Ask the Libertarian Objectivist Christian

[Liberal]

I suppose it was inevitable.

[Ike Witt]

Okay, what do you stand for?

[pldennison]

What color is air? :P

[Esprix]

What is the air speed velocity... Oh, never mind!

:wally

Esprix

[jmullaney]

What about economy of scale, dang it???

[oldscratch]

Do you actually tell people that you are a libertarian objectivist christian? Or do you just say libertarian. Or just say christian. Cause LOC is a pretty big mouthfull. It's like if I told people I was a neo-sorelian with leninist tendencies. It gets to be a bit much.

Also, what is your opinion of ann rand as both a person and a thinker. How about alan greenspan.
Thanks.

[waterj2]

OK, I know that you don't believe that it's right to ever force someone to help someone else out, as you are a libertarian, and I've read quite a few of your posts with great interest. I'm guessing that as a Christian, you do help others out, and believe that it is the correct thing to do. What I'm wondering is whether you believe that you are doing so to please your God or for the pure selfish (in the objectivist sense of the word) joy you get from it.

This promises to be an interesting thread, one that I'll follow, being interested interested in objectivism and a libertarian. Personally, I'm an atheist, and my personal philosophy is somewhat of a mix between objectivism and Taoism. I read a post of yours talking about your belief that Jesus is the ultimate libertarian. I think that would be relevant to include in this thread. Someday, I plan to start a "The Tao of Libertarianism" thread.

[Liberal]

Adam Yax

Okay, what do you stand for?

Sometimes for hours.

Phil

What color is air?

Please be more specific.

JMullaney

What about economy of scale, dang it???

Try here (http://www.acmescale.com/).

---

OldScratch and WaterJ2 will follow:

[jmullaney]

no, no, I told you! We're an anarchosydicalist commune!

[Liberal]

OldScratch

Do you actually tell people that you are a libertarian objectivist christian? Or do you just say libertarian. Or just say christian. Cause LOC is a pretty big mouthfull. It's like if I told people I was a neo-sorelian with leninist tendencies. It gets to be a bit much.

Actually, I do. As a very high Melancholy, I find it necessary to be as specific and accurate as possible with the most efficient expression. For me, the three come together to make one. It is a gestalt.

Also, what is your opinion of [Ayn Rand] as both a person and a thinker.

I suspect that, as a person, she was dishonest. Or at least deluded. And that was even before reading about all the controversy over her. I suspected that when I saw that, at the end of Atlas Shrugged, she left Eddie behind. And despite the protestations to the contrary by her psycho-phants, that was a really shitty thing to do.

I suspect that her personal dishonesty was the cause of her futile efforts, as a thinker, to introduce to her philosophy (which I have cleaned up and adopted) unnecessary entities like atheism and proof that A is A. The latter is axiomatic and the former is irrelevant.

How about alan greenspan.

Not sure what to think about him either way. He seems to talk the talk of a fiscal conservative, yet why has he not worked toward elimination of the Federal Reserve? But then again, maybe he is, and I just don't know about it.

JMullaney

no, no, I told you! We're an [anarchosyndicalist] commune!

Oh, well, why didn't you say so? In that case I can state categorically.

---

WaterJ2 will follow

[vanilla]

Whats a libertarian?
Can they be objective?
are they for liberating what?
why is chocolate brown?

[August West]

her philosophy (which I have cleaned up and adopted) unnecessary entities like atheism and proof that A is A.
As an Objectivist, I strongly protest your self-characterization as an Objectivist. If you have merely taken what you like out of the philosophy and abandoned the fundamentals, you have no cause in calling yourself an Objectivist. Perhaps you could come up with a different name for your philosophy, but please stop saying that you are an Objectivist, because you are not. Thank You.

[Liberal]

WaterJ2

OK, I know that you don't believe that it's right to ever force someone to help someone else out, as you are a libertarian, and I've read quite a few of your posts with great interest.

Well, "ever" is awfully broad, as is "help someone else out". For example, I would advocate forcing A, who has abridged the rights of B, to restore B's rights, thereby, in a way, I suppose, helping out B.

[/i]I'm guessing that as a Christian, you do help others out, and believe that it is the correct thing to do.[/i]

Sometimes it is the correct thing to do, and sometimes it isn't. I try (failing miserably) to love, and when I love, I am doing the "correct thing". Good deeds come solely from good hearts.

What I'm wondering is whether you believe that you are doing so to please your God or for the pure selfish (in the objectivist sense of the word) joy you get from it.

Actually, that is not how I interpret selfishness (in the objectivist sense of the word). I interpret it as focusing on my self-interest. As it happens, when I do, I find that redirecting my focus to God is even more in my self-interest. He is the owner of the heavens and the earth. He gave me my life and therefore my rights. He breathed His Spirit into my heart and gave me faith in Him. It doesn't take a rocket scientist, knowing these things, to apprehend how best to order his priorities.

I want to please our God because (1) He is the Proprietor of all that exists [Libertarianism] (2) It is in my self-interest to please Him [Objectivism] and (3) We love One Another [Christianity].

This promises to be an interesting thread, one that I'll follow, being interested [in] objectivism and a libertarian.

Feel free to participate or lurk as you please.

Personally, I'm an atheist...

I won't hold your religion against you.

...and my personal philosophy is somewhat of a mix between objectivism and Taoism.

That is an amazing

I read a post of yours talking about your belief that Jesus is the ultimate libertarian. I think that would be relevant to include in this thread.

Actually, the consumate libertarian. He never initiated force or fraud, but rose to defend His house when trespassers and vandals despoiled it.

Someday, I plan to start a "The Tao of Libertarianism" thread.

but the Libertarianism part is, well, like I already said about the In any case, I look forward to it.

[Gilligan]

Libertarian
You weren't always a libertarian. What was the biggest philosophical obstacle you had to overcome in your "conversion"? Do you consider it to have been a conversion, or more a matter of recognizing what you had already believed but hadn't identified as such? Really, that question could be asked about all three of your descriptive terms.

I've noticed lately you referring to yourself and another poster or two by personality types based on the "four temperaments" or "humours." What's up with that?

waterj2
I would also be interested in your view of the Tao of Libertarianism. I see a libertarian political philosophy pretty clearly stated in chapters 57 to 59 of the Daodejing; would you agree?

[Liberal]

Vanilla

[/i][What's] a libertarian? [/i]

A person who opposes the initiation of force or fraud.

Can they be objective?

Only if they adopt God's frame of reference.

are they for liberating what?

People.

why is chocolate brown?

Not all chocolate is brown.

ChiefWahoo

As an Objectivist, I strongly protest your self-characterization as an Objectivist.

While your protest is duly noted, you will understand that your being an Objectivist confers upon you no mystical authority over me.

If you have merely taken what you like out of the philosophy and abandoned the fundamentals, you have no cause in calling yourself an Objectivist.

What I have done is the opposite. I have retained the fundamentals while discarding the ornamentals.

Perhaps you could come up with a different name for your philosophy, but please stop saying that you are an Objectivist, because you are not.

My philosophy is Libertarian Objectivist Christianity. I regret that you are unhappy with the name.

Gilligan

You weren't always a libertarian. What was the biggest philosophical obstacle you had to overcome in your "conversion"? Do you consider it to have been a conversion, or more a matter of recognizing what you had already believed but hadn't identified as such? Really, that question could be asked about all three of your descriptive terms.

For Libertarianism, I had to realize that neither God nor nature had conferred upon any man (including me) any authority over the lives and property of other men, and that God or nature had conferred authority upon all men (including me) over their own.

For Christianity, I had to freely and willingly lay down my own life. It seemed a crazy notion to me, until I saw that Jesus said, "Before Abraham was born, I am."

For Objectivism, I "converted" when I realized that my own self-interest coincides with God's, that He (and He alone) is objectively real, and that rationalizing away my own experience was dishonest. If We are One — and Jesus says that We are — then I need to align my own priorities with His.

I've noticed lately you referring to yourself and another poster or two by personality types based on the "four temperaments" or "humours." What's up with that?

I am given to understand (though I have been unable to verify this) that the four temperaments were conceived by Hippocrates. They are the Sanguine, the Choleric, the Phlegmatic, and the Melancholoy.

I tracked down a site (http://www.hippy.freeserve.co.uk/profileq.htm) that, more or less, can evaluate your temperament (they wrongly call it "personality").

[2sense]

Hello Libertarian,

vanila asked: "Whats a libertarian?"
You answered: "A person who opposes the initiation of force or fraud. "

I oppose the initiation of force or fraud, and yet I am not a libertarian.

Do you believe that your answer was helpful for vanila?
What is your purpose in starting this thread?

[manhattan]

I’ve got a different kind of question for you. Feel free to ignore it if it is too personal or if you think I’m trolling (I’m not).

You have a well-defined philosophy of how you view the world, which philosophy includes avoiding expedience.

But, broadly speaking, how do you live your life? Do you eschew banks because of high coercion on them and you by the Feds, or do you resign yourself to "what is" until the "what can be" becomes? Do you vote if there isn’t a Libertarian (or libertarian) candidate, or would voting for the Democrat or Republican least far from your views simply make you a perpetuator of a system you see as wrong? The myriad laws of our country that are clearly coercive and do not even purport to protect against coercion; do you feel bound by them? Do you obey them even if you don’t feel personally bound? Do you ever say, "You know what? Today my rights have the advantage, and I’m going to cut that a**hole off and beat him to the parking space!"

OK, the last bit was a little bit facetious, but I hope you can see what I’m getting at.

[avalongod]

quote:

~~~I am given to understand (though I have been unable to verify this) that the four temperaments were conceived by Hippocrates. They are the Sanguine, the Choleric, the Phlegmatic, and the Melancholoy.

They come from the Hippocratic tradition. Tough to ascertain whether Hippocrates himself wrote them (often students took their master's name in the Greek tradition).

from 2Sense:

quote:

~~~vanila asked: "Whats a libertarian?"
You answered: "A person who opposes the initiation of force or fraud. "
I oppose the initiation of force or fraud, and yet I am not a libertarian.
Do you believe that your answer was helpful for vanila?

From what (little) I know of Libertarian, I do think Libertarian summed up the philosophy in the $.50 version. While 2Sense may oppose force or fraud (like many of us do) I get the impression that this theme is THE CENTRAL THEME of their philosophy, whereas it might not necessarily be for the rest of us. Please correct me if I am wrong. I would agree with 2Sense that a more detailed definition might be helpful.

[Baraqiyal]

To your knowledge, has the United States has ever existed in a Libertarian context? If so, in what era and what were the consequences?

Do you believe that the bible is the word of God?

[djwalker]

Gee I thought I was the only one...

Though I'm not an objectivist, I am a libertarian Catholic, which, as you can imagine, carries with it a certain amount of cognitive dissonance. I was libertarian before I was Catholic, so there have been adjustments. Especially in the area of libertarian free market solutions to social problems, (e.g. poverty). vs. Catholic Social Teachings (e.g., preferential option for the poor).

Many libs (especially Randian Objectivists) see poverty as a non-problem, merely the natural consequences of the inequality of human intellect/ambition/breeding. Its hard to square that with the desire to follow Jesus.

Have you had similar conflicts? Which were you first, libertarian or Christian.

[waterj2]

Well, you did nail down the questions I was interested in. Sorry for not being clear with the questions, but I figured they would give the answers I was looking for. Thank you. I find your views on Christianity to be very intriguing.

Could you clarify this statement:
"but the Libertarianism part is, well, like I already said about the In any case, I look forward to it."

I think that something got eaten out of the middle of that statement. As for Taoism and Objectivism, they do share much, as the primary tenet of Taoism is pretty much to do what feels natural, and avoid violence. And Gilligan, I think I know what you're referring to, but I don't seem to have my copy of the Tao Te Ching (Call me old-fashioned, but I like Wade-Giles better than Pinyin) on hand, which is one reason that thread is still in the future.

2Sense, I'm not going to presume to speak for Lib, but if your philosophy holds that society does not have the right to initiate force or fraud (which includes things such as taxation) against an individual to benefit society as a whole or other individuals, then IMO you are pretty much a libertarian. I see it as a matter of where you want to distinguish between the rights of individuals and the rights of society. A libertarian considers the rights of the individual to be inviolable, and rights assigned to society to be subordinated to them.

I can tell I'm going to enjoy this thread.

[2sense]

I assure you that I am not on the road to Libertarianism.
What I understand of this philosophy frightens me, much in the same way that I assume that my belief that a strong central government could be held responsible to the people would frighten you.

It is my understanding that Libertarianism does not hold the rights of the individual to be inviolable. It allows for the violation of the right to liberty of murderers.

Thanks for the reply though.

[avalongod]

To Lib or Water or anyone for that matter:

Am I to understand then that Libertarianism rejects what Beccaria would refer to as a "social contract" namely that individuals give up some of their liberty for the greater social welfare?

[vanilla]

Not all chocolate is brown/ Yes, it is. White chocolate is not true chocolate, just butter fat with sugar.
So there mr. Lib!

[waterj2]

People have the right to be free of initiated force and fraud. Murderers are the initiators of force, and the retaliatory force of punishing them is not a violation of their rights.

If murderers were unpunished, then it would be impossible to say that your right to be free of murder exists. This is why Lib uses the phrase "peaceful honest people" so often. While it's a nice phrase, I'm going to try to explain this without it. This is rather simplified, so don't fault me for my lack of detail in logically inferring each step from the previous.

First, let's look at what rights are. Rights are really the obligations of others. What it means when one person has a right is that others are obligated to act in accordance with that right. If I have the right to life, you are obligated not to kill me.

People exist as individuals, so we believe that they have innate individual rights. Lib and the framers of the Declaration of Independence credit God with their existence, I credit nature.

Life is the most basic right. Everyone must be guaranteed the right to not be killed. We cannot guarantee that each person will lead a happy and healthy life. We can provide that they are allowed to pursue that end as they see fit, provided they are not infringing on the rights of others.

We believe that one cannot freely pursue his (assume her as well from now on) own life if his life is threatened, or if he is lied to. Therefore, force (including threats of force) and fraud are outlawed.

After this, we see the granting of additional rights as incurring obligations on others that would not allow them to freely pursue their own happiness.

And no, the thought of living in a country with a strong central government doesn't scare me, I've gotten used to it. I'll leave the trickier questions to Lib, and this one as well, if he wants to clarify/correct/disagree, etc.

[2sense]

People have the right to be free of initiated force and fraud. Murderers are the initiators of force, and the retaliatory force of punishing them is not a violation of their rights.


I am willing to bow to your superior understanding of the definition of rights within the Libertarian philosophy; however, since I reject that philosophy its definitions do not apply to me. Nor do they apply to any other non-libertarian. So outside of the Libertarian context, I say that this quote is false. The murderer has not consented to being confined, therefore his rights have been abridged.

I do not say that this is unjustified or immoral, I believe that it is necessary. I am merely pointing out that rights are and should be abridged in certain situations.
-

On a side note:
While I disagree with you about the source of rights, I believe that they are bestowed by society, I do think that you state the definition of them very eloquently. I have been looking for the definition of yours that Smartass is fond of quoting for a while now. I don't suppose you remember where I could find it, do you?

On another side note:
I promise that I will drop this after this comment, but I would not characterize the Federal government as a strong central government.

