the state, or expanding the state to serve the same end. That's just the general case often made.

It also has to defend itself from the moral challenges posed against it: i.e. that it holds protection from coercion so pre-eminently over all other values that it seems morally absurd to many people.

[xenophon41]

I beg to differ on the proposition that "fundamental rights are derived from property already" in all systems, and particularly in the present US political system. In our system, "we" (the People, i.e. "society") "hold" (that is, we assert through our own decision) that fundamental rights are inalienable from the human condition. These rights, therefore, derive from the social structure, and are predicated on "our" continued acceptance of those Constitutional scribbles Lib so derides.

[Chumpsky]

Originally posted by Apos
Clearly, riches gained by theft are due their victims... but sometimes the theif and the riches are both long gone by the time any justice catches on. Property is theft. (http://dhm.best.vwh.net/archives/proudhon-property-is-theft.html)

[erislover]

What human condition is that, xen, other than existence?

[xenophon41]

Was I unclear? Existing as a human, indeed, within the context of the specific society which holds those rights to be true.

[erislover]

You are only unclear in that I am not sure how it is that you disagree.

[xenophon41]

...I am not sure how it is that you disagree.
I guess we must take this slowly then, for clarity's sake.

erl: with what proposition(s) do you take it I'm disagreeing?

For my part, I believe I've disagreed with the general proposition that "fundamental rights derive from property," and with the specific proposition that this is true "already" in all political systems.

I do not disagree (that is, I agree) with your proposition that I (and by extension all other human individuals) exist.

I do not disagree with, but also do not unreservedly accept, your proposition that I "own" myself. My reservations are concerned with the definition of ownership; that is, I do not have full control over myself, and certainly not over most of the products, intellectual or otherwise, of myself.

[Tretiak]

Originally posted by xenophon41
Was I unclear? Existing as a human, indeed, within the context of the specific society which holds those rights to be true.

I am trying to be clear on this. A right is inalienable means that in no way can that right be transferred or removed from your being. Not even society, no matter how it is structured can take that right, notr can thazt right be transferred to society. This is not to say that the object of the right vcan be subjugated. Certainly although we all have a right to life, it does preclude someone from murdering us.

[tourbot]

Originally posted by Libertarian
With respect to all this (material) equality business, it is a generally accepted axiom among libertarians that freedom and equality are mutually exclusive. If men are free, they will not be equal; and if men are equal, they are not free.
But if all men are not equal, then doesn't it follow that all men are not equally free?

[Gadarene]

Lib:
No, not really. Libertarianism really has no goal per se, other than suppression of coercion if that can be called a goal. It's pretty much up to each individual to decide what his own goal is and to pursue it.

Okay. I'd respond to this first the way that Apos did:

Because inequality in power over a society, whether politically or economically, which roughly gravitates towards wealth, is the heart of coercion. No matter how well designed and minimal a state you start with, you either have people filling that power vacuum outside the state, or expanding the state to serve the same end.(emphasis added)

To the extent that libertarianism necessarily begins with existing (unequal) distributions of wealth and property, giving everyone equal liberty entrenches the ability of those with greater scope of rights to engage in coercion. This is true whether the coercion is strong-form (coercive behavior recognized by a libertarian society as such, like force or fraud) or weak-form (behavior that is not classified as coercion in a libertarian context yet nevertheless unquestionably coercive to some degree; it occurs when someone with x amount of property is forced to act in a way that someone with y amount of property would not be). The need to work is a good example. From Robert Hale, 1923:

If the worker has no money of his own, the threat of any particular employer to withhold any particular amount of money would be effective in securing the worker's obedience in proportion to the difficulty with which other employers can be induced to furnish a job. If the non-owner works for anyone, it is for the purpose of warding off the threat of at least one owner of money to withhold that money from him (with the help of the law). Suppose, now, the worker were to refuse to yield to the coercion of any employer, but were to choose instead to remain under the legal duty to abstain from the use of any of the money which anyone owns. He must eat. While there is no law against eating in the abstract, there is a law which forbids him to eat any of the food which actually exists in the community--and that law is the law of property. [. . .] Unless, then, the non-owner can produce his own food, the law compels him to starve if he has no wages, and compels him to go without wages unless he obeys the behests of some employer.

I digress; the definition and existence of weak-form coercion is probably worth a thread all its own. The point is that coercion is engendered by unequal distributions of property; to the extent that coercion is an unlibertarian concept, and to the extent that these unequal distributions of property are products of an unlibertarian context, the baseline problem arises because, absent a way of normalizing the distributions in a more libertarian way from the beginning, a libertarian society is stuck with the coercion-inducing byproduct of nonlibertarianism.

This is where Johnson v. McIntosh comes in. The case was a dispute over conflicting land titles arising from a regime change--the plaintiff, like many people before the ratification of the Constitution, had acquired his title by dealing directly with representatives of the Indian tribe occupying the land; the plaintiff, on the other hand, was given his title by the United States government some years later. It was the stance of the U.S. government that the only legitimate way of purchasing public land was through the government itself; anyone, therefore, who had purchased land from the Indians--even those who did so before the U.S. government was constituted--had no real title. The Supreme Court upheld this, Justice Marshall articulating what's quaintly termed the "discovery principle": that as a matter of public policy legal title is transferred to the government whose subjects have "discovered" and consummated possession of the land. All titles purchased from the Indians and not from the U.S. government were thereby worthless--again, even if the purchase was made before the U.S. government ever made its title claim, or indeed before it even existed.

The United States' new democratic republic, then, took care of the baseline problem by simply overlaying a new, centralized distribution of property and declaring it legitimate. Had they not done this, people's possession of title through the Indians would have been tremendously destabilizing for a new regime attempting to consolidate its legitimacy and, more importantly, articulate the ideology of its brand-new constitutional system. I'm suggesting that Libertaria, newly formed, faces a similar problem in dealing with property distributions left over from previous, nonlibertarian societies.

Clearish?

[cckerberos]

Originally posted by Gadarene
Could you explain this, though? Your statement indicates that in Libertaria, fewer "unfair" mechanisms would exist to facilitate the maintaining of wealth. How do you mean, exactly? And what do you see as the "more fair" status of wealth towards which libertarianism would settle (like a house rather than a defendant) in a couple generations?

I'm suggesting that those individuals and businesses whose wealth were based upon activities such as governmental corruption and graft that would be eliminated in Libertaria would most likely fade away as that base was swept from underneath them and they were faced with competitors. I view a 'fair' status of wealth as being one in which everyone gained the wealth they had legitimately (as defined according to libertarian principles).

Wll, your example of his son is just as good, but the thing about the Chinese official is that functionally, under Chinese law--well, communist party discipline, but the point remains--he's been punished for his crime, yet still retains much of his wealth. As erl says, you'd be ex post punishing him a second time following the regime (sorry, context) change.

I think it would perhaps be more a case of double jeopardy, since as you have suggested he will have been punished twice for the same crime. I'm don't think that that would necessarily violate libertarianism. I don't see why the new regime would have any obligation to respect the judgments of the previous one.

[Liberal]

Tourbot wrote:

But if all men are not equal, then doesn't it follow that all men are not equally free?At last, a question I can comprehend! :)

That depends on what you mean by equality and freedom. What I mean by equality is having identical means, and what I mean by freedom is the absence of coercion. And so if people have identical means, then they are all thinking and acting alike or else there is redistribution occuring among them. Most people would naturally resist something being taken from them, and so coercion would be necessary to make everyone equal.

-----

Gad wrote:

To the extent that libertarianism necessarily begins with existing (unequal) distributions of wealth and property, giving everyone equal liberty entrenches the ability of those with greater scope of rights to engage in coercion. This is true whether the coercion is strong-form (coercive behavior recognized by a libertarian society as such, like force or fraud) or weak-form (behavior that is not classified as coercion in a libertarian context yet nevertheless unquestionably coercive to some degree; it occurs when someone with x amount of property is forced to act in a way that someone with y amount of property would not be). The need to work is a good example.Libertarianism is not concerned with what you're calling weak coercion. It is difficult enough to arbitrate ordinary coercion.

A man with a particularly cowardly or fearful character might feel coerced if you look at him with a stern face and say, "Boo!". Your need to work example sounds like a coercion of circumstance, if anything. He wants to work so he won't be hungry. But there is nothing in the libertarian philosophy that will transfer a need by one man into an obligation by another.

Taken to extremes, the mere existence of wealth can be called coercive all around. Even the wealthy man is coerced because he has a need to safeguard his wealth.

From your quote:

Unless, then, the non-owner can produce his own food, the law compels him to starve if he has no wages, and compels him to go without wages unless he obeys the behests of some employer.But the law isn't a person. How would the law be punished for its "coercion"?

The point is that coercion is engendered by unequal distributions of property; to the extent that coercion is an unlibertarian concept, and to the extent that these unequal distributions of property are products of an unlibertarian context, the baseline problem arises because, absent a way of normalizing the distributions in a more libertarian way from the beginning, a libertarian society is stuck with the coercion-inducing byproduct of nonlibertarianism.That's where I keep getting lost. I do not comprehend the notion of normalizing distributions in a libertarian way. I've never come upon the concept of libertarianism normalizing distributions. Distributions are the product of an economy, and a libertarian government regulates an economy only in the strictly narrow sense of suppressing coercion.

Libertaria doesn't govern time itself. If you contract with Libertaria, you cannot say, "Now, go and get my watch back that Billy stole last year." But now that you are under contract, if Billy tries to steal your watch that you own now, then Libertaria is required to stop him or, failing that, get your watch back for you.

But even now, I'm not sure that I'm talking about what you are.