[Liberal]

2sense

vanila asked: "Whats a libertarian?" You answered: "A person who opposes the initiation of force or fraud. " I oppose the initiation of force or fraud, and yet I am not a libertarian.

Congratulations. That makes you a living paradox.

"Libertarians are, by definition, those who oppose the initiation of force." — Understanding the Libertarian Philosophy (http://www.libertarian.org/libphilo.html) by Joseph Knight.

Do you believe that your answer was helpful for vanila?

What I believe in that regard is irrelevant. Were I you, I would more concern myself with what he believes is helpful to him.

What is your purpose in starting this thread?

I can see where that might be hard to figure out.

My purpose for starting "Ask the Libertarian Objectivist Christian" is to answer questions people might have for Libertarian Objectivist Christians.

[Liberal]

Manny

I’ve got a different kind of question for you. Feel free to ignore it if it is too personal or if you think I’m trolling (I’m not).

I know that you dislike what you understand of my philosophy, but I also know that you do not dislike me personally. It would never even cross my mind that you might be trolling.

You have a well-defined philosophy of how you view the world, which philosophy includes avoiding expedience.

Not necessarily. It avoids the employment of any arbitrary means for the end of expedience. In other words, a means is not justified simply because it might bring about an expedient end. However, my philosophy does not preclude an expedient means that is also ethical.

But, broadly speaking, how do you live your life?

Well, broadly speaking, I live it like most people live their lives, I think. Day to day.

Do you eschew banks because of high coercion on them and you by the Feds, or do you resign yourself to "what is" until the "what can be" becomes?

Are you asking whether I play God? No, I do not.

Do you vote if there isn’t a Libertarian (or libertarian) candidate, or would voting for the Democrat or Republican least far from your views simply make you a perpetuator of a system you see as wrong?

As I have said before, I see nothing wrong with any system, so long as it operates in a libertarian context. When I vote, I vote for candidates who believe that peaceful honest people ought to be free to pursue their own happiness in their own way.

The myriad laws of our country that are clearly coercive and do not even purport to protect against coercion; do you feel bound by them?

Of course not.

Do you obey them even if you don’t feel personally bound?

It is not the laws that I fear, but the guns.

Do you ever say, "You know what? Today my rights have the advantage, and I’m going to cut that a**hole off and beat him to the parking space!"

No, I never do.

OK, the last bit was a little bit facetious, but I hope you can see what I’m getting at.

I'm afraid I can't.

[Liberal]

Avalongod

They come from the Hippocratic tradition. Tough to ascertain whether Hippocrates himself wrote them (often students took their master's name in the Greek tradition).

Thank you.

Baraqiyal

To your knowledge, has the United States has ever existed in a Libertarian context? If so, in what era and what were the consequences?

Whenever peaceful honest people have been left free to pursue their own happiness in their own way, there has been a libertarian context. I cannot recall knowing of any such time.

Do you believe that the bible is the word of God?

I believe that the Word of God is bound by no book. The Word of God is alive.

[Liberal]

DJWalker

Many libs A(especially Randian Objectivists) see poverty as a non-problem, merely the natural consequences of the inequality of human intellect/ambition/breeding. B[It's] hard to square that with the desire to follow Jesus.

A

I'm not sure that believers in Rand can be Libertarians. She was very strict with her worshippers that they toe the line precisely as she commanded. And she despised libertarianism, in particular the notion of noncoercion as axiomatic, derisively calling libertarians "hippies of the right".

B

Jesus did not speak to "society", but to individuals, in particular their hearts. He never called upon government to make a law, but rather, called upon men to make a decision.

If you wish to feed the poor, then feed them (as I do). But you have no authority over other men who are peaceful and honest, and must leave them to decide for themselves whether they will love their fellow man.

There are matters moral and matters civic. Jesus is concerned about the former. When you refuse to help the poor, you must answer to God, not government.

Have you had similar conflicts?

No. There are no conflicts unless you mix the metaphors. Let Caesar handle what is Caesar's, and let God handle what is God's. Remember that even Caesar will answer to Him.

Which were you first, libertarian or Christian.

A Christian. By a nose.

[Liberal]

WaterJ2

Could you clarify this statement: "but the Libertarianism part is, well, like I already said about the In any case, I look forward to it. I think that something got eaten out of the middle of that statement."

One cannot speak about the unspeakable.

One cannot know the unknowable.

A butterfly trapped in a closed fist is no longer a butterfly.

Butterflies fly.

AvalonGod

Am I to understand then that Libertarianism rejects what Beccaria would refer to as a "social contract" namely that individuals give up some of their liberty for the greater social welfare?

No, you are not. Not summarily, at least.

Individuals who are peaceful and honest may freely and willingly give up whatever they wish, including the rights that God or nature gave to them, to form social contracts. But forcing people into contracts against their will is tyranny.

[Liberal]

Vanilla

Not all chocolate is brown/ Yes, it is. White chocolate is not true chocolate, just butter fat with sugar. So there mr. Lib!

You did not ask about "true chocolate" versus "white chocolate". You asked about "chocolate", a word which you yourself combine with the word "white" to signify butterfat and sugar.

Stop equivocating and sit down.

(Please let 2Sense know whether this answer was helpful to you.)

[Gilligan]

Lib
Well, I took the test and answered honestly, and learned that I have a Phlegmatic Personailty (sic). The strength summary was quite accurate, but the weakness summary seemed to directly contradict it.

2sense
My own objection isn't to strong government but big government; I think many libs would agree. You and I differ on the purpose of government; you see its purpose as solving problems, and I see it as protection from force.

I think we might agree, though, on the source of rights, although I wouldn't phrase it the way you did. Unlike waterj2 and Lib, I don't believe rights are natural, but a human invention. But I wouldn't say "bestowed by society" but rather, "agreed upon by people." And I think the particular rights that people should agree on are those that most other libs say are given by nature or God.

[vandal]

1. I'm a bit unclear as to how taxation works in a libertarian society. Is it voluntary? Or is it just non-existant? If it is the latter, how does the government fund policing, fire protection, and defense?

2. Can one be a libertarian and an athiest at the same time?

[Liberal]

Gilligan

How interesting! My best friend is a Phleg. The link I gave you hardly does justice to the concept, but hopefully, it gave you some idea.

For a more in-depth understanding, I recommend Why You Act The Way You Do (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0842382127/o/qid=961677851/sr=8-1/ref=aps_sr_b_1_3/103-3919617-8417452) by Tim LaHaye. It has a fairly strong religious slant, but you can filter through the fluff to get to the meat.

Vandal

1. I'm a bit unclear as to how taxation works in a libertarian society. Is it voluntary? Or is it just non-existant? If it is the latter, how does the government fund policing, fire protection, and defense?

Let us first define our terms.

Given that a tax is a payment for services made under force or threat of force, and that a fee is a voluntary payment for services, a libertarian society cannot, by definition, tax people, but it may contract to secure their rights in exchange for a fee. It is then up to individuals to decide whether and how they will be governed.

2. Can one be a libertarian and an athiest at the same time?

Yes. Libertarianism is concerned with politics. Atheism is concerned with religion.

[vandal]

...a libertarian society cannot, by definition, tax people, but it may contract to secure their rights in exchange for a fee. It is then up to individuals to decide whether and how they will be governed.

I interpret this as being those who wish to be governed are goverened. That is, if one would like police protection, fire protection, and basic defense, one must contribute something to the government that provides this to them.

So if an individual chooses not to contribute anything, are they still warranted the aforementioned?

[hawthorne]

Hi Lib

[As you have seen elsewhere I am interested in libertarianism but I'm not one.]

I am confused by the use of the term "objectivism". I personally think Rand was confused about this (having read what you have already had to say I know this won't annoy you as such).

In my profession (economics) libertarians tend to be radical subjectivists. That is personal choice is beyond value criticism in that only an individual can know their own preferences and that their subjective evaluation of the world is what counts (I'm thinking GS Shackle, FA von Hayek and J Buchanan here).

Obviously you do not feel constrained by Rand's dogma, but you hang on to the term. Why? In your system, aren't you saying that the individual's subjective knowledge of god's spirit/ essence/ plan is what's important? Isn't this the opposite of objective?

picmr

[Tymp]

Dear Mr. Libertarian Objectivist Christian


You have stated the following:
As I have said before, I see nothing wrong with any system, so long as it operates in a libertarian context. When I vote, I vote for candidates who believe that peaceful honest people ought to be free to pursue their own happiness in their own way.

When there is not a libertarian candidate available and you vote for the next best thing, do you find yourself supporting one non-libertarian political party more than another? How can you be certain that, although you are voting for a candidate based on his merits as an individual thinker, you are not supporting the agenda of his political party that might be in conflict with your ideals?

[Liberal]

Vandal

I interpret [...a libertarian society cannot, by definition, tax people, but it may contract to secure their rights in exchange for a fee. It is then up to individuals to decide whether and how they will be governed...] as being those who wish to be governed are [governed].

You are exactly right.

God or nature gave you your rights, i.e. property, beginning with the right to life. You are therefore entitled by either your Creator or natural law to give or withhold your consent to be governed as you wish.

The concept is not new, though it has not, as yet, been implemented within any context of which I am aware. The following, expressing exactly the theme you've grasped, is from a very old document (http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/declaration/decmain.html):

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

That is, if one would like police protection, fire protection, and basic defense, one must contribute something to the government that provides this to them.

Well, a libertarian government exists solely to secure the rights of its citizens. Therefore, only two (police and defense) of the three services you mention would apply, though in a combined form, since the citizens' rights must be secured from whatever arbitrary coercion source, whether a lone thug or a tyrannical nation-state.

So if an individual chooses not to contribute anything, are they still warranted the aforementioned?

No.

But it is not a matter of "contributing", at least not in the smarmy modern sense. It is a matter of getting what you pay for and paying for what you get. There is no ethical basis, libertarianly speaking, upon which to force a peaceful honest man to be governed against his will. Nor is there any such basis for claiming the rights and property of other men.

[Kimstu]

vanila asked: "Whats a libertarian?" You answered: "A person who opposes the initiation of force or fraud. " I oppose the initiation of force or fraud, and yet I am not a libertarian.

Congratulations. That makes you a living paradox.

"Libertarians are, by definition, those who oppose the initiation of force." — Understanding the Libertarian Philosophy by Joseph Knight.


Silly. I could compose a statement that said "SDMB members are, by definition, those who have purple feet." If a Doper writes in to deny that he or she has purple feet, then maybe he or she is a "living paradox"---or maybe I just need a better definition.

And picmr, my cynical take (not that anybody asked me, of course!) on the use of the word "objectivism" by Randians and neoRandians despite its epistemological inappropriateness is that it just sounded nicely "rational" and "scientific."

Kimstu

[hawthorne]

Kimstu said:
And picmr, my cynical take (not that anybody asked me, of course!) on the use of the word "objectivism" by Randians and neoRandians despite its epistemological inappropriateness is that it just sounded nicely "rational" and "scientific."

That's what I thought too, but our Libertarian is no fool, so maybe there is a good reason for it.

picmr

[Liberal]

Picmr

I am confused by the use of the term "objectivism". I personally think Rand was confused about this (having read what you have already had to say I know this won't annoy you as such).

I don't think Rand was confused, per se, although she wiggled an awful lot.

In my profession (economics) libertarians tend to be radical subjectivists. That is personal choice is beyond value criticism in that only an individual can know their own preferences and that their subjective evaluation of the world is what counts (I'm thinking GS Shackle, FA von Hayek and J Buchanan here).

The economic theory most compatible with libertarianism, in my opinion, is that of the Austrian School (http://www.qjae.org/), particularly well articulated by Ludwig von Mises (http://www.mises.org/) in his masterwork, Human Action (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0930073185/o/qid=961692061/sr=8-1/ref=aps_sr_b_1_3/103-3919617-8417452). Hayek, of course, was a student of Mises.

That said, a society may be communist in a libertarian context, so long as all are volunteers, though implementation might be problematic.

Obviously you do not feel constrained by Rand's dogma, but you hang on to the term. Why?

Because of the philosophy's metaphysic, objective reality.

In your system (sic), aren't you saying that the individual's subjective knowledge of god's spirit/ essence/ plan is what's important? Isn't this the opposite of objective?

Well, that's putting the cart before the horse, otherwise known as a wrong direction fallacy (http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/wrong.htm).

What's important, of course, is God's perspective, or frame of reference. It behooves us to coincide ours with His. Ours is indeed subjective. But His is Absolutely Objective. Knowledge, per se, is irrelevant in matters of the Spirit.

God cannot be "known" by the brain, but only by the heart.

By the way, the word "system" makes me cringe a bit. Libertarianism is not a system, but a context in which any arbitrary system composed of volunteers can work.

[vanilla]

I oppose taking chocolate by force.
But seriously, you said you oppose the Initiation of force. So what if force has already been started? Do you then agree to its use if you weren't the one who "inititated" it?
Are Libertarians pacifists?
Can they be atheists?
I will go check out a link to get more information and will be back with more questions. This is interesting.
Can one be a libertarian and not know it?

[hawthorne]

Thanks, you have answered my question. Rather elegantly.

Perhaps "philosophical schema" would have been better than "system" in my question.

My question should then be directed to athiest Objectivists, who do not have recourse to your answer. (Note, not atheist libertarians in general)

Mind you, from my point of view calling something "obective" based on invisible means of support is really putting the cart before the horse.

picmr

[Liberal]

Tymp

When there is not a libertarian candidate available and you vote for the next best thing, do you find yourself supporting one non-libertarian political party more than another?

I do not vote for the "next best thing", nor do I support any particular political party, including the Libertarian Party. Statists and tyrants can and do rear their ugly heads from practically everywhere.

How can you be certain that, although you are voting for a candidate based on his merits as an individual thinker, you are not supporting the agenda of his political party that might be in conflict with your ideals?

I cannot. That's one of the reasons I don't like majoritarianism. I prefer a monarchy, operating in a libertarian context, of course.

[Liberal]

Kimstu

vanila asked: "Whats a libertarian?" You answered: "A person who opposes the initiation of force or fraud. " I oppose the initiation of force or fraud, and yet I am not a libertarian. Congratulations. That makes you a living paradox. "Libertarians are, by definition, those who oppose the initiation of force." — Understanding the Libertarian Philosophy by Joseph Knight.Silly. I could compose a statement that said "SDMB members are, by definition, those who have purple feet." If a Doper writes in to deny that he or she has purple feet, then maybe he or she is a "living paradox"---or maybe I just need a better definition.

Let A be a libertarian. Let B be a person who opposes the initiation of force. Let A1 be a Doper. Let B1 be a person with purple feet.

Libertarian asserts: A <==> B.

Vanilla asserts: B =/=> A.

You assert: (A1 <==> B2) AND (Not(B1) ==> A)

I'm afraid there's no analogy here.

[Liberal]

Vanilla

I oppose taking chocolate by force.

Unless, of course, it is yours and has been stolen.

But seriously, you said you oppose the Initiation of force. So what if force has already been started? Do you then agree to its use if you weren't the one who "inititated" it?

Yes.

As Will Smith's character said to the giant cockroach in Men in Black, "Don't staht nuttin', won't be nuttin'"

Are Libertarians pacifists?

Some are. Some aren't.