The United States' new democratic republic, then, took care of the baseline problem by simply overlaying a new, centralized distribution of property and declaring it legitimate. Had they not done this, people's possession of title through the Indians would have been tremendously destabilizing for a new regime attempting to consolidate its legitimacy and, more importantly, articulate the ideology of its brand-new constitutional system. I'm suggesting that Libertaria, newly formed, faces a similar problem in dealing with property distributions left over from previous, nonlibertarian societies.But the United States is dealing with borders and regimes. Libertaria is not concerned with borders and is not a regime with any legitimacy beyond your consent. Libertaria has no borders, and it has no concern whatsoever with any property other than yours and that of the other people it governs.

The United States has drawn a big circle in the sand, and has said, "Okay, I govern everything inside this line." Libertaria doesn't work that way.

[erislover]

xen, "For my part, I believe I've disagreed with the general proposition that 'fundamental rights derive from property,' and with the specific proposition that this is true 'already' in all political systems." I believe this is also where you have voiced disagreement, but I remain unclear on the source of this disagreement.

Specifically, what rights do you feel you have that do not relate to ownership of (1) yourself, (2) the product of your labor, (3) the effects of the products of your labor?

For example, let us say that you take the phrase to heart: "we" (the People, i.e. "society") "hold" (that is, we assert through our own decision) that fundamental rights are inalienable from the human condition. But you then do not unreservedly agree that you own yourself. This presents me with a problem of not, then, understanding what human condition you are speaking of that you can have inalienable rights (rights that may not be seperated from your existence) but yet you are not the owner of yourself.

[hawthorne]

Lib
I do not comprehend the notion of normalizing distributions in a libertarian way. I've never come upon the concept of libertarianism normalizing distributions. Distributions are the product of an economy, and a libertarian government regulates an economy only in the strictly narrow sense of suppressing coercion. I accept that, but in the following (relevant to the discussion IMHO) sense: a libertarian government regulates an economy only in the strictly narrow sense of suppressing future, "ordinary"coercion.

If you are not concerned with what you call "weak coercion" I think you're on solid ground (although I strongly disagree). If you think from absolutely any arbitrary distribution of anything, libertarian principles should apply in subsequent dealings, then - as long as you can define what are the property rights, you have a system. But that is "Libertaria" saying "Okay, everything until now is declared clean, everything in the future must be clean."

[Liberal]

Huh? Why is it declaring anything? It's just making contractual agreements with whoever gives consent. The contract doesn't take effect until both parties sign.

I'm honestly flummoxed here. Let me give you an analogy hopefully to help illustrate my confusion.

You pay a lawyer a retainer, and he agrees to defend you if you go to court. Okay, so why does your lawyer have to declare anything about prior injustices? Why is he responsible for them? What do they have to do with you? Why can't he just carry out his responsibilities to you?

[Riboflavin]

Originally posted by Libertarian
That's where I keep getting lost. I do not comprehend the notion of normalizing distributions in a libertarian way. I've never come upon the concept of libertarianism normalizing distributions.

That has a lot to do with the fact that Libertarians (note the capital L, I'm not talking about 'people who generally want a smaller government' here) generally don't choose to address the 'how do we get there from here' issue, which is part of the reason why a lot of people don't take them seriously. While there's a lot of abstract talk about how privitized roads might work, I don't think I've ever seen a Libertarian address the issue of how to move from state-owned roads to private roads. It's hard for people to take your idea of societal organization seriously if you can't tell them how they would move from the current system to your ideal system.

Libertaria doesn't govern time itself. If you contract with Libertaria, you cannot say, "Now, go and get my watch back that Billy stole last year."

"Libertaria" doesn't need to govern time itself to prosecure for past offenses. Quite a few formerly Communist countries formed new governments, then prosecuted at least some of the criminals from the prior regime, for example. And Libertaria is going to have to handle some past disputes if it's going to be at all useful as a government, since there are going to be old, minorly conflicting land deeds to be sorted out that predate Libertaria's formation and other old issues that any worthwhile court would handle (and I'd note that US courts have no problem handling land title from pre-US days).

But the United States is dealing with borders and regimes. Libertaria is not concerned with borders and is not a regime with any legitimacy beyond your consent.

That's not what you've said in the past about your ideal Libertaria; you rather specifically stated that if a citizen (or contractee or whatever you call it) of Libertaria initiates force against a non-citizen, that non-citizen has to respond in a manner approved by Libertaria.

[Liberal]

Riboflavin wrote:

That has a lot to do with the fact that Libertarians (note the capital L, I'm not talking about 'people who generally want a smaller government' here) generally don't choose to address the 'how do we get there from here' issue, which is part of the reason why a lot of people don't take them seriously.I don't know what could be easier. You get from here to there by hiring someone to secure your rights. Done.

And incidentally, you have a weak understanding of libertarianism. What does it have to do with a "smaller government"? The government should be exactly whatever size is required to do its job. Neither larger nor smaller.

While there's a lot of abstract talk about how privitized roads might work, I don't think I've ever seen a Libertarian address the issue of how to move from state-owned roads to private roads.You must not have looked very hard. That's probably one of the most common topics for everyone from Cato to Free-Market. In fact, go to http://www.free-market.net, look in their catergories for "Scholarly and In-Depth Studies; Privatization". Here's one paper on the topic: Roads Without the State (http://www.mannkal.org/Guestdetail.asp?Code=1).

Quite a few formerly Communist countries formed new governments, then prosecuted at least some of the criminals from the prior regime, for example.That's not the kind of "country" that Libertaria is. It's not a nation-state. It doesn't (and can't) arise through revolution and the establishment of a magistrate to govern everyone who falls within a line it has drawn in the sand. That's Authoritaria.

And Libertaria is going to have to handle some past disputes if it's going to be at all useful as a government, since there are going to be old, minorly conflicting land deeds to be sorted out that predate Libertaria's formation and other old issues that any worthwhile court would handle (and I'd note that US courts have no problem handling land title from pre-US days).So? Why should Libertaria mirror their tyranny?

That's not what you've said in the past about your ideal Libertaria; you rather specifically stated that if a citizen (or contractee or whatever you call it) of Libertaria initiates force against a non-citizen, that non-citizen has to respond in a manner approved by Libertaria.Why, that's crazy. Judging by some of the things you've said so far, you likely misunderstood. What was the context? What did I say exactly, and in response to what?

[Liberal]

Corrected Free-Market link: http://www.free-market.net

[Riboflavin]

Originally posted by Libertarian
I don't know what could be easier. You get from here to there by hiring someone to secure your rights. Done.

I honestly don't know if you're just being a smartass or if you're really getting wooshed by what's being asked. There are numerous issues (such as who will get all of this state property, what happens with legal issues still in dispute from pre-Libertaria times) which people generally worry about when someone starts talking about hardcore Libertarianism, and making pithy statements like the above or railing about Tyranny and Oppression instead of addressing concerns isn't going to win anyone over to your side.

And hey, why do you waste your time arguing about what you really mean, since you can just hire someone to secure those rights today and go straight to Libertaria?

And incidentally, you have a weak understanding of libertarianism.

No, I simply use the common meanings of the terms instead of the somewhat odd definitions you typically use. Your version of "Libertarianism" is better described as "anarcho-capitalism". The Libertarian Party, for example, does not advocate the removal of the nation-state as you do. I'm not really interested in arguing over the basic definitions here, I was merely clarifying what I was saying for the benefit of other people.

What does it have to do with a "smaller government"? The government should be exactly whatever size is required to do its job. Neither larger nor smaller.

Do you really want me to dig out cites of the word "libertarian" being used to mean (n) "person in favor of smaller government" or (adj) "system of governemt which intereferes with the individual to as small a degree as possible", or to go drag out a dictionary entry? And I find it rather hard to believe that someone who advocates what you do believes that the US government (or government of wherever the person lives) should not be smaller. If that's really what you believe, I'll quote some verbiage from the emails I get from the LP about reducing the size of the current government to demonstrate that it is a libertarian position.

You must not have looked very hard. That's probably one of the most common topics for everyone from Cato to Free-Market. In fact, go to http://www.free-market.net, look in their catergories for "Scholarly and In-Depth Studies; Privatization". Here's one paper on the topic: Roads Without the State (http://www.mannkal.org/Guestdetail.asp?Code=1).

I've looked around before and haven't seen the topic covered. I've seen lots of ink (well, electrons) on how a system of private toll roads could work, like your article, but all of them just blow off the question of how to get from here to there, saying something along the lines of 'just sell off the roads'. If you have a cite that actually proposes some sort of plan that addresses concerns like those I mention below then I'd appreciate it, but a link to free-market.net doesn't cut it.

I mean, in that article on mannkal, the sum total of what it says about moving from the current system to a privately owned system is: "The various state and local government owned turnpikes, toll bridges and tunnels can simply be sold off to the highest bidders." "Existing highways can be either sold off by the states or franchises awarded to business to improve and maintain them in return for rights to levy tolls, sell off utility right-of-way and run service and refreshment concessions". That hardly tells me how to avoid the 'vested interests', who have so much influence in congress today, taking the roads for themselves, making a pretty profit and gaining the ability for coercive control (even if its not technically coercive in the libertarian sense) by locking people they don't agree with into their homes. It doesn't tell me whether I'm going to be more or less free after the switch; am I still going to be able to drive from here to Florida without paying a thousand dollars in tolls (something which I can do now), am I going to be able to drive from my house to the grocery store after the sell-off without having to sign an agreement not to sue Time-Warner-Glaxo for any reason (since, whoops, they own all of the roads I can you to leave home), and other questions of that ilk.

[QUOTE]That's not the kind of "country" that Libertaria is. It's not a nation-state. It doesn't (and can't) arise through revolution and the establishment of a magistrate to govern everyone who falls within a line it has drawn in the sand. That's Authoritaria.