See the excellent brief essay, Understanding the Libertarian Philosophy (http://www.libertarian.org/libphilo.html) where you'll find this:

---

"Libertarians are, by definition, those who oppose the initiation of force.

Some Libertarians are also pacifists. They decline the use of any force. Libertarianism is broad enough to encompass pacifists. All oppose the initiation of force.

Some Libertarians are militant. They have no qualms about defensive and/or retaliatory force. Libertarianism is broad enough to encompass militants. The common factor is opposition to the initiation of force.

Opposition to the initiation of force (the NON-COERCION PRINCIPLE) is the essence of the libertarian philosophy."

---

As you can see. initiation is a key term.

Can they be atheists?

Yes.

I will go check out a link to get more information and will be back with more questions. This is interesting.

After Joseph Knight's essay, you might take a look at Free-Market (http://www.free-market.net) from which you can find thousands of articles, books, publications, essays, reports, and links.

Can one be a libertarian and not know it?

Yes, of course, just as one can be a solipsist and not realize it until he stumbles across a definition of solipsism.

[Tymp]

Wow!

You mean you’re really a Libertarian Objectivist Christian Monarchist? How many people are there who share with you this very specific social philosophy? I’m just wondering if there is a LOCM Movement and what their conventions are like.

[Liberal]

Kimstu

ERRATUM

You assert: (A1 <==> B2) AND (Not(B1) ==> A)

ought to have read

You assert: (A1 <==> B1) AND (Not(B1) ==> A)

[Liberal]

Tymp

You mean you’re really a Libertarian Objectivist Christian Monarchist? How many people are there who share with you this very specific social philosophy? I’m just wondering if there is a LOCM Movement and what their conventions are like.

Sometimes, our convention is in the same city with the Black Jewish Lesbian Republicans. You can imagine the chaos.

But honestly, I am not a Monarchist in the sense that I am a Libertarian Objectivist Christian. I simply prefer a monarchy over other government forms with some reluctance.

[Tymp]

My Dear Libertarian Objectivist Christian Monarchist,

How would a ruling body be established in a libertarian monarchy? How would the authority of that monarch be maintained?

You may safely consider my mind thoroughly boggled as I attempt to imagine this scenario.

[Liberal]

Tymp

How would a ruling body be established in a libertarian monarchy?

Ruling body?! How delightful!

Libertarian governments do not "rule" in the sense that word might easily imply. They merely secure the rights of their citizens.

How would the authority of that monarch be maintained?

The authority for any legitimate government is derived solely from the consent of those it governs. If you have contracted with a libertairan government of any form to secure your rights, you may, upon completion of your contractual obligations, withdraw your consent.

You may safely consider my mind thoroughly boggled as I attempt to imagine this scenario.

I understand. Sometimes, a prerequisite to learning new things is to cast off a priori assumptions. Just because a governor is descended from some other governor does not necessarily imply that you must bow or scrape. In a libertarian monarchy, the king or queen is your servant.

Remember, any government form can operate in a libertarian context, so long as what it is doing is securing rights, that is, protecting its citizens from initiated force and fraud (heretofore to be called "coercion").

[Kimstu]

Libertarian:


Let A be a libertarian. Let B be a person who opposes the initiation of force. Let A1 be a Doper. Let B1 be aperson with purple feet.

Libertarian asserts: A <==> B.

Vanilla asserts: B =/=> A.

You assert: (A1 <==> B2) AND (Not(B1) ==> A)

I'm afraid there's no analogy here.


I think you're wrong in the last conclusion (and I assume your "B2" is an error for "B1" and your last "A" is an error for "A1"). I do not make the second assertion you ascribe to me, I postulate someone else asserting that being a Doper does not necessarily imply having purple feet. In other words, I assert (A1 <==> B1) and the anonymous Doper asserts (A1 =/=> B1).

But here's a better analogy: I state that "Kimstu-worshippers are, by definition, those who post to the SDMB." Let K be a Kimstu-worshipper and D be a Doper: I have asserted that (K <==> D). Another SDMB poster might object that he or she is a Doper but doesn't worship Kimstu: (D =/=> K), making the analogy between your and vanilla's exchange exact.

Now I can respond that it's permissible to define "Kimstu-worshipper" by (K <==> D) and that most Dopers simply don't realize that they're Kimstu-worshippers because they haven't seen the definition. But most Dopers will resist this line of argument because they suspect, very reasonably, that I would like to use this identification to deduce other characteristics as well, i.e., worshipping Kimstu (which most Dopers don't, alas :)). Similarly, most people who oppose initiation of force are suspicious of the term "libertarian" because it also implies a lot of other positions that they don't consider valid.

In other words, it's a dirty rhetorical trick to pretend you have a claim to the support of people who are actually totally opposed to most of your conclusions, and all libertarians should cut it out. (As should architects of the Kimstu cult, and so I hereby renounce my assertion that (K <==> D).) (Trying to intimidate people with unexplained typewriter versions of formal logic notation isn't very nice either, but fortunately it doesn't work that well on mathematicians.)

Kimstu

[Spiritus Mundi]

Ah, Lib. So refreshing to see that some things never change.

Let A be a libertarian. Let B be a person who opposes the initiation of force. Let A1 be a Doper. Let B1 be a person with purple feet.

Libertarian asserts: A <==> B.

Vanilla asserts: B =/=> A.

You assert: (A1 <==> B2) AND (Not(B1) ==> A)

I'm afraid there's no analogy here.

In the interest of communication, let me propose the idea that Kimsu's illustration of the arrogance of valuing definition over accuracy can easily be adjusted to "a person with purple feet who is not a Doper."

I am sure that once you have been informed of this startling breakthrough in logical conjecture you will be able to see the analogy and focus your response ont the principal rather than the particular choice of illustrative example.

I am also sure that you will do so in a loving, Christian manner.

[Tymp]

Dear Libertarian Objectivist Christian Monarchist,

All right, I can imagine a scenario wherein the people of a libertarian society would, in essence, hire a monarch who would work to protect and ensure the rights of the people. I’ve got that part down just fine. My problem comes in understanding how the good citizenry would prevent their leader’s authority from expanding beyond the original limitations of his contract. Would that libertarian society have any better luck in doing so than say a democratic society of roughly 270million people in the Western Hemisphere? Really, what keeps your monarch from declaring drug trafficking among individual citizens to be a threat to the assumed rights of the people, thus justifying the introduction of previously illegal searches and seizures of privately held property? Would this libertarian monarchy have any better luck in preventing such things than the United States has? Why? Why would a libertarian monarchy be any better than any other monarchy? What about libertarian democracy or theocracy would be better than their non-libertarian versions? What is it about libertarianism that makes a previously tried social structure suddenly straighten up and fly right?

Sometimes, a prerequisite to learning new things is to cast off a priori assumptions.

Thanks, Libertarian. I never would have realized this on my own, being brand new to this whole learning thing and all.

[Liberal]

Kimstu

But here's a better analogy: I state that "Kimstu-worshippers are, by definition, those who post to the SDMB." Let K be a Kimstu-worshipper and D be a Doper: I have asserted that (K <==> D). Another SDMB poster might object that he or she is a Doper but doesn't worship Kimstu: (D =/=> K), making the analogy between your and vanilla's exchange exact.

Yes, now you have a properly analogous structure. Nevertheless, your argument is non causa pro causa, since a Kimstu worshipper is not, in fact, someone who posts to the SDMB, but rather, someone who worships Kimstu.

But your red herring seems to be more concerned with what you perceive as audiatur et altera pars. Certainly, you may assert that you've made pigs fly by redefining "fly" to mean "wallow in mud". Just don't hide your definitions.

Trying to intimidate people with unexplained typewriter versions of formal logic notation isn't very nice either, but fortunately it doesn't work that well on mathematicians.

How delightfully loaded!

Number one, I am trying to intimidate no one. Number two, the notation is neither formal nor cryptic. Number three, I have no recourse but to use my keyboard. And number four, as a mathematician, you are responsible to construct your own analogies.

And even after all that, libertarianism, as defined by libertarians is what it is, isn't it? You might not like a particular definition of the word "gay", for example. But let us pray that you do not assail a peaceful honest a man who calls himself gay, proclaiming yourself as the Keeper of the Language, and screaming at him about his dirty rhetorical trick.

Spiritus

So refreshing to see that some things never change.

Indeed. Good to hear from you again.

[Liberal]

Tymp

My problem comes in understanding how the good citizenry would prevent their leader’s authority from expanding beyond the original limitations of his contract. [et cetera]

Mine, too.

I know of nothing that can guarantee supression of tyranny other than the eternal vigilance of a citizenry.

Thanks, Libertarian. I never would have realized [that sometimes, a prerequisite to learning new things is to cast off a priori assumptions] on my own, being brand new to this whole learning thing and all.

I apologize for how my advice came across to you. Any implication of your weakness in that regard was unintentional. I am constantly reminding myself of the same advice I gave you, and I offered it with a friendly spirit.

I do realize that some will come in here to nag me with red herrings, spite, and grudges, but I am doing this for the sake of those with sincere inquiries. It is worth it, in my opinion, to wade through a pasture full of cow manure to help someone who is calling to me.

Again, I'm sorry.

[Tymp]

Oh, it’s all right, Libertarian. I’m pretty thick skinned. I’d like to point out, though, that not everyone who aggressively questions you is doing so out of spite. There are a lot of strong wills and personalities represented on this board. When they disagree and come to conflict, the fur just starts to fly quite naturally. I know you’re fully aware of this. I just thought I’d mention it in hopes that this delightful thread of yours does not collapse and fall victim to bitter resentment.

Now I’d like to pursue my previous theme. In a completely free society, a man would be free to become a tyrant and rule by force in any society if devices for ensuring security were not established beforehand. A tyrant, bent on coercing the citizenry into doing his bidding, can only be stopped if the people abandon their libertarian ideals and force him to stop. Historically, almost all positions of leadership or power have become corrupted, compelling the people to take actions of violence and coercion, thus limiting each other’s rights. How can a libertarian society succeed and maintain its libertarian characteristics under any form of government or leadership?

[pldennison]

And even after all that, libertarianism, as defined by libertarians is what it is, isn't it?

Lib, considering what took place a mere page ago concerning what Objectivism is and isn't, the irony here is somewhat striking. If Objectivism as defined by Objectivists and, indeed, the founder of Objectivism, is in fact atheistic, doesn't it behoove you to call yourself something else? (Note--I am not an Objectivist and don't have a vested interest, just like to see people be consistent.)

[Liberal]

Tymp

In a completely free society, a man would be free to become a tyrant and rule by force in any society if devices for ensuring security were not established beforehand.

Actually, libertarianism defines freedom as the absence of coercion.

[Note: for the benefit of curious by-standers, philosophy and other disciplines (including mathematics) routinely define common words in a particular way. For example, force in common usage is a very broad term, but in physics it is mass times acceleration.]

Therefore, a society cannot possibly be free, much less completely free if there exists a tyrant who rules by coercion.

A tyrant, bent on coercing the citizenry into doing his bidding, can only be stopped if the people abandon their libertarian ideals and force him to stop.

As you've seen in Knight's essay, defensive and retaliatory force are not coercive; they are responses to initial force. Libertarians are not necessarily (though they can be) pacifists.

Libertarians do not oppose force. We oppose the initiation of force.

Historically, almost all positions of leadership or power have become corrupted, compelling the people to take actions of violence and coercion, thus limiting each other’s rights.

Actually, defensive and retaliatory force secure, not limit, rights.

Nevertheless, your point is taken. I am fond of quoting Franz Kafka on this matter: "Every revolution evaporates, and leaves behind the slime of a new bureaucracy."

How can a libertarian society succeed and maintain its libertarian characteristics under any form of government or leadership?

Who can say? An armed and vigilant populace might help.

But I do not embrace libertarianism based on how I think it might go over in the New Hampshire polls, or how it might work with Janet Waco as the queen. I embrace libertarianism because I love its noncoercion ethic, and because I love the notion of leaving peaceful honest people free to pursue their own happiness in their own way.

I frankly never expect to see a libertarian government. At least, not until I fully see God's kingdom.

[Liberal]

Phil

Lib, considering what took place a mere page ago concerning what Objectivism is and isn't, the irony here is somewhat striking. If Objectivism as defined by Objectivists and, indeed, the founder of Objectivism, is in fact atheistic, doesn't it behoove you to call yourself something else?

No, Phil.

The founder of Objectivism herself defined it this way (while standing on one foot, no less):

Metaphysic: Objective Reality

Epistemology: Reason

Ethic: Self-interest

Politics: Capitalism

Now, I can kick and scream, and demand that she redefine Objectivism, but as it happens, I find my own world-view described by those four aspects.

What would you suggest I do? I have already clarified that my Objectivism is tempered by Libertarianism and Christianity. Others might interpret what Rand defined differently than I interpret what she defined, but so what?

[Kimstu]

How delightfully loaded!
Number one, I am trying to intimidate no one.


A fair rebuke, and I apologize for that crack.


And even after all that, libertarianism, as defined by libertarians is what it is, isn't it?


By that logic, we could define anything to include just about anything. I can say that "socialists, by definition, are those who believe in helping the poor." Since you have stated on this thread that you feed the poor, you, sir, are a socialist. If you consider that a dirty rhetorical trick, then your attempt to sweep everyone who "opposes initiation of force" under the libertarian umbrella is equally unjustified.

And your analogy with attacking a man who calls himself gay is incorrect. I have no quarrel with what you or anyone else chooses to call him- or herself; I simply dislike the tactic of applying the same label to people who find most of what you stand for unconvincing or distasteful.

Kimstu

[Liberal]

Kimstu

With respect to libertarianism, I stand for nothing more nor less than opposition to the initiation of force.

How then can a person who says that he, too, opposes the initiation of force, find "most of what I stand for" unconvincing or distasteful?

[pldennison]

Fair 'nuff. I never claimed to be particularly sophisticated when it comes to matters philosophical. My understanding was that Objectivism was necessarily atheistic; if I am mistaken, so be it.

[Kimstu]

With respect to libertarianism, I stand for nothing more nor less than opposition to the initiation of force.

How then can a person who says that he, too, opposes the initiation of force, find "most of what I stand for" unconvincing or distasteful?


Libertarian, in the brief time since this thread was started, you have said the following things (to select just a few) about libertarianism:


- For Libertarianism, I had to realize that neither God nor nature had conferred upon any man (including me) any authority over the lives and property of other men, and that God or nature had conferred authority upon all men (including me) over their own.

- [Jesus is] the consummate libertarian

- a libertarian society cannot, by definition, tax people

- Libertarian governments do not "rule" in the sense that word might easily imply. They merely secure the rights of their citizens.

- If you have contracted with a libertairan government of any form to secure your rights, you may, upon completion of your contractual obligations, withdraw your consent.


Therefore, someone who holds different views of the world and humanity has every reason, and every right, to reject the label "libertarian" as applied to him- or herself. Defining the label very narrowly so that it applies to almost everyone and then using it very broadly so that it implies positions that many people disagree with is, as I keep saying, a dirty rhetorical trick.

I am opposed to the initiation of force. I disagree with most of the ideas and premises that you have characterized in the above remarks as "libertarian." Therefore, I do not wish to identify myself as a libertarian; please don't call me one.

Kimstu

[Gilligan]

Yes, Kim, you're not, but don't forget you did marry one. ;)

[djwalker]

DJWalker



B

Jesus did not speak to "society", but to individuals, in particular their hearts. He never called upon government to make a law, but rather, called upon men to make a decision.