First off, you dodged around the main point - it doesn't require some sort of magical control over time for a government to work with cases in the past, it's been done by countries that don't have such control. But more importantly, since I can just hire 'countries' at will under your scheme, why would I choose Libertaria over Justictaria where I can actually do something to the former party member who killed my family, stole my property, and sent me off to forced labor for the past decade? Or even the one who will handle the case of my daughter being kidnapped two years ago?

(In response to handling old property deeds) So? Why should Libertaria mirror their tyranny?

Tyranny? I thought the whole idea behind Libertarianism as practiced by you was property rights. Since protecting property rights is one of the primary purposes of Libertaria's government, asserting that settling disputes over exactly who owns which piece of property would be 'tyranny' makes absolutely no sense to me. How in the world does Libertaria determine how a new 'subscriber' owns developed land if not by the land deeds that existed before Libertaria came around? Do I just say 'oh yeah, I own that back half of what my neighbor thinks is his yard. Old deeds? How dare you look at those! That's tyranny!'

Why, that's crazy. Judging by some of the things you've said so far, you likely misunderstood. What was the context? What did I say exactly, and in response to what?

You explicitly said that if someone from Libertaria initiated force against someone not in Libertaria (say, by trespassing) that Libertaria would intervene if the victim retaliated in a manner not approved of by Libertaria (say, by shooting the trespasser). Either "Libertaria is not concerned with borders and is not a regime with any legitimacy beyond your consent," and I'm free to do what I want as long as I don't initiate force against anyone from Libertaria, or Libertaria does claim to rule over me without my consent if I respond to a violation of my rights by someone from Libertaria in a manner which you (or Libertaria) doesn't like. This was in an old thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=9639&highlight=Libertarian+shoot+trespass%2A) on this board, so it's possible that your opinion on retalitory force has changed.

[RexDart]

Allow me to say that I don't care a lick for the proportions in which wealth is possessed, so long as that wealth is obtained through non-coercive methods. I don't recognize this "weak-coercion" principle mentioned by Gadarene as a valid concern, because any attempt to eliminate a "weak-coercion" would necessarily entail a strong-coercion, in the ordinary direct sense of the word. If one holds the principles of libertarianism, then one would not care to correct that situation, if indeed it requires correction. The cure would be worse than the disease.

Also, to my mind, it is the liberty itself that is desirable, not any outcomes it may generate. A world in which negative rights are protected (unless you voluntarily waive them) and no positive obligations are imposed (other than those you choose to adopt) seems worthwhile on its face.

[Little Nemo]

Suppose the people of the United States completely embraced the ideals of Libertarianism tomorrow. The government (national, state, and local) would all be dissolved. But the problem would then exist of who would take ownership of the property formerly owned by the now non-existent government.

For example, there is a street outside my window that is currently owned, along with the land it lies upon, by the city of Rochester. If the city of Rochester ceased to exist as a legal entity, who would own that street? Would it be the first person who planted his figurative flag in it and declared himself the owner? Would the street belong to the person whose house is next to it? Would the street, along with the other property of the former city, be divided equitably among the citizens living here? If so, who would decide who gets what share? Or would it be decided there was some type of de facto collective ownership of the street?

Or suppose an even more mundane example. A police officer is finishing his tour of duty at four am and finds that because the government was disbanded at midnight, there no longer is a police department and he no longer has any legal authority as a police officer. The officer decides to start his own private law enforcement company and, as start up equipment, drives his police car with all its equipment home with him. Was his actions right or wrong? It seems like theft, but if so, who was he stealing from? And if his actions were wrong, what was the right thing to have done? Who did the police car belong to at 12:01?

[Liberal]

Riboflavin wrote:

I honestly don't know if you're just being a smartass or if you're really getting wooshed by what's being asked.Well, if you don't know, then don't assume. It sounds to me like you're asking if the US descended into anarchy and some people decided to start a libertarian government, what would happen to all that public land? The part I don't understand is why that is a question for me or the libertarian government? Why would I or it have any authority over that public land? It's your hypothetically defunct system that created it. Let your hypothetically defunct system deal with it.

And hey, why do you waste your time arguing about what you really mean, since you can just hire someone to secure those rights today and go straight to Libertaria?Because you would murder me for it.

No, I simply use the common meanings of the terms instead of the somewhat odd definitions you typically use.You mean for libertarianism? Libertarianism is the opposition to coercion.

Your version of "Libertarianism" is better described as "anarcho-capitalism".It is a standard "version" that you can find at nearly any libertarian website. At Libertarian.org, for example, "Human interaction should be peaceful, voluntary, and honest. It is never acceptable to use physical force to achieve your goals. The only time force is acceptable is when you are defending against force."

The Libertarian Party, for example, does not advocate the removal of the nation-state as you do.:D You look to a band of disgruntled Republican politicians for definitive libertarianism? Good lord. So since the Democratic Party doesn't advocate law by referendum, have they redefined democracy?

I'm not really interested in arguing over the basic definitions here, I was merely clarifying what I was saying for the benefit of other people.Bullshit. You just want to pick a fight, and you don't mind trampling on the language to do it.

Do you really want me to dig out cites of the word "libertarian" being used to mean (n) "person in favor of smaller government" or (adj) "system of governemt [sic] which [sic] intereferes with the individual to as small a degree as possible", or to go drag out a dictionary entry?[...shrug...] Whatever. Merriam-Webster says a libertarian is "an advocate of the doctrine of free will". But it also defines survival of the fittest as natural selection. So it appears to be fallible.

I've looked around before and haven't seen the topic covered.I honestly don't know whether you're lying or blind. If you don't like their solutions, tough.

Since protecting property rights is one of the primary purposes of Libertaria's government, asserting that settling disputes over exactly who owns which piece of property would be 'tyranny' makes absolutely no sense to me.It's the only purpose, not the primary one. But it governs only the property of its citizens. If a plot of land is "unowned", it has nothing legitimate to say about it.

You explicitly said that if someone from Libertaria initiated force against someone not in Libertaria (say, by trespassing) that Libertaria would intervene if the victim retaliated in a manner not approved of by Libertaria (say, by shooting the trespasser).I should have known that you would dredge up a Pit pile-on as a citation for your lie. I have no idea what you're talking about, and I didn't see anything like that in your Pit thread.

[Liberal]

Little Nemo wrote:

Suppose the people of the United States completely embraced the ideals of Libertarianism tomorrow. The government (national, state, and local) would all be dissolved. But the problem would then exist of who would take ownership of the property formerly owned by the now non-existent government.Why is that a question for the Libertarians? You're conflating a problem created by the dissolved nation-state with a problem that needs addressing by the new collective. It's like asking what would happen if an asteroid destroyed Washington DC, and addressing the question to Cato.

Since we're just supposing, why can't we suppose that the government auctioned off its property before it dissolved? Or do only you get to suppose your way?

[hawthorne]

LibertarianSince we're just supposing, why can't we suppose that the government auctioned off its property before it dissolved? Or do only you get to suppose your way?Ah, but this is just what almost everyone's talking about here, Lib. This is what I meant when I asked "What's your reform programme?" How do you start? What's the transititional arrangement? What will be recognised as property rights? How do you deal with the baseline problem?

[xenophon41]

originally posted by RexDart:

I don't recognize this "weak-coercion" principle mentioned by Gadarene as a valid concern, because any attempt to eliminate a "weak-coercion" would necessarily entail a strong-coercion, in the ordinary direct sense of the word. If one holds the principles of libertarianism, then one would not care to correct that situation, if indeed it requires correction. The cure would be worse than the disease.
I think perhaps the term "weak-coercion" is misleading. You submit, correctly, that amelioration of "weak-coercion" requires more direct forms of coercion. However, this doesn't neccessarily mean that a "strong" correction would be worse than the "weak" problem in terms of overall effects. Any direct correction (such as EEO laws, for instance) would effectively limit, rather than eliminate, the degree to which individuals with economic advantage can maintain their advantage, while at the same time reducing the means whereby the economically disadvantaged could be coerced.



erislover: Yesterday, I had posted a response to you, but apparently the hamsters were hungry. Basically, I think we need to agree on the definition of "ownership" in this context. What are the parameters by which ownership is determined?

[Liberal]

Hawthorne wrote:

Ah, but this is just what almost everyone's talking about here, Lib. This is what I meant when I asked "What's your reform programme?" How do you start? What's the transititional arrangement? What will be recognised as property rights? How do you deal with the baseline problem?Well, everyone talking about it doesn't signify anything except that everyone is talking about it. You start with a government that offers to secure people's rights. I don't see why "transition" or "reform" is a part of that government's problem.

Once again, you retain an attorney. Why are all the unresolved cases in the system his responsibility while he's working for you? Why do you call it his "baseline problem"?

[hawthorne]

OK, I think I understand that your position is that the courts decide who have title to various things. Fair enough. I guess you're indifferent to whatever initial distribution of rights/ property gets thrown up by this process. I am troubled by it.

[Liberal]

Well, I'm not saying that I wouldn't be troubled by that process. I'm merely saying that it shouldn't be shunted off into the lap of an entity that hardly seems responsible for it. Of course, I don't see why a magistrate claiming all of it is any improvement, other than the lack of uncertainty.

What I think is really being pointed out here, if anything, is a "baseline problem" with authoritarianism. It creates property that is owned by an abstract entity, and when it fails, it leaves a legacy of uncertainty and fear.

[Gadarene]

But the crux of the baseline problem isn't property owned by an abstract entity, Lib. It's property owned by private citizens that has been shaped by the strictures of a heretofore nonlibertarian government. If libertarianism is simply liberty for liberty's sake, without regard for differing outcomes produced by differing circumstances, then it loses a lot of its draw and becomes disconcertingly positivist: liberty is what liberty is; and whether you're freeing someone to starve on the street or to amass greater wealth, the amount of liberty dispensed is equivalent.