There are matters moral and matters civic. Jesus is concerned about the former. When you refuse to help the poor, you must answer to God, not government.



There are also matters ecclesiastical, which tend to cause society as well as individuals to become intermixed with questions of morality and civics. That's the reality. If we did find ourselves in a libertarian society, those conflicts would be moot. Working through the church to help the poor often involves interaction with coercion-based government. The options are working alone to help the poor, which is less efficient, or working solely with government to help the poor, which is ludicrous. Takes some getting used to.

Also, part of being Catholic is looking at Christianity perhaps more ecclesiastically than some other Christians.

I seem to be veering away from the direction this thread is taking, though, so I think I'll lurk for a while.

[Liberal]

Phil

Well, Rand herself was an atheist, as are most of her worshippers. And she certainly preached an atheism of an almost mystical variety, despite her constant disclaimers that she despised mysticism. (Trog through the John Galt speech and you'll see what I mean.)

And yes, later she added such weirdness as an official esthetic for Objectivism (and guess what that was — yep, classical realism). Her defenders have never ceased to claim the high ground and declare that anyone outside their cabal, including anyone they've excommunicated, is not an Objectivist.

But that's their problem, not mine.

Kimstu

[sigh...]

Okay. Let's take them one at a time, shall we?

---

For Libertarianism, I had to realize that neither God nor nature had conferred upon any man (including me) any authority over the lives and property of other men, and that God or nature had conferred authority upon all men (including me) over their own.

How, if I may not initiate force, will I seize authority over the lives and property of other men? And how, if they may not initiate force, will they make me pay them a tax, or claim eminent domain over my home, or throw me in jail if I consume one of the verboten substances?

---

[Jesus is] the consummate libertarian

The entire context for the snippet you lifted was this: "Actually, [Jesus was] the consumate libertarian. He never initiated force or fraud, but rose to defend His house when trespassers and vandals despoiled it."

Now, a libertarian might disagree that Jesus did that, or he might disagree that Jesus even existed, but how will he disagree that a man who never initiated force is not the consumate libertarian?

---

a libertarian society cannot, by definition, tax people

And so? How exactly will you take the property of a peaceful honest man against his will without initiating force or fraud?

---

Libertarian governments do not "rule" in the sense that word might easily imply. They merely secure the rights of their citizens.

And how exactly would a libertarian government secure rights even as it usurps them?

---

If you have contracted with a libertairan government of any form to secure your rights, you may, upon completion of your contractual obligations, withdraw your consent.

How will a government that initiates no force rule you without your consent?

---

People are asking me questions here, Kimstu. Different people ask different questions. I do not wish to paste identical responses to every one of them. Instead, I answer their specific question with an appropriate response that is drawn from a single principle.

How utterly disingenuous, not only to complain about my consistency, but to go on and on nagging me about it. Endlessly. Not that that's what you've done.

[manhattan]

Hi Libertarian. Sorry it took so long to respond. I had a project that if I did not finish today would have caused my boss to go all honest and no peaceful on me, if you get my drift.

I know that you dislike what you understand of my philosophy, but I also know that you do not dislike me personally. It would never even cross my mind that you might be trolling. Thanks. I’m not unaware that my occasional curtness can be misinterpreted; I’m glad that you have not done so.

Do you eschew banks because of high coercion on them and you by the Feds, or do you resign yourself to "what is" until the "what can be" becomes?Are you asking whether I play God? No, I do not. You focused on the second part of my sentence when my intended emphasis was on the first. Reviewing my construction, I can not see how you possibly could have done otherwise. I apologize. I guess I’m asking to what extent you participate in current, tyrannical (to you, obviously) institutions. For example, I recall that you personally don’t believe that limited-liability corporations are a good thing. But here in the U.S., that’s pretty much the only kind available. Do you own stock to plan for your retirement? Federal regulations have coerced banks to issue Private Mortgage Insurance with many mortgages (the banks, in turn, have made PMI a highly profitable enterprise at the expense of middle-income homeowners, but that is a different thread). So then do you refuse to obtain a mortgage so as not to help perpetuate the tyranny?

The myriad laws of our country that are clearly coercive and do not even purport to protect against coercion; do you feel bound by them? Of course not <snip> It is not the laws that I fear, but the guns.
Fair enough. I do feel bound by the laws absent a compelling and specific ethical revulsion. But we both fear the guns.

OK, the last bit was a little bit facetious, but I hope you can see what I’m getting at. I'm afraid I can't. Well, to be honest, I’m concerned for your personal happiness here. When I read your posts, I get a vision of a person continually frustrated and befuddled that the world’s people don’t see things as you do. I further imagine that one possible outcome of this is an unhappy and frustrated person. I’m hoping that you exercise enough expedience in your life to enjoy your leisure time, to own a home, to play softball in a state-owned park and to do all the normal middle-class stuff that I think is an important contributor to happiness.

[Kimstu]

Gilligan:


Yes, Kim, you're not, but don't forget you did marry one.


*lol*...You bet, and proud of it, honey! :)

Kimstu

[vanilla]

So name me some famous libertarians, please?

[Tymp]

Dearest Libertarian Objectivist Christian,

Now that I’ve gotten over the whole monarchist thing, I’d like to address some conflicts that I perceive between objectivism and Christianity.

In a more detailed explanation of the famous speech on one foot, Rand had the following to say in “Introducing Objectivism,” TON, Aug. 1962, 35.:

1. [Metaphysics: Objective Reality] Reality exists as an objective absolute - facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, hopes or fears.

How do you reconcile matters of Christian faith with such a hard description of objectivist metaphysicics? Surely the personal experience of accepting the testament of the apostles does not mesh well with the objectivist description of how reality should be experienced.

2. [Epistemology: Reason] Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guidance to action, and his basic means of survival.

Again, this surely conflicts with the idea of divine inspiration, does it not? Do you not see this as calling into question the source and value of the New and Old Testaments?

[QUOTE]3. [Ethics: Self-Interest] Man - every man - is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.

I read this, not just as a denial of the existence of a god, but as a denial of the value of a god. Do you accept this ethic of self-interest by tacking on a phrase such as “God excluded, of course?” How then would you reconcile this with numbers 1 & 2?



BTW, LIb, I do admire you for opening this thread and sharing what must be a very complex and elaborate philosophy. I have often wondered about many of these issues and I am glad to see them addressed. Thank you.

[Tymp]

Oops. I forgot to close my quote. It would have ended at “. . . of his life.”

Sorry about that.

[2sense]

Hello Libertarian,

I misunderstood your answer to vanila to be an oversimplification. I have seen the error of my ways.


Congratulations. That makes you a living paradox.

Now I am trully intrigued. I am interested in paradox. How would you feel if I adopted this quote as a sig line?

Assuming that I accepted the appellation of libertarian, what would be the problems associated with my deciding that economic libertarianism was ornamental and discarding it?
( I ask this question in all seriousness. )
(( And I am not a mathmatician. ))

My understanding is that the followers of Jesus abandoned personal property and lived communally. I have heard him, half seriously, described as a communist. I understand that libertarianism does not exclude communism, I just want to know your feelings on this statement.

Also, if the only qualification for libertarianism is opposing initiating fraud or force, then mustn't Jesus' qualification be the same as every other libertarian's?
If so, then wouldn't it be more correct to refer to him as a consummate libertarian, rather than the consummate libertarian?
-

Gilligan:

Thank you for the reply. I think that our definitions are essentially the same; however, I prefer yours.

[Liberal]

Manny

I apologize. I guess I’m asking to what extent you participate in current, tyrannical (to you, obviously) institutions. For example, I recall that you personally don’t believe that limited-liability corporations are a good thing. But here in the U.S., that’s pretty much the only kind available. Do you own stock to plan for your retirement? Federal regulations have coerced banks to issue Private Mortgage Insurance with many mortgages (the banks, in turn, have made PMI a highly profitable enterprise at the expense of middle-income homeowners, but that is a different thread). So then do you refuse to obtain a mortgage so as not to help perpetuate the tyranny?

Okay, so you weren't asking whether I play God. You were asking whether I play Patrick Henry. More to the point, you wonder whether I find my participation in The System to be as hypocritical as you do.

Sorry, no. Why should a prisoner cut off his fellow inmates simply because they are being coerced? I give The Great Nanny only what it forces me to give it. It doles out the loot to all the politicians behind the curtain who pull its knobs and levers.

Why do the Liberals always blame the man at the hollow end of a gun for the tyranny he endures?

Well, to be honest, I’m concerned for your personal happiness here. When I read your posts, I get a vision of a person continually frustrated and befuddled that the world’s people don’t see things as you do. I further imagine that one possible outcome of this is an unhappy and frustrated person. I’m hoping that you exercise enough expedience in your life to enjoy your leisure time, to own a home, to play softball in a state-owned park and to do all the normal middle-class stuff that I think is an important contributor to happiness.

Mercy.

Everytime a Liberal or Cosnervative becomes "concerned" for me, my load gets just a little heavier. I know, I know. It's for my own good. The common good. The good of society. It is fascinating that you perceive my frustration that "the world's people don't see things" as I do, even as you support the mechanism that forces them to see things the way you do.

Thanks, Manny, but no thanks. Your only obligation in life, libertarianly speaking, is to yourself, your family, and those with whom you've contracted. I'm none of those. The best thing you could possibly do for me concern-wise is just to put it out of your mind.

[TwistofFate]

Dear Libertarian Objectivist Christian,

1. how would libertatian Objectivist Christians organize State funded programmes that benefit the public?

2. What would be a LOC solution to the current issues surrounding funding Medicaid and Medicare?

3. Is brown really the new black this season?

[Liberal]

Vanilla

So name me some famous libertarians, please?

Well, famous is relative, I guess. You might never have heard of Yassir Seirawan, but serious chess players the world over have. Some people whom you might recognize who have said they are libertarian include Clint Eastwood, Bill Maher, John Stossel, and Roy Innes (president of the Congress for Racial Equality). If you're an economist, you've heard of Bastiat, Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard. If you're a Eruopean history buff, you've heard of John Locke, David Hume, Francois de Voltaire, Adam Ferguson, and Adam Smith. If you you've studied the 19th century, you know of John Stuart Mill, Herbert Spencer, Henry David Thoreau, and Alexis de Tocqueville

Of course, if you actually go the link (http://www.free-market.net) I gave you, you could find many others, including the earliest fore-fathers of "classical liberalism", like Lao Tzu and Aristotle.

[Liberal]

Tymp

Reality exists as an objective absolute - facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, hopes or fears.
How do you reconcile matters of Christian faith with such a hard description of objectivist metaphysicics? Surely the personal experience of accepting the testament of the apostles does not mesh well with the objectivist description of how reality should be experienced.

What's to reconcile? You've presumed my experience with God to be manifested via proxy ("the testament of apostles") when in fact, God has spoken to me directly. Would you have me deny my own experience?

Yes, reality does exist as an Objective Absolute, independent of man's feelings, hopes, or fears. But God is the Objective Absolute. Of course, I've said that already in one of the posts above.

Rand's fatal flaw (aside from the claims that she failed to practice what she preached) was her insistence on belief in a NoGod. Why do you think she so despised Immanuel Kant (whose work it is quite clear she never read, or at least never comprehended)?

She knew full well that what she saw as objective reality can only be subjectively discerned. In other words, if reality is the atoms, then there is nothing objective in our experience, because the atoms are perceived through our senses.

Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guidance to action, and his basic means of survival. Again, this surely conflicts with the idea of divine inspiration, does it not? Do you not see this as calling into question the source and value of the New and Old Testaments?

On the contrary, reason was exactly what prepped my limbic system for the apprehension of God. You will likely note that when theists (excluding the Bible Thumpers) and atheists (excluding the Hand Stabbers) debate, the result is a stalemate. And this is as it should be. God can be apprehended by the brain, but comprehended only by the heart.

If there truly is an Objectivity, then your senses alone will never reveal it to you. But reason can.

Man - every man - is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life. I read this, not just as a denial of the existence of a god, but as a denial of the value of a god. Do you accept this ethic of self-interest by tacking on a phrase such as “God excluded, of course?” How then would you reconcile this with numbers 1 & 2?

No, I, unlike Rand, tack on nothing. It is the altruists, that is, the politicians of every discipline — religion, government, business — who call upon men to sacrifice, ostensibly for the greater good, but in reality for the good of the politicians.

That's why God despises religion. It is infested with politicians (read people who control other people).

If my happiness is derived from my relationship with God, then who is Rand to deny me my "highest moral purpose"? Unless, of course, she is herself a god.

BTW, LIb, I do admire you for opening this thread and sharing what must be a very complex and elaborate philosophy. I have often wondered about many of these issues and I am glad to see them addressed. Thank you.

Thank you, Tymp. You've just made the entire experience worthwhile.

[Liberal]

2Sense

Now I am trully intrigued. I am interested in paradox. How would you feel if I adopted this quote as a sig line?

Dispassionate, I suppose.

Assuming that I accepted the appellation of libertarian, what would be the problems associated with my deciding that economic libertarianism was ornamental and discarding it?

The same as those associated with throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You would have to decide that coercion is okay in matters economic.

But you needn't traverse the circuitous route of becoming a libertarian and ripping out your soul. You can just become a Liberal. Liberals like keeping their hands on your wallet, just as Conservatives like keeping their hands on your zipper.

My understanding is that the followers of Jesus abandoned personal property and lived communally. I have heard him, half seriously, described as a communist. I understand that libertarianism does not exclude communism, I just want to know your feelings on this statement.

Jesus cautions us not to strain gnats and swallow camels the way religious leaders do. (He further explained, for the metaphor impaired, that this means they insist that we follow the tiniest laws like tithing, while they themselves ignore the far greater laws like loving their neighbor.)

A rich man came to him once and said, "Master, I obey all the laws and commandments." The man then proceeded to list some of them quite proudly, and asked, "What more must I do to enter the Kingdom of Heaven." Jesus replied, "Sell everything you have, give the money to the poor, and come, follow me." Well, clearly, if the material itself were a concern, Jesus might have had him throw it away. Instead, Jesus had him give it to someone else. Why? Because it wasn't the suff that was a problem, but rather, the man's love for the stuff.

Those who hole away in communes, thinking they are pleasing God by their altruism, are straining gnats and swallowing camels.

Also, if the only qualification for libertarianism is opposing initiating fraud or force, then mustn't Jesus' qualification be the same as every other libertarian's? If so, then wouldn't it be more correct to refer to him as a consummate libertarian, rather than the consummate libertarian?

Perhaps, except for two things: (1) He, unlike we, never initiated force, and (2) He, unlike we, is the Owner of all that exists. I think those have earned Him a "the".

[Liberal]

JohnLarrigan

1. how would libertatian Objectivist Christians organize State funded programmes that benefit the public?

We wouldn't.

2. What would be a LOC solution to the current issues surrounding funding Medicaid and Medicare?

The elimination of Medicaid and Medicare.

3. Is brown really the new black this season?

Possibly. Try asking the Teenager.

[TwistofFate]

then how would a libertarian society care for its elderly?

[Liberal]

JohnLarrigan

then how would a libertarian society care for its elderly?

You know, John, I had already written out a long smartass answer, only to keep coming back to the simplicity of your question, its sincerity, and its meekness. I'm glad I deleted all of it.

More and more, we have abbrogated our responsiblities to that faceless superset entity, society, until it has become a perfunctory exercise to assign to that entity the cleaning up of whatever mess we worry might dirty our hands. It is certainly convenient, if nothing else. And politicians absolutely love it. Why? Because it means there will be a steady stream of money coming through their offices. The People acclimate easily to it. Why? Because they're busy with other things, like getting on with their lives. They don't think about it much, secure in the reassurances they are given that the bureaucrats are handling it.

"It is lucky for rulers that men do not think." — Adolf Hitler

In the libertarian society, the elderly are not considered to be some sort of "class" suddenly dropped in its lap, that is forgotten to the whims of bureaucrats. The elderly are people who once were young, who understood full well the law of Libertaria (having seen it consistently aplied), who knew that they must plan for their future (lest they have none).

Given a society wherein you are not responsible for your own future versus one wherein you are fully responsible for it, it stands to reason that in the former you will give your future no concern, and in the latter you will see things quite differently.

If you are concerned for the elderly, and you believe that most of those in your society are equally concerned (else, it would not be a politically expedient issue, and the politicians would never have implemented state elderly care), then why would you believe that a bureaucrat would be more concerned than you and your neighbors are?

The greatest enemies of the elderly are politicians who would rob you of your resources to help your own elderly family members, posing as altruists who keep a cut of your taxes for themselves before doling out the pennies that remain.

You are an Irishman. Irishmen are no fools. Don't be fooled by the ruse of politicians. Take care of your own family. Take care that you produce only the children for whom you have the means to give support. And take care that your government forces its citizens to honor their responsibilities (breach is a coercion), and forces its bureaucrats to get real jobs (fraud is a coercion).

For those remaining few who have no family, neighbors, friends, house of worship, or community charity, whether by natural tragedy or tyranny, there are those of us who will, with glad hearts, assist in caring for them. Heck, even atheists now are opening charitable organizations to help care for others. Or so I'm told.

[manhattan]

Libertarian (paraphrased, but by a lot less than he will think): blah blah blah, you’re blaming me for tyranny, yak yak yak, you caring is a burden designed to oppress me, yada yada yada

OK, so you lied. You did think I was trolling. Consider yourself relieved of the horrible burden of my giving a shit about your personal happiness, an insidious evil with which I was clearly trying to oppress you. Best of luck in your future endeavors.

[Gilligan]

“If I knew for a certainty that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life” - Thoreau

[TwistofFate]

Lib, thanks for your answer.

given my meek understanding of Libertairanism, would I be safer is saying that Libertarianism would function more effectively as a Philosophy, rather than a viable political theisis?

In as much as this. I am starting to understand your politics, but cannot see how they would ever successfully be implemented into an existing system like in the US, but would work ideally in a brand new country.

am I making sense?

[Liberal]

Manny

No, I didn't lie. It never crossed my mind.

I know you meant well.

Gilligan

I am printing that one out. Thank you.

[Liberal]

John

am I making sense?

Very much so. Your sentiments mirror my own.

[Gilligan]

It's from the first chapter of Walden, Lib.

[vanilla]

produce only the children whom you have the means to support.
I've always wondered why the people with the most money have less children than those who have considerably less.

[Liberal]

Vanilla

Stellar observation.

I suppose money isn't necessarily the means. My parents were quite poor, but of good character. That makes all the difference in the world. There were four of us kids total. We had the bare essentials. Love, most of all.

[Liberal]

If no one minds, I would like to take this opportunity to thank Ed Zotti, TechChick, and the Reader for the warmth of their hearts in providing the stunning and beautiful banner that honors Wally.

Go always with God, good people.

[tradesilicon]

Libertarian,

Delightful thread. I enjoyed your posts here, as well as a few other threads along these lines.

I have a great deal of respect for the libertarian philosophy; my summary version is "Live, and let live". I always avoid the use of force, but will stand in defense of me and mine any day. What I find a bit difficult to reconcile is exactly how one would determine when it is proper to use (defensive) force in a society where all individuals expect all their rights to be respected at all times, and yet the interactions of man are so very likely to cause conflicts in rights. Is the answer not to interact?

Sili

[Tymp]

Libertarian,

You are invited to join a panel of experts assembling here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=28528) in Great Debates.

[Liberal]

TradeSilicon

Delightful thread. I enjoyed your posts here, as well as a few other threads along these lines.

Most kind. Thank you.

I have a great deal of respect for the libertarian philosophy; my summary version is "Live, and let live" I always avoid the use of force, but will stand in defense of me and mine any day.

Nice summary version.

A very sweet old lady, who didn't mind admitting a mental block in philosophical discussions, once asked me whether I could explain libertarianism to a five-year-old. I thought then (and still do) that it was the best question I was ever asked.

To the (hypothetical) five-year-old, I said, "You must never start a fight, but you may always defend yourself. You must never take anything that doesn't belong to you, but you may always take back what was stolen from you. You must never make someone give you anything of theirs or do anything for you, but you may always ask."

What I find a bit difficult to reconcile is exactly how one would determine when it is proper to use (defensive) force in a society where all individuals expect all their rights to be respected at all times, and yet the interactions of man are so very likely to cause conflicts in rights. Is the answer not to interact?

No, the answer is to define rights rightly.

Libertarianly, rights are an attribute of property. You have all rights with respect to your property, but no rights whatsoever with respect to someone else's property. Likewise, everyone else has all rights with respect to their property, but no rights whatsoever with respect to yours.

That's why so-called public property is so antithetical to libertarianism. Its ownership is nebulous. It is owned, de facto, by whichever block of people has the most political clout.

Libertarianly, ownership is defined as decision making authority. Whoever calls the shots with respect to any particular thing, that person is the owner of that thing.

In such a context, rights are clearly understood and do not conflict. When you come to my home, I call the shots. When I come to your home, I acquiesce to your ownership of it. But if we declare a home to be a "public home", we will immediately begin to see many conflicts of "rights".

A person can, if he chooses, be a hermit in a libertarian society, but a libertarian society is primarily composed of people who want to interact with each other, particularly for the sake of commerce and fellowship. What makes the libertarian society different, however, is that they must interact with respect for one another's rights (i.e. property).

Note how the libertarian view of rights implies your unalienable right to life. God or nature gave you your life. Life is your original property. No other man has moral or natural authority over it. No one but you.

Libertarianly, because of this view of rights, crime is defined as the abridgement of rights, which crime can be accomplished only by means of coercion (initiated force or fraud). If a man freely gives up his rights, that's his business. But if a man is forced against his will, or tricked by lies, to give up his rights, then he is the victim of a crime.

[Liberal]

Okay, Tymp. Thanks.

[2sense]

Hello Libertarian,


Originaly posted by Libertarian:
But you needn't traverse the circuitous route of becoming a libertarian and ripping out your soul. You can just become a Liberal
I am sorry if you were misled. I can not become a Liberal, as I already am a Liberal. This is why I objected to having the term "Libertarian" applied to me. I do oppose the initiation of force and fraud, I simply define "initiation" in a different manner.
-

From other on-line conversations about Libertarianism, I have the idea that if your real estate was polluted by a nearby factory then your rights would have been abridged. Is this correct? If so, how would a person go about solving this problem libertarianly?
-
Originaly posted by Libertarian:
(1)He [Jesus], unlike we, is the Owner of all that exists.

If everything is His property, then under libertarianism shouldn't He be allowed to dispose of it as He wishes? If so, even if He initiated violence often, wouldn't this be justified under Libertarianism?
-

Reading and trying to understand your answers here has stretched my imagination and ( I hope ) deepend my understanding. For this, I thank you.

[Liberal]

2Sense

I can not become a Liberal, as I already am a Liberal. This is why I objected to having the term "Libertarian" applied to me. I do oppose the initiation of force and fraud, I simply define "initiation" in a different manner.

I'm glad you brought that up. We haven't had much opportunity to talk about the history and development of libertarian thought or politics in general. Let's take this chance to catch up just a little. Feel free to skip whatever part of this you already know.

Long ago, libertarians were called "liberals", and are still called "classical liberals" by some. The 20th century notion of the "left liberal" (i.e., strong government control over the economy with weak government control over personal affairs) and "right conservative" (i.e., weak government control over the economy with strong government control over personal affairs) was born sometime around the Wilson administration.

Until then, a liberal was a person who, at least by and large, supported individual rights and liberty. Thomas Jefferson, for example, said, "It is to secure our rights that we resort to government at all," and "No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him." A conservative, on the other hand, was a person who, at least by and large, supported government intervention for the perceived needs of society. Edmund Burke, for example, said, "Society is indeed a contract. It is a partnership in all science; a partnership in all art; a partnership in every virtue, and in all perfection. As the ends of such a partnership cannot be obtained in many generations, it becomes a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born."

Nowadays, the fundamental terms seem to be undergoing another metamorphosis right now in our time. Liberalism is coming to mean Centrism, that is, what was classically called Authoritarianism. Conservativism is coming to mean Feudalism. It is my prediction that Conservatism will fade out entirely from weak support, and Libertarianism will rise up as the rival to Centrism.

I once was an extreme left liberal. Specifically, I was a Marxist Existentialist Atheist, pretty much the total opposite of what I am now. At that time, I would not have wanted to call myself a Libertarian, not because I defined "initiate force" different from the common understanding, but because I thought it was okay to initiate force when necessary for good cause, like feeding the poor and such.

From other on-line conversations about Libertarianism, I have the idea that if your real estate [were] polluted by a nearby factory then your rights would have been abridged. Is this correct? If so, how would a person go about solving this problem libertarianly?

Yes, pollution is vandalism (a form of trespass).

Libertarianly, a person would go about solving his problem of pollution in whatever way he say fit. It is his right, given him by God or nature, to defend his life and property (or rights) by whatever necessary means. If he were an anarchist, he might personally neutralize the pollution source. If he were a citizen of Libertaria, he would call upon the government he will have hired to do that job for him. If he were the citizen of a traditional nation-state, what he might do would likely depend greatly on the extent of his political clout.

If everything is His property, then under libertarianism shouldn't He be allowed to dispose of it as He wishes? If so, even if He initiated violence often, wouldn't this be justified under Libertarianism?

Yes, He should be allowed to make all decisions (or call the shots) with respect to everything He owns. But — and here's where you and I are two ships passing in the night — coercion is an ethical wrong no matter by whom, no matter for what purpose or to what end, and no matter in what context. Ethically, no one may initiate force. Not people. Not governments. Not God. But then, you would hardly expect God to commit unethical acts, born from a cold and violent heart.

(Lest you waste much of your time and mine with citations of what you perceive as Old Testament acts of violence, I should let you know that I do not worship Thor, and I view those accounts as allegorical for the most part.)

Reading and trying to understand your answers here has stretched my imagination and ( I hope ) deepend my understanding. For this, I thank you.

I hope so, too. That's what this is all about. Frankly, I always learn as much as anyone in the course of this sort of exercise. I once hosted a thread at another board called, "The Court of Libertaria", where people brought hypothetical cases before the Libertarian Chief Arbiter, played by yours truly. That was fun.

I believe it was Socrates who said that the best way to learn is to teach.

[Sofis]

Dear Libertian Objectivist Christian

Do other animals have the same rights as human beings?
If not, do they have any rights?
If so, what rights do they have?

[Liberal]

Sofis

Do other animals have the same rights as human beings?
If not, do they have any rights?
If so, what rights do they have?


Rights come from God or nature; and in my opinion, they come from God. Therefore, I presume you are asking about whether animals have rights from my Christian perspective, rather than from my Libertarian perspective. Libertarianism, of course, is a political philosophy, and as such, is applicable only to people, though, in theory, any entity capable of transferring ownership (i.e., authority over property) has rights. Libertarian governments may govern only those who freely and willfully have given their consent to be governed. People with the capacity to give meaningful consent are called "adults" in libertarian ethics.

I believe that nature itself is morally neutral, a context matrix in which man acts out his morality. Man is given dominion over the animals, in my opinion, uniquely created, as he is, in the image of God; that is, finding himself imbued with God's Spirit. Animals can provide man food, shelter, companionship, and defense. But man, a free moral agent, is held to account for what is in his heart, whether that manifests in his dealings with people or animals. The animal kingdom can be quite cruel, or so it might seem. Nevertheless, a man with a good heart will be as merciful in his dealings with animals as he is in dealings with his neighbor.

[Sofis]

What I'm wondering is this:
Let's say you own a piece of woodland. You want to cut down some trees for lumber. Do you have to consider what effect your actions will have on the birds and squirrels and whatnot living in these trees?

[waterj2]

OK, a few more involved questions.

What is your opinion of the Libertarian Party? I'm mainly interested in where you differ, as your agreement on many issues is pretty obvious.

Do you personally feel that homosexuals will go to Hell, as the Bible would seem to indicate, despite the fact that there is nothing in violation of the non-coercion principle involved in anal sex?

Could you toss out a few more links to references on the Austrian School, Hayek, and Von Mises? My primary interest is capitalism, but in terms of economic theory, I haven't gotten past Adam Smith (which isn't a bad place to stop, but I want more).

Do you know of any good Libertarian-oriented message boards? I've heard free-market.net has one, but I haven't been able to find it one their site.

Here are a few links of my own, for any interested:
http://www.capitalism.org - Mainly provides details on the Objectivist viewpoints on a number of issues, very orthodox Rand followers.
http://www.cato.org - A libertarian think tank that discusses contemporary issues from a libertarian (though not strict libertarian) perspective.

[Liberal]

Sofis

What I'm wondering is this:
Let's say you own a piece of woodland. You want to cut down some trees for lumber. Do you have to consider what effect your actions will have on the birds and squirrels and whatnot living in these trees?

Libertarianly, no; Christianly, yes.

[Liberal]

WaterJ2

What is your opinion of the Libertarian Party? I'm mainly interested in where you differ, as your agreement on many issues is pretty obvious.

It is composed mostly of Constitutionalists and other statists. Nevertheless, membership requires signing a statement that you do not advocate the initiation of force.

I suppose where I mainly differ with them is that I'm a purist, whereas they, for the most part, are content with incrementalism.

Do you personally feel that homosexuals will go to Hell, as the Bible would seem to indicate, despite the fact that there is nothing in violation of the non-coercion principle involved in anal sex?

Let me unload that just a bit, if I may.

You are either in Hell or Heaven; it is not a matter that you will "go" to some place whose space-time coordinates are different from where you are now. Heaven is a spiritual kingdom. "The Kingdom of Heaven is within you." — Jesus

Sin is a cold heart. Every sin is an abomination to God. Those who condemn homosexuals to Hell, while they themselves have cold hearts are walking a moral tightrope. "By whatever measure you judge others, so shall you be judged." — Jesus

I would ask of those who claim Jesus as their God, which is better, to be a homosexual and love God with all your heart, or to be a heterosexual and despise your neighbor? Will God turn to any of us for our advice in His judgements?

Could you toss out a few more links to references on the Austrian School, Hayek, and Von Mises? My primary interest is capitalism, but in terms of economic theory, I haven't gotten past Adam Smith (which isn't a bad place to stop, but I want more).

In addition to what I have already provided, here are a few:

Society for the Development of Austrian Economics (http://it.stlawu.edu/sdae/)

Austrian Economics Index (http://www.labyrinth.net.au/~gjackson/austndx.html)

Austrian Economics Study Guide (http://www.mises.org/study.asp)

(The above two links are both at The Von Mises Institute (http://www.mises.org)

What is Austrian Economics (http://www.mises.org/austrian.asp)

ISLAM AND THE MEDIEVAL PROGENITORS OF AUSTRIAN ECONOMICS
(http://www.minaret.org/austrian.htm)

But really, you need only read Human Action by Mises.

Do you know of any good Libertarian-oriented message boards? I've heard free-market.net has one, but I haven't been able to find it one their site.

The best one, I think, is at Free-Market:

Main Forum (http://www.free-market.net/forums/main0006/)

It is a no holds barred exchange on things like Objectivist epistemology, Austrian versus Chicagoan economics, abortion, and many other topics.

[Kimstu]

Libertarian, here are some things I've been wondering about:

- In a "purist" (to borrow your term) Libertarian society, are minor children property or individuals?

- If the latter, are their natural rights to form contracts and be free from coercion restricted in deference to parental authority?

- If so, how is the transition to full rights-bearing status handled? Is it libertarianly acceptable to have a legal definition of "majority age" that restricts everyone to minor status until they're 18 or 21 or whatever? Or would individual youngsters (when? at puberty?) negotiate with their parents the terms for officially ending their minor status, as apprentices used to formalize the terms of their indentures?

- Would a child be fully rights-bearing if he or she were orphaned or otherwise lacking in "natural" parents or guardians? If not, who would have the right to abrogate that freedom in assuming a parental or guardianship role?

- Does a sort of "minor" or otherwise incomplete rights-bearing status also apply to adults who are mentally retarded, mentally ill, senile, in a coma, or otherwise impaired as functioning autonomous individuals? If so, again, who would have the right to abrogate their freedoms in assuming a guardianship role?

- If ownership is established by decision-making authority, then where does the boundary lie between one's property (e.g., an animal) and an individual for whom one makes decisions (e.g., a relative in a coma)? In other words, what rights inhere even in a "minor-status" individual?

Thanks,
Kimstu

[Liberal]

Kimstu

Excellent questions! Thank you.

In a "purist" (to borrow your term) Libertarian society, are minor children property or individuals?

They are individuals, given the right to life by God or nature. They are not a property, but rather are a responsibility.

If the latter, are their natural rights to form contracts and be free from coercion restricted in deference to parental authority?

They are nonconsenting parties to a unary contract. In libertarian ethics, the party bound by a unary contract is the party that consents (meaning the parents in the case of children). The parents gave their consent to the contract when they had sex. Because they cannot, by definition, give meaningful consent, children may not form contracts. It is in all cases that the parents, assuming they are peaceful and honest, act as agents on behalf of the children.

The onus is upon parents to protect their children from coercion, whether they do so themselves or hire their government to do so. Parents may not coerce their children. They may (and should) use defensive and retaliatory force to protect and teach their children, but they may never initiate force against them.

If so, how is the transition to full rights-bearing status handled? Is it libertarianly acceptable to have a legal definition of "majority age" that restricts everyone to minor status until they're 18 or 21 or whatever? Or would individual youngsters (when? at puberty?) negotiate with their parents the terms for officially ending their minor status, as apprentices used to formalize the terms of their indentures?

The parents will decide when the child is capable of giving meaningful consent (that is, the child is an adult). Age is an arbitrary measure of adulthood and therefore worthless, except in the broadest sense. If a child believes he is an adult, despite the judgement of his parents, then he may appeal to his government for arbitration. If he is indeed found to be an adult in that process, then he may contract with the government if he wishes, go his own way, or pursue his own happiness in whatever way he sees fit, so long as he is peaceful and honest.

Would a child be fully rights-bearing if he or she were orphaned or otherwise lacking in "natural" parents or guardians? If not, who would have the right to abrogate that freedom in assuming a parental or guardianship role?

Whoever is the guardian of the child takes on the same unary parental contract.

Does a sort of "minor" or otherwise incomplete rights-bearing status also apply to adults who are mentally retarded, mentally ill, senile, in a coma, or otherwise impaired as functioning autonomous individuals? If so, again, who would have the right to abrogate their freedoms in assuming a guardianship role?

There is nothing "incomplete" about the rights-bearing status of children (nor of people who are retarded, etc.)

People have the right to life (in a political context) whether they are capable of giving meaningful consent or not. Likewise, by virtue of their human life, they have the right to be free from coercion. Forcing a senile relative to take nursing care is not coercive, unless you are forcing upon them frivolous nursing care.

In Libertaria, if you contract to be responsible for a child or other human incapable of giving meaningful consent, then failure to exercise your responsibility is breach (a serious coercion).

If ownership is established by decision-making authority, then where does the boundary lie between one's property (e.g., an animal) and an individual for whom one makes decisions (e.g., a relative in a coma)? In other words, what rights inhere even in a "minor-status" individual?

You speak of a "boundary" as though they come close to one another, but they don't.

Just as God or nature gave you your own life, so He or it gave life also to your comatose relative. You do not own it. Your decision making authority is not over his life, but over your contractual obligation to him.

[Arnold Winkelried]

This last post raises a few questions in my mind:

I am a person who has not signed a contract with any government to represent my interests. I am the (parent, guardian) of a baby whom I am mistreating. Who is in charge of protecting the baby's rights?

You say: "Whoever is the guardian of the child takes on the same unary parental contract."

I am a parent who has not signed a contract with any other person to take my children in charge upon an accident to myself. I die or abandon my children. The children in your view depend on the charity of their neighbours. If no one views it as being in their self-interest to take care of those children, what happens to them?

[Gilligan]

While we’re on the subject of children: I already know the libertarian view of public education, but what about requirements to educate your children at all, in the manner that you see fit as a parent? I see that as part of responsibility, same as providing food and shelter. The amount, style, and content of course would vary, but what do you personally think about minimum standards? Take literacy, for example. Is refusing to teach your children to read in this era a coercion along the same lines (but a lesser degree) as refusing to feed them?

[Liberal]

Arnold

I am a person who has not signed a contract with any government to represent my interests. I am the (parent, guardian) of a baby whom I am mistreating. Who is in charge of protecting the baby's rights?

I'm afraid you will have to Ask the Anarchist about that one. Speaking frankly as a Christian, however, I would take it upon myself to rescue the baby from you.

You say: "Whoever is the guardian of the child takes on the same unary parental contract."

I am a parent who has not signed a contract with any other person to take my children in charge upon an accident to myself. I die or abandon my children. The children in your view depend on the charity of their neighbours. If no one views it as being in their self-interest to take care of those children, what happens to them?

In Libertaria, assuming the child had no other recourse, the child would be taken into custodial guardianship by a private charity orphanage.

(Self-interest, incidentally, is the Objectivist ethic. The Libertarian ethic is noncoercion.)

[pldennison]

I just wanted to say that I find it terribly amusing that so many questions to Lib are posted under the underlying assumption that human beings (except for the poster) are nearly all unspeakably cruel, stupid and evil.

[Kimstu]

Actually, speaking only for myself, my underlying assumption is not that people are basically cruel, stupid, or evil, but that people's lives are very complicated, and that societies of people striving not to be cruel, stupid, and evil generally have to create quite complicated structures to deal with them. Libertarians often claim that a society run on libertarian principles would be massively better, cheaper, and/or simpler than what we've got now; but whenever I try to dig out the details, it seems that they'd probably have just as much (if not more) expensive bureaucracy as the current model. (Governments maintaining majority-status decision processes for children claiming the rights of adulthood? Mental competence evaluations to ensure that elders are not being forced into "frivolous" care? Wow.)

Kimstu

[Arnold Winkelried]

pldennison, I'm not sure to whom your post is referring, but many of the posts I read seem to raise issues that occur frequently in today's world. The examples I used (child abuse, children without a guardian able to provide adequately for their well-being) are not uncommon. If we assume that everyone is generous, noble and disinterested, then communism would be just as good a solution as LOC (libertarian objective christianity), and actually any system of government would be a perfect solution.

From reading the responses, it seems that the Libertarian solution would be to replace every government institution with a privately funded institution that accomplishes the same task. I must say that I don't see much difference.

Libertarian, you said "(Self-interest, incidentally, is the Objectivist ethic. The Libertarian ethic is noncoercion.)" Sorry, I thought you said you had adopted both ethics. Or did I read the topic subject incorrectly?

[Liberal]

Gilligan

While we’re on the subject of children: I already know the libertarian view of public education, but what about requirements to educate your children at all, in the manner that you see fit as a parent? I see that as part of responsibility, same as providing food and shelter. The amount, style, and content of course would vary, but what do you personally think about minimum standards? Take literacy, for example. Is refusing to teach your children to read in this era a coercion along the same lines (but a lesser degree) as refusing to feed them?

A wonderfully modern question, Gilligan! These days, you might add the teaching of computer skills and access to microwave ovens.

The parent's responsibility to the child is the same as government's: to secure his rights. The standard for the parent, in this regard, is even greater than the standard for government, since government may refuse to contract with you (and you with it), but the parent is already under a contract with the child, which he must not breach.

Why not trust a parent's own best judgement about what is best for his child's education more than you would trust a stranger's. Surely, you, as a parent, would not want to leave such important decisions to politicians and lawyers.

Like Phil (and I'm sure like you, as well) it is incredible that people think parents are so untrustworty, yet those same people do not hesitate to entrust a child's fate to the whims of those whose scandals are legion.

Kimstu

Actually, speaking only for myself, my underlying assumption is not that people are basically cruel, stupid, or evil, but that people's lives are very complicated, and that societies of people striving not to be cruel, stupid, and evil generally have to create quite complicated structures to deal with them. Libertarians often claim that a society run on libertarian principles would be massively better, cheaper, and/or simpler than what we've got now; but whenever I try to dig out the details, it seems that they'd probably have just as much (if not more) expensive bureaucracy as the current model. (Governments maintaining majority-status decision processes for children claiming the rights of adulthood? Mental competence evaluations to ensure that elders are not being forced into "frivolous" care? Wow.)

What costs a lot is when you centralize decision making into a bureaucracy.

Doctors, not government clerks, ought to decide on the frivolity of health care. We agree with you that people's lives can be complicated. Way too complicated for bureaucrats and politicians to be making your decisions for you.

I am asked so often to give Jeanne Dixon type predictions on how libertarian societies might evolve that I have thought a couple of times about writing a novel, which would paint one way a libertarian society might work.

[Liberal]

Arnod

Libertarian, you said "(Self-interest, incidentally, is the Objectivist ethic. The Libertarian ethic is noncoercion.)" Sorry, I thought you said you had adopted both ethics. Or did I read the topic subject incorrectly?

You used the term in the context of a contract with government. I appologize for the misunderstanding.

[Liberal]

Arnold

I'm not sure to whom your post is referring, but many of the posts I read seem to raise issues that occur frequently in today's world... From reading the responses, it seems that the Libertarian solution would be to replace every government institution with a privately funded institution that accomplishes the same task. I must say that I don't see much difference.

I don't presume to speak for Phil (and forgive me, Phil, for butting in) but I find that absolutely incredible. For such real issues that occur so frequently, you would trust the judgement of a stranger (from a world of carnies) over your own?

[Arnold Winkelried]

originally posted by Libertarian:
I don't presume to speak for Phil (and forgive me, Phil, for butting in) but I find that absolutely incredible. For such real issues that occur so frequently, you would trust the judgement of a stranger (from a world of carnies) over your own?


I'm not sure what you mean by that. Are you saying that in the case of the privately funded institution, I would be in charge of hiring the employees and determining the policy myself? Or would the tasks have to be fulfilled by me personally?

The "world of carnies" comment is obscure to me also. Do you mean that people in government service are incompetent buffoons or dishonest swindlers, but when released from the bonds of the state (as they would be in a libertarian society) and working for a privately owned institution these same people would be scrupulous, diligent and trustworthy?

I'll use an example. When I have children, I will try to find the best ways to educate them, for example: when and how to teach them to read? How to discipline them? etc... I could try to invent a system of education myself, but I prefer to rely on the opinion of people that have studied these matters and came up with a method that seemed most appropriate from their experiences. So yes, I may very well trust a stranger with doing a task instead of myself. Which is why I won't choose home schooling.

If I noticed a family in which a child was being mistreated, my first reaction might be to take the child away. But I would prefer to call a social worker, someone who deals with these issues professionally and has more experience than me, to help the family and authorities to determine what is best. Maybe removing the child is not the optimal course of action. Family counseling might be a more satisfactory solution.

I can think of many examples in the same vein.

[Kimstu]

You know, Libertarian, in a way I've gotta hand it to you---your wholesale generalizations about "carnies" and "clerks" and "scandals" and "bureaucrats" are actually beginning to make it respectable to defend government again. Nobody enjoys having to stick up for politicians, but at least it sounds a lot more sensible than these reflexive condemnations of all things bureaucratic. Maybe the reaction will even spark a renewed political discourse where people are actually interested in having calm, critical discussions about practical ways to improve the present government. So please, keep on bashing!

(Anyone who could use a little help in getting over the shock of being called an Uncle-Sam-lover should check out this site (http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html).)

Kimstu

[xenophon41]

You know, Libertarian, in a way I've gotta hand it to you---your wholesale generalizations about "carnies" and "clerks" and "scandals" and "bureaucrats" are actually beginning to make it respectable to defend government again. Nobody enjoys having to stick up for politicians, but at least it sounds a lot more sensible than these reflexive condemnations of all things bureaucratic. Maybe the reaction will even spark a renewed political discourse where people are actually interested in having calm, critical discussions about practical ways to improve the present government. So please, keep on bashing!

I've nothing to add here, other than "Gee, I'd like to see a "calm critical discussion about practical ways to improve the present gov't."

Oh, and Kimstu, very nice link; thanks.

[Liberal]

Xen

I've nothing to add here, other than "Gee, I'd like to see a "calm critical discussion about practical ways to improve the present gov't."

What's stopping you? If you are a member, you can start threads.

Kimstu

Ah, that link. Free-Market (http://www.free-market.net) links to it, of course. And it has been discussed in other libertarianism threads here, likely before you came aboard. I'm sure it was an oversight that you failed to provide a link to Mark LaRochelle's Critiques of Critiques of Libertarianism (ftp://ftp.mindspring.com/users/rabelais/incoming/FAQ1.html), so there ya go.

In addition to what LaRochelle has said, I have a couple of comments about Huben's subject index remarks:

[list=1]
"Ayn Rand was a truculent, domineering cult-leader, whose Objectivist pseudo-philosophy attempts to ensnare adolescents with heroic fiction about righteous capitalists." — Irrelevant. Aside from being an obvious ad hominem fallacy (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#hominem), it is positively weird to trash the reputation of someone who despised libertarianism as much as she as a means to make an anti-libertarian point.
"Liberals understand that government has a useful track record." — Dicto simpliciter (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#accident). Governments have a track record of everything from mass murder to benevolence.
"Few conservatives seem to feel much need to bash libertarianism: liberals are much bigger enemies." — Converse accident (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#generalization), the opposite of the above.
While Objectivism is a type of libertarianism, there is a great deal of conflict between the two groups, sometimes resulting in some good criticisms. — Petitio principii (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#begging), or false premise. Objectivism is not a type of libertarianism.
"There's lots to laugh at, behind the veil of propaganda [of the Libertarian Party]" — Red herring (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#herring) and circumstantial argument ad hominem (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#hominem). Many libertarians (including me) laugh at the Libertarian Party. Above, I noted that it is infested with statists. But the Libertarian Party does not define libertarianism.
"[Austrian economics is a] fringe academic view which is greatly preferred by many libertarians on ideological grounds." — Another petitio principii (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#begging). Fringe groups typically aren't recognized by The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences (http://www.nobel.se/laureates/economy-1974-press.html).
"Libertarians are often grotesquely anti-environmental in terms of regulation. (Though some do like market-oriented pollution rights.) They frequently repeat anti-environmental propaganda." — Huben's favorite fallacy again. While statists will allow however much pollution they find to be politically expedient, libertarians believe you have the right to be pollution free.
"Most libertarians are in favor of absolute property rights, in contradiction to essentially all traditions of property ownership." — Argumentum ad antiquitatem (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#antiquitatem), an especially odd fallacy for a liberal.
[/list=1]

Regarding politicians, if you believe that Al Gore or George W. Bush knows how to run your life better than you do, then libertarianism has no problem with that — you may decide to put your life in the hands of whomever you wish. The problem is when you want to force everybody else to follow your lead.

All these red herrings you have presented aside, please state clearly and concisely exactly why it is that you are against the notion of leaving peaceful honest people alone to pursue their own happiness in their own way. Is it a "God only knows what could happen" sort of thing?

[Liberal]

Arnold

I'm not sure what you mean by that [For such real issues that occur so frequently, you would trust the judgement of a stranger (from a world of carnies) over your own?]. Are you saying that in the case of the privately funded institution, I would be in charge of hiring the employees and determining the policy myself? Or would the tasks have to be fulfilled by me personally?

It would be as you please. Do it yourself; hire whomever you wish; even, if you wish, give yourself, your children, and your rights over to the bureaucracy of your choice. Libertarianism recognizes the sanctity of your consent.

The "world of carnies" comment is obscure to me also. Do you mean that people in government service are incompetent buffoons or dishonest swindlers, but when released from the bonds of the state (as they would be in a libertarian society) and working for a privately owned institution these same people would be scrupulous, diligent and trustworthy?

Hardly. What I am saying is that, so long as the carnies have eminent domain over you, you are left with no choice but to deal with them. Scoundrels and polticians (people who seek to control other people) exist everywhere, infesting every discipline — business, politics, religion, science, the arts — you name it. But at least, if the decision were left up to you, you could freely and willingly select whatever services you want from whomever you please.

Which do you believe would be more motivated to reputability, an oligarchical power that believes it is the very source of your rights, or a business who is competing with other businesses (under the stewardship of private consumer agencies) for the patronage of free people?

I'll use an example. When I have children, I will try to find the best ways to educate them, for example: when and how to teach them to read? How to discipline them? etc... I could try to invent a system of education myself, but I prefer to rely on the opinion of people that have studied these matters and came up with a method that seemed most appropriate from their experiences. So yes, I may very well trust a stranger with doing a task instead of myself. Which is why I won't choose home schooling.

But at least you could select the stranger whom you would trust, based on whatever criteria you establish as important.

If I noticed a family in which a child was being mistreated, my first reaction might be to take the child away. But I would prefer to call a social worker, someone who deals with these issues professionally and has more experience than me, to help the family and authorities to determine what is best. Maybe removing the child is not the optimal course of action. Family counseling might be a more satisfactory solution.

While I disagree with your choice in that matter (family counseling is of little use to dead babies), at least I am allowing you the choice.

I can think of many examples in the same vein.

As you think of them, think also of the fact that you are thinking of them form your point of view, a point of view that is relevant only if you are a free man.

[xenophon41]

"Ayn Rand was a truculent, domineering cult-leader, whose Objectivist pseudo-philosophy attempts to ensnare adolescents with heroic fiction about righteous capitalists." — Irrelevant. Aside from being an obvious ad hominem fallacy (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#hominem), it is positively weird to trash the reputation of someone who despised libertarianism as much as she as a means to make an anti-libertarian point.

Context, Lib. This quote is taken from the page containing critisisms of Objectivism, not Libertarianism. Since Rand herself was the philosphical fountainhead (so to speak) and cannot be separated from Objectivism, any complete criticism of the philosophy is going to delve into her life and works. Since the rather harsh statement you quoted was merely an introduction to over two dozen accurate and fair critiques (including several anarcho-libertarian critiques), then the statement itself is indeed irrelevant, but not in the way you imply.

"Liberals understand that government has a useful track record." — Dicto simpliciter (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#accident). Governments have a track record of everything from mass murder to benevolence.

The quote is not a sweeping generalization, because it does not attempt to draw a conclusion beyond it's premise, which refers to the "classic" definition of "liberalism." Thus, your response is irrelevant.

[list] "Few conservatives seem to feel much need to bash libertarianism: liberals are much bigger enemies." — Converse accident (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#generalization), the opposite of the above.

Yep. The quoted statement is a broad statement which the author left totally unsupported by any argument. I'll point out that your counter statement is also unsupported.

While Objectivism is a type of libertarianism, there is a great deal of conflict between the two groups, sometimes resulting in some good criticisms. — Petitio principii (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#begging), or false premise. Objectivism is not a type of libertarianism.

I would've called it equivocation (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#equivocation). Kind of ironic, considering this (in my admittedly limited experience) has been the major problem I've found with libertarian arguments. (I'm aware that my statement, were it to be used to support an argument, instead of a general observation, would be considered anecdotal evidence (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#anecdotal).)

"There's lots to laugh at, behind the veil of propaganda [of the Libertarian Party]" — Red herring (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#herring) and circumstantial argument ad hominem (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#hominem). Many libertarians (including me) laugh at the Libertarian Party. Above, I noted that it is infested with statists. But the Libertarian Party does not define libertarianism.

And if the quoted statement were used in an argument against libertarianism, it would indeed be an ad hominem. However, it introduces a page of criticisms of the Libertarian political party. Once again, the page contains many commentaries from libertarians.

"[Austrian economics is a] fringe academic view which is greatly preferred by many libertarians on ideological grounds." — Another petitio principii (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#begging). Fringe groups typically aren't recognized by appeal to authority (http://www.nobel.se/laureates/economy-1974-press.html"The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences[/url].

The quoted statement does not beg the question, as (sorry to be so repetitive) it does not use the premise ("fringe academic view") to support any conclusion. Your response, however, is a failed "Libertarians are often grotesquely anti-environmental in terms of regulation. (Though some do like market-oriented pollution rights.) They frequently repeat anti-environmental propaganda." — Huben's favorite fallacy again. While statists will allow however much pollution they find to be politically expedient, libertarians believe you have the right to be pollution free.[/quote]

The quoted statement is hardly a misrepresentation of libertarian thought, aimed as it is at the libertarian aversion to regulation. While libertarianism is not antithetical in any way to environmental responsibility, this statement does not set up a straw man argument (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#strawman), as the focus of the linked documents is the efficacy of [u]governmental action in protecting the environment.

"Most libertarians are in favor of absolute property rights, in contradiction to essentially all traditions of property ownership." — Argumentum ad antiquitatem (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#antiquitatem), an especially odd fallacy for a liberal.

Ah, Lib, the question of property rights is integral to the libertarian world view. The author's reference to "traditions of property ownership" is of direct relevance to libertarianism's rather odd belief that the holding of property is a "natural" right and should therefore be inviolable from government interference. Traditional ideas of property recognize that, for property rights to be protected by law, they also must be limited (i.e. "defined") by law.

All these red herrings you have presented aside, please state clearly and concisely exactly why it is that you are against the notion of leaving peaceful honest people alone to pursue their own happiness in their own way. Is it a "God only knows what could happen" sort of thing?

And you conclude with a classic fallacy of interrogation (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#complexq). ("And have you stopped beating your wife, Senator?")

I see similar techniques used almost universally in every political discussion, typically by all sides, to defend closely cherished beliefs. This is why I expressed wry doubt to Kimstu that we could ever have a "calm critical discussion" about improving a political system.

[Arnold Winkelried]

Libertarian says: «Hardly. What I am saying is that, so long as the carnies have eminent domain over you, you are left with no choice but to deal with them. Scoundrels and polticians (people who seek to control other people) exist everywhere, infesting every discipline — business, politics, religion, science, the arts — you name it. But at least, if the decision were left up to you, you could freely and willingly select whatever services you want from whomever you please.»

And so can I also do with a freely elected government. If I find some laws unfair, I am free to try to change them. If I find some politicians to be venal and corrupt, I am free to vote against them and have them removed. You might say, "what if the majority does not agree with you?" To that I may reply, "what if I deem that the private institutions offering services are corrupt?" To take a practical example, there are two private businesses offering fire protection in my vicinity. What if I judge that both are corrupt? How do I have a choice?

Libertarian: «Which do you believe would be more motivated to reputability, an oligarchical power that believes it is the very source of your rights, or a business who is competing with other businesses (under the stewardship of private consumer agencies) for the patronage of free people?»

Which do you believe would be more motivated to reputability, a group of individuals that need to respond to public oversight and that have been chosen by the free voters, or a business whose main purpose is making a financial profit and whose owner's main motivation is self-interest? I admire your faith in the benevolence of business owners, but I think your confidence may be somewhat misplaced.

Libertarian (re: education) «But at least you could select the stranger whom you would trust, based on whatever criteria you establish as important.»

This is the same argument again. If I disagree with the way the school is taught, I can bring it up with the school board and/or PTA meetings. If it's an issue decided by the state, I can start a movement to have the educational curriculum changed. etc... What if the criteria that I judge as being important are not served by the private companies offering education? Effectively, my choice is being removed. A private business will be offering the services that satisfy a segment of the population large enough to justify the expense. If the market is too small, the service will not be offered. Instead of being at the mercy of governmental decisions, I am at the mercy of the marketing division of company X.

To get back to the issue of child abuse (which you rendered more dramatic by speaking of the "death of a child"), I will return to your reponse above. «Speaking frankly as a Christian, however, I would take it upon myself to rescue the baby from you.» What you view as child abuse, I view as obeying the biblical precept "Spare the rod and spoil the child." Your attempt to "rescue" the child from me, I view as an attempt to initiate force and since by your attempt to initiate force you forfeit your life (an expression I believed you use in a different thread) I magnanimously decide to punish you only with a severe beating. What happens then? (Please remember that, in my hypothetical situation, I have in no way contracted for services with you yourself or your government.)

[Kimstu]

Libertarian asked me:


please state clearly and concisely exactly why it is that you are against the notion of leaving peaceful honest people alone to pursue their own happiness in their own way.


Actually, I'm not against that notion at all; I generally leave peaceful and honest people alone to pursue their own happiness in their own way. (And as an Official Card-Carrying Member(tm) of the ACLU (http://www.aclu.org/), I'm also active in helping protect them from various government buttinskis.) I merely don't agree with your assumption that "natural rights (http://www.law.yale.edu/censor/boyle.htm)" prohibit a society from adopting any shared goals besides leaving one another alone.

Kimstu

[Liberal]

Xeno

Context, Lib. This quote is taken from the page containing critisisms of Objectivism, not Libertarianism.

According to Huben, "Objectivism is a type of libertarianism" (sic). Moreover, the page's title is Critiques Of Libertarianism.

Context.

Since the rather harsh statement you quoted was merely an introduction to over two dozen accurate and fair critiques (including several anarcho-libertarian critiques), then the statement itself is indeed irrelevant, but not in the way you imply.

It is irrelevant because Objectivism has nothing to do with Libertarianism, any more than Existentialism has anything to do with Marxism.

Libertarianism and Marxism are political philosophies. Objectivism and Existentialism are teleological philosophies.

The quote ["Liberals understand that government has a useful track record."] is not a sweeping generalization, because it does not attempt to draw a conclusion beyond it's premise, which refers to the "classic" definition of "liberalism." Thus, your response is irrelevant.

I don't know what you mean by the "classic" definition, but "classical liberalism" is libertarianism. See Amy Sturgis' excellent essay, The Rise, Decline, And Reemergence Of Classical Liberalism (http://www.belmont.edu/lockesmith/essay.html).

Yep. The quoted statement is a broad statement which the author left totally unsupported by any argument. I'll point out that your counter statement [Converse accident, the opposite of the above] is also unsupported.

Unsupported? I gave you a link.

What do you consider support? If not logic, will you accept an anecdotal support? I have yet to meet a conservative who does not strongly disagree with the libertarian views on drugs, gambling, gay marriage, burning the rah-rah rag, and prostitution.

If you have met one, kindly name him or her.

I would've called it [While Objectivism is a type of libertarianism, there is a great deal of conflict between the two groups, sometimes resulting in some good criticisms] equivocation. Kind of ironic, considering this (in my admittedly limited experience) has been the major problem I've found with libertarian arguments. (I'm aware that my statement, were it to be used to support an argument, instead of a general observation, would be considered anecdotal evidence.)

It is a petitio principii because Objectivism is not a type of libertarianism.

And if the quoted statement were used in an argument against libertarianism, it would indeed be an ad hominem. However, it introduces a page of criticisms of the Libertarian political party. Once again, the page contains many commentaries from libertarians.

Then Huben is hiding his premises after all.

The quoted statement does not beg the question, as (sorry to be so repetitive) it does not use the premise ("fringe academic view") to support any conclusion.

If Huben's conclusion is not that he dislikes libertarianism, then he wasted an awful lot of time and space. You might suggest that he retitle his page Critique of Everything Under the Sun.

Your response, however, is a failed appeal to authority. Your link is to a press release from the RSAS announcing the 1974 Nobel Prize for Economic Science, awarded to Professors Gunnar Myrdal and Friedrich von Hayek for "their pioneering work in the theory of money and economic fluctuations and for their penetrating analysis of the interdependence of economic, social and institutional phenomena." It should not be taken as an endorsement by the Academy of any particular economic "school" or philosophy.

A claim I never made. A school of thought, represented by a Nobel laureate economist, whose work is credited by a great many economists and other thinkers with bringing down socialism the world over is hardly "fringe".

I was not defending the Austrian School (which would have been an appeal to authority); rather, I was attacking Huben's ridiculous (unsupported) assertion.

The quoted statement ["Libertarians are often grotesquely anti-environmental in terms of regulation. (Though some do like market-oriented pollution rights.) They frequently repeat anti-environmental propaganda."] is hardly a misrepresentation of libertarian thought, aimed as it is at the libertarian aversion to regulation. While libertarianism is not antithetical in any way to environmental responsibility, this statement does not set up a straw man argument, as the focus of the linked documents is the efficacy of governmental action in protecting the environment.

Another false premise.

Libertarians have no aversion to regulation. On the contrary, we advocate strong regulation against coercion. The linked documents might focus on government usurpation of land (what you call "protecting the environment"), but you should blame Huben, not me, for his own fallacies.

Ah, Lib, the question of property rights is integral to the libertarian world view. The author's reference to "traditions of property ownership" is of direct relevance to libertarianism's rather odd belief that the holding of property is a "natural" right and should therefore be inviolable from government interference. Traditional ideas of property recognize that, for property rights to be protected by law, they also must be limited (i.e. "defined") by law.

There are no rights but property rights. Do you not own your own life?

Here, you are employing the same poetical device that Huben does, calling the notion that your life comes from God or nature a "rather odd belief". What's so odd about it?

And you conclude with a classic fallacy of interrogation. ("And have you stopped beating your wife, Senator?")

The implication of libertarianism's ethic, noncoercion, is that peaceful honest people will be free to pursue their own hapiness in their own way.

My question stands, though your intercession on Kimstu's behalf was quite noble, in my opinion.

[Kimstu]

Libertarian:


My question stands, though your intercession on Kimstu's behalf was quite noble, in my opinion.


And your question has now been answered (see above simulpost). But yes, xenophon, I appreciate your taking a hit for me! (And I also think your Anabasis is a really cool book. :))

Kimstu

[Liberal]

Arnold

And so can I also do with a freely elected government. If I find some laws unfair, I am free to try to change them. If I find some politicians to be venal and corrupt, I am free to vote against them and have them removed. You might say, "what if the majority does not agree with you?" To that I may reply, "what if I deem that the private institutions offering services are corrupt?" To take a practical example, there are two private businesses offering fire protection in my vicinity. What if I judge that both are corrupt? How do I have a choice?

Your choices are as endless as your imagination and wit.

With your government, which claims emiment domain over you, can you participate in starting another one if you don't like the one forced upon you? Certainly, you could devise a simple test, though I advise against it.

Which do you believe would be more motivated to reputability, a group of individuals that need to respond to public oversight and that have been chosen by the free voters, or a business whose main purpose is making a financial profit and whose owner's main motivation is self-interest? I admire your faith in the benevolence of business owners, but I think your confidence may be somewhat misplaced.

As is your conclusion.

I hold no confidence in business owners, per se, but I am confident that they are concerned about their bottom line, which, in a noncoercive free-market will depend entirely on their appeal to consumers.

And by the way, the men pulling the levers behind the curtain were selected, not by "the free voters", but by a plurality of those who voted. I'm sure you wouldn't want accidentally to present majoritarianism as an example of universal consent.

For example, to turn your hypotheticals back at you, what if the majority decided that gang rape is okay?

This is the same argument again. If I disagree with the way the school is taught, I can bring it up with the school board and/or PTA meetings. If it's an issue decided by the state, I can start a movement to have the educational curriculum changed. etc... What if the criteria that I judge as being important are not served by the private companies offering education?

Why are you willing to take on The State's two-trillion dollar government, which can seize your property at its whim, while you fear or are unwilling to take on a private company in a context where you are protected from their coercion?

What if the criteria that I judge as being important are not served by the private companies offering education? Effectively, my choice is being removed. A private business will be offering the services that satisfy a segment of the population large enough to justify the expense. If the market is too small, the service will not be offered. Instead of being at the mercy of governmental decisions, I am at the mercy of the marketing division of company X.

No, you are at the mercy of your own desire.

So far, you want to make decisions on your child's education, but you don't want to do it yourself, but you want a bureaucracy to do it for you the way you say, and if they won't, you need merely show up at the Department of Education in Washington to change it all.

Use a mere fraction of that "ganas" in a free-market, and you will have everything your heart desires.

What you view as child abuse, I view as obeying the biblical precept "Spare the rod and spoil the child." Your attempt to "rescue" the child from me, I view as an attempt to initiate force and since by your attempt to initiate force you forfeit your life (an expression I believed you use in a different thread) I magnanimously decide to punish you only with a severe beating. What happens then? (Please remember that, in my hypothetical situation, I have in no way contracted for services with you yourself or your government.)

Well, since we're just supposin', can we suppose that I can whip your ass?

[Liberal]

Kimstu

I merely don't agree with your assumption that "natural rights" prohibit a society from A adopting any shared goals besides B leaving one another alone.

But the moment you adopt A, you preclude B.

Why not simply let those who are willing to share your goals share them with you, while leaving others free to pursue their own? Consider the hypothetical I gave Arnold (as you are both fond of hypotheticals). What if society determines that gang rape is okay? What is the recourse to victims of it?

[Kimstu]

Why not simply let those who are willing to share your goals share them with you, while leaving others free to pursue their own?


Why not indeed? I generally do. I just don't think that it is necessarily wrong for a society as a whole to adopt some shared goals, and I don't consider the government of such a society automatically illegitimate.


What if society determines that gang rape is okay? What is the recourse to victims of it?


The same as the recourse for victims of any other Bad Stuff (clitoridectomy, war, religious persecution, hunger) not explicitly forbidden by their societies: i.e., none. The fact that you and I agree that gang rape is a Bad Thing does not prove that there are "natural rights" that prohibit all societies from disagreeing with us about what is okay.

Kimstu

[Arnold Winkelried]

Libertarian:Your choices are as endless as your imagination and wit.

Do you meant that (to take the example above) I could imagine another fire protection company exists, or that I could wittily comment on how the lack of adequate fire service is actually a boon?

Libertarian: With your government, which claims emiment domain over you, can you participate in starting another one if you don't like the one forced upon you? Certainly, you could devise a simple test, though I advise against it.

Yes I can, e.g. by forming a political party and/or joining a political party more in accordance with my views, and encouraging people to join my party and help pass legislation that we deem is more equitable.

I disagree with your belief that a citizen is powerless in our society. One off the cuff example is Cesar Chavez in California, who managed (after a long struggle) to help pass laws to benefit the conditions of farm workers, and started with little or no power or influence. Or look at Jodi Williams' success in starting her international campaign to ban landmines.

Libertarian: I hold no confidence in business owners, per se, but I am confident that they are concerned about their bottom line, which, in a noncoercive free-market will depend entirely on their appeal to consumers.

Same objection as you propose to me. A business owner will attempt to appeal to the majority of consumers. The businesses that do will grow and eventually swallow their competitors (e.g. Microsoft.) The "marginal" consumers will find no services.

Libertarian: And by the way, the men pulling the levers behind the curtain were selected, not by "the free voters", but by a plurality of those who voted. I'm sure you wouldn't want accidentally to present majoritarianism as an example of universal consent.

For example, to turn your hypotheticals back at you, what if the majority decided that gang rape is okay?

What if the entity with which you have subscribed for protection services decides that gang rape is okay? Who decides the policy of that entity? Is it by a majority vote, or does every decision need to be adopted unanimously?
In a similar vein, does any project need to occur with unanimous consent? If so, how can any public works that influence more than three people ever be accomplished?

Libertarian: Why are you willing to take on The State's two-trillion dollar government, which can seize your property at its whim, while you fear or are unwilling to take on a private company in a context where you are protected from their coercion?

Protected by whom?
The government can not seize property "at its whim", it seizes property in accordance to laws determined by a majority of the voters. I do not fear to take on a private company, but I think I have just as much chance taking on my city, state or federal government as I have if I attempted to take on a company such as General Electric, Microsoft or AT&T.

Libertarian: So far, you want to make decisions on your child's education, but you don't want to do it yourself, but you want a bureaucracy to do it for you the way you say, and if they won't, you need merely show up at the Department of Education in Washington to change it all.

A tongue-in-cheek but semi-accurate description. The converse:
In a Libertarian society, I would have to decide on a complete course of education for my child, and then find a company that fits my exact criteria, and if such a company did not exist then I would have to start one myself, and if my company was not successful then I would have to convince someone else to start one. If I can't find a company to match my exact criteria, then I will have to rely on someone else's decisions, and/or show up at their business offices to ask them to change their system to meet my needs.

Libertarian: Well, since we're just supposin', can we suppose that I can whip your ass?

I am interpreting this comment to mean that in the hypothetical case I presented above (which is not, in my opinion, such a stretch of the imagination), there is no effective recourse except vigilante justice. I do not consider that to be a satisfactory solution.

[Kimstu]

Arnold: ...or that I could wittily comment on how the lack of adequate fire service is actually a boon?

<giggle> Well, you've got the chops for it, all right! :)

Kimstu

[Liberal]

Arnold

Do you meant that (to take the example above) I could imagine another fire protection company exists, or that I could wittily comment on how the lack of adequate fire service is actually a boon?

That looks like a good question for Ask the Sarcastic Guy.

Yes I can, e.g. by forming a political party and/or joining a political party more in accordance with my views, and encouraging people to join my party and help pass legislation that we deem is more equitable.

How delightfully naive. If you join the Libertarian one and start in Georgia, you will need 80,000 petition signatures to get on the ballot there. And if you want to debate the Republicrats, you'll need 15% in whatever polls they specify. Best of luck.

I disagree with your belief that a citizen is powerless in our society. One off the cuff example is Cesar Chavez in California, who managed (after a long struggle) to help pass laws to benefit the conditions of farm workers, and started with little or no power or influence. Or look at Jodi Williams' success in starting her international campaign to ban landmines.

I am confident that you will be successful, after your long struggle, so long as you manage to gather sufficient political clout to make your cause expedient to the lever pullers.

Same objection as you propose to me. A business owner will attempt to appeal to the majority of consumers. The businesses that do will grow and eventually swallow their competitors (e.g. Microsoft.) The "marginal" consumers will find no services.

Nonsense. You don't like Windows? Go here (http://www.linux.com/). It's a bargain.

What if the entity with which you have subscribed for protection services decides that gang rape is okay?

Gang rape is a coercion.

Who decides the policy of that entity?

I presume it decides its own policy, unless it is eminently domained by some other entity.

Is it by a majority vote, or does every decision need to be adopted unanimously?

What the heck are you talking about?

In a similar vein, does any project need to occur with unanimous consent?

Huh?

You consented to be governed when you contracted with your government. Or else you didn't when you didn't. What this "unanimous" business?

If so, how can any public works that influence more than three people ever be accomplished?

Oh, I see. Well, one way would be to run roughshod over the rights of minorities, claiming that you have special privileges accorded only to agents of government.

Or else, you eliminate so-called "public works", I suppose.

Protected by whom?

By your government, if it is libertarian. Aren't you asking me about libertarian type stuff?

The government can not seize property "at its whim", it seizes property in accordance [with] laws determined by a majority of the voters.

Voters make laws?

In any case, according to Oliver, Vose, Sandifer, Murphy & Lee (http://www.eminentdomainlaw.net/power.html), you stand an ice crystal's chance in hell:

---

"Can I challenge the government's right to acquire my property?

"Even though the vast majority of government agencies possess the power of eminent domain, on occasion, a successful challenge to the government's right to take a particular property for a particular project can be made. You should be cautioned, however, that such challenges are the exception, not the rule, and usually result only in a delay, rather than outright prevention of the government's right to take.

"Typical challenges to the right to take are for failure of the government to follow the proper procedural steps towards eminent domain (see "Eminent Domain Procedures" link on left side of this page). If the government fails to follow the proper procedures, a right to take challenge is sometimes possible. Again, however, it must be remembered that the circumstances allowing a successful challenge to the right to take are rare. Each case must be evaluated on its own facts and experienced eminent domain counsel should be consulted. Seeking compensation for the taking, rather than challenging the government's right to take, will be the property owner's usual remedy."

[emphasis mine]

---

And we won't even mention asset forfeiture, unless you bring it up again.

I do not fear to take on a private company, but I think I have just as much chance taking on my city, state or federal government as I have if I attempted to take on a company such as General Electric, Microsoft or AT&T.

In a society where government politicians and business politicians make sweetheart deals, you're right. But please explain why the same guardians of goodness whom you proudly proclaim to be elected by the majority of voters won't help you against GE and AT&T? (They will help you against Microsoft because Bill Gates was remiss in paying his er, um, dues.)

In a Libertarian society, I would have to decide on a complete course of education for my child, and then find a company that fits my exact criteria, and if such a company did not exist then I would have to start one myself, and if my company was not successful then I would have to convince someone else to start one. If I can't find a company to match my exact criteria, then I will have to rely on someone else's decisions, and/or show up at their business offices to ask them to change their system to meet my needs.

Yes, if the dam won't hold and the river won't wait and the boat won't float and the oar won't row, then you'll have to swim. But in Libertaria, you do not "have" to do any of the things you listed. You may do as many or as few of them as you like.

I am interpreting this comment to mean that in the hypothetical case I presented above (which is not, in my opinion, such a stretch of the imagination), there is no effective recourse except vigilante justice. I do not consider that to be a satisfactory solution.

Well, you should interpret it to mean that hypotheticals are just that: hypothetical. Meaningless. If you can dish them out, you need to be able to take them.

I told you what I would do if I saw you abusing a baby. So, you modified the hypothetical to present yourself as, not only an abuser, but a badass. I merely presented myself as a badder ass yet, quite in the spirit of hypothetical argument.

The vigilante justice applies because you have determined yourself to be an anarchist in your hypothetical. Don't blame me for that.

[Arnold Winkelried]

I had posted: Do you meant that (to take the example above) I could imagine another fire protection company exists, or that I could wittily comment on how the lack of adequate fire service is actually a boon?

To which Libertarian replied: That looks like a good question for Ask the Sarcastic Guy.

I'll agree that my remark was sarcastic. But I still don't see a good answer to my question. You claim that one can easily choose amongst a wide variety of services to find one that suits my needs. I don't see how you can assume that such choices will always be available and affordable to everyone. If fire services are available but priced out of range of the poorer segments of the population, then effectively they have no choice in the matter.

Libertarian: How delightfully naive. If you join the Libertarian one and start in Georgia, you will need 80,000 petition signatures to get on the ballot there. And if you want to debate the Republicrats, you'll need 15% in whatever polls they specify. Best of luck.

I never said starting a political party would be easy. I still think it would be easier than trying to convince the Teeming Millions that a Libertarian society could be effective. ;) And I did happen to mention several examples of people that were able to produce meaningful change in their lifetimes.

In the Libertarian society, would there be more than one political party?

Would a neighbour to a citizen of Libertaria be able to join another political party or contract with another government? Would then these people be living side by side? Which would mean that interaction between those people would need to involve diplomats?

Libertarian: Nonsense. You don't like Windows? Go here (http://www.linux.com/). It's a bargain.

I think you are being disingenous here. To be compatible with most systems one needs to use Windows. Have you noticed that much of the software needed, for example, to view web pages is only available for Windows (and to a lesser extent Macintosh?)

(On an ironic aside: I notice when I said above "just start another political party", you mentioned that this was fraught with incredible difficulties, but when I said "Windows is a monopoly", you argued that it would be easy to circumvent the Microsoft market dominance. A good example of how our preconceived notions are affecting our arguments. And I mean this for myself as well as you.)

Re: the "gang rape" issue.
I think there is some misunderstanding as to what I was trying to say with my example above, and a lack of comprehension on my part of the internal workings of the Libertarian government.

I am a citizen of the Libertarian government. Who is in charge of punishing cases of gang rape? Is it my responsibility to contact separately with protection services to help protect myself against these occurrences? Or is it the government's responsibility?

Libertarian: You consented to be governed when you contracted with your government. Or else you didn't when you didn't. What this "unanimous" business?

Can the government ever change the rules it uses to govern the citizens? Or are the laws frozen at the time the first citizen signs a contract with the government? What happens when new ethical issues arise, for example issues that are raised by new scientific developments? Do I need to contract with another government to decide on those issues?

Libertarian: Or else, you eliminate so-called "public works", I suppose.

By that, do you mean no roads? No dams? No research to determine