How do you propose on escaping--rather than entrenching--any legacy of uncertainty and fear?

More later.

[erislover]

What are the parameters by which ownership is determined?Well, from previous discussions this seems more like a rehash than any actual progress: we both agree this is where society comes in, and with it whatever government is necessary to secure this concept of property (rights).

My point was only to try and show that Libertaria's "property means rights" isn't really more than a paradign shift from almost all practice socialy accepted now, and so moving to libertaria—in this case/context—won't affect much. The motivations for selling, buying, and otherwise exchanging property will be the same.

[Liberal]

Gad

Property owned by private citizens? With all due respect, I feel like I'm being jerked around a bit here. I thought you were talking about "public property" that is suddenly "unowned". Why is there a controversy now about private property?

Regarding equivalency, put aside any question about whether material wealth and happiness are the same. Even if everyone voluntarily redistributed all wealth until everyone shared an equal amount, it wouldn't be long until it was all unequal again due to decision making and blind luck.

I don't fear freedom. If I start out with less than you, I might end up twice as wealthy as you. If I'm free from your coercion, I am quite capable, thank you.

[Gadarene]

Lib:

Property owned by private citizens? With all due respect, I feel like I'm being jerked around a bit here. I thought you were talking about "public property" that is suddenly "unowned". Why is there a controversy now about private property?

I'm sorry if you feel jerked around; it's not my intent. Private property has been my focus this entire thread--look towards the OP and my subsequent posts. It was, I think, Riboflavin who first started talking about turning public roads into private ones--while a valid concern (and one you and I have hashed out before), it wasn't the baseline problem to which I've been referring.

Again, to the extent that liberty qua liberty is a sufficient goal for you--no matter the starting point--then we've articulated our fundamental impasse. I believe that liberty, much like democracy, is instrumental: valuable only insofar as it promotes and secures a better world in which to live.

Even if everyone voluntarily redistributed all wealth until everyone shared an equal amount, it wouldn't be long until it was all unequal again due to decision making and blind luck.

...And due to whatever constraints happened to exist on the market. (Whether insider trading counted as "fraud" in that particular libertarian context, for example.) Yes. Exactly. But the inequality that would result would be more organic, more a product of individuals' capacities, their actions, and their libertied choices. If we could begin a libertarian society with voluntary redistribution--that is, with a neutral baseline--and have things proceed from there however they might, I'd have much less difficulty with libertarianism.

[Liberal]

Gad

Okay. Duly noted. I appreciate your point of view, and I apologize that I confused what you were talking about with what Riboflavin was talking about. God go with you in your search for answers.

[Gadarene]

God go with you in your search for answers.

And with you too, my good-hearted friend. :)


(RexDart, I'm still planning on tackling your post...)

[RexDart]

Gadarene, I'm gonna go ahead and respond a little to the stuff that's been said since last night, but don't let that stop you from tacking my original post if you so desire :) I would like to know which points you found interesting.


posted by Gadarene
Again, to the extent that liberty qua liberty is a sufficient goal for you--no matter the starting point--then we've articulated our fundamental impasse. I believe that liberty, much like democracy, is instrumental: valuable only insofar as it promotes and secures a better world in which to live.

And I just think people have a misconception about the sort of "better" world that is achievable, or ought to be persued. I categorically deny any adherence to concepts like social justice, morality, ethics, right and wrong. To my mind they are all contrivances, used in recent years to foster a tyranny of the majority, to benefit that majority by imposing obligations on minorities at the point of a gun. And I make no moral judgment on that ;)


If libertarianism is simply liberty for liberty's sake, without regard for differing outcomes produced by differing circumstances, then it loses a lot of its draw

To say, as I do, that liberty for its own sake is desirable is not to drain the substance from liberty. Desire is a valid human concept that I do recognize. As I said before, I think it an end worthwhile by its own sake to protect negative rights and refrain from imposing positive obligations (with the caveats in my original post.) People desire that. They also desire alot of other things, but there's a key distinction. Those are the only things that everybody wants and that everybody can have. Protecting negative rights does not impose positive obligations. It's a perfect fit.


posted by Xenophon41
I think perhaps the term "weak-coercion" is misleading. You submit, correctly, that amelioration of "weak-coercion" requires more direct forms of coercion. However, this doesn't neccessarily mean that a "strong" correction would be worse than the "weak" problem in terms of overall effects.

I don't care about the overall effects in the same way you do. "Better" and "worse" only have meaning in the context of individuals and their goals. Any given situation is "better" or "worse" with respect to an individual depending on whether it furthers or frustrates his or her goals. Frustration requires a frustrator. What you describe as "weak-coercion" is really nothing more than a person realizing that the obstacles to his goals vary with respect to his situation as an individual. No person (or group of people acting in concert with one will) is frustrating his goals through artifice or force, his goals are simply more difficult to achieve due to his natural position. Since overriding that natural position would require direct coercion, a frustration of others' goals through artifice and force, I believe it is rationally preferable to refrain from doing so.

[Little Nemo]

I apologize for any confusion I may have contributed to. Gadarene's original post clearly was talking about the issue of personal property. Other posters, including myself, shifted over to the topic of government owned property. In our defense, I'll say that the topics are related, that opinions on one topic would have bearing on the other, and (in my opinion) the issue of government property would pose greater difficulties.

Libertarian offered a possible solution to the issue of divesting the government of property; auction off all government property to private ownership before the dissolution of the government. Obviously this wouldn't be a complete solution as it would just leave the government in ownership of a different asset, but presumedly the money from the auction could be equitably distributed to all former citizens.

But this leads back to Gadarene's original discussion. The total value of all government property far exceeds the amount of ready cash in hand, so the property would inevitably be sold for far less than its "book value". Even so, most people would not have the assets to make signifigant purchases. What you'd end up with is a few people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett spending a few hundred millions to buy property that was actually worth tens of billions. This would be the epitomy of the problem Gadarene was pointing out.

[Riboflavin]

Originally posted by Libertarian
[QUOTE] It sounds to me like you're asking if the US descended into anarchy and some people decided to start a libertarian government, what would happen to all that public land?

I'm asking how you go from the situation now, with the US possessing lots of public land, to the situation you envision in Libertaria. If that requires the US to descend into anarchy, fine, but that's not something I'm stipulating.

The part I don't understand is why that is a question for me or the libertarian government?

It's a question for you if you want to convince people that moving to Libertarianism would be a good thing. It's a question for the hypothetical libertarian government because it would be one of the issues that decided between said Libertarian government actually forming or just remaining an idea that some fringe groups talk about at great length.

(On why he doesn't just hire a Libertarian Government now) Because you would murder me for it.

Jesus H Christ on a popsicle stick, why would I want to murder you? What prompted you to make that accusation? Either you've got some strange persecution complex going on, or you're using 'you' as shorthand for something else.

It is a standard "version" that you can find at nearly any libertarian website. At Libertarian.org, for example, "Human interaction should be peaceful, voluntary, and honest. It is never acceptable to use physical force to achieve your goals. The only time force is acceptable is when you are defending against force."

I'm sorry, I must have just plain missed the part of that quote that calls for the dissolution of the nation-state and a switch over to the individual court systems you advocate. Could you point it out to me? I did notice comments on libertarian.org like "The ideas that we call libertarian (e.g., individual liberty, constitutionally-limited government, the rule of law, private property, and free markets)" and the 'next page' on the intro which heaps praise upon the founding fathers of the US.

The really damning, point, though, is that on http://www.libertarian.org/movement.html , the very web site you quoted says "Although a majority of libertarians do believe that a limited government is probably necessary to carry out certain essential functions such as criminal justice and national defense, individualist anarchists (or "anarcho-capitalists") believe there is nothing that cannot be done (or even done better) voluntarily." I think it's pretty damn clear that the details of your version of libertarianism (in particular, the 'dissolve the nation-state' bit)

Bullshit. You just want to pick a fight, and you don't mind trampling on the language to do it.

Bullshit. You want to pretend that the word 'libertarian' is not used in the manner which it is used, and don't mind making pointless side arguments to do it. If I'm trampling on the language, why does the page YOU CITED say that the majority of libertarians believe that a state is neccesary and that only a minority of the group, termed individualist anarchists (or "anarcho-capitalists" - remember when I used that term earlier?) call for all government functions to be handled by private companies.

I honestly don't know whether you're lying or blind. If you don't like their solutions, tough.

Their 'solutions' amount to 'just sell it off to someone in some manner', as I told you in the previous post - I think you're the one that's lying or blind. That's not a plan from moving from here to there, that's an afterthought tossed into the paper for completeness - and I feel safe in calling something mentioned only twice in a long paper an 'afterthought'.

It's the only purpose, not the primary one.

I apologize for using a word in its normal sense, I am aware of the Libertarian concept that all rights are property rights despite the fact that the term normally refers only to physical property and not individual rights.

But it governs only the property of its citizens. If a plot of land is "unowned", it has nothing legitimate to say about it.

I doubt you'll deign to answer, since you haven't yet, but HOW DOES IT DETERMINE WHAT IS THE PROPERTY OF ITS CITIZENS? Do I just walk in and lay claim to anything I want?

I should have known that you would dredge up a Pit pile-on as a citation for your lie. I have no idea what you're talking about, and I didn't see anything like that in your Pit thread.

"I honestly don't know whether you're lying or blind." The pit thread in question involved a long debate with no flaming aside from some jokes from people who were annoyed that a GD thread was in the pit. Rather than cite it again, I'll ressurect the argument in another thread since I've done enough hijacking on this one. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=141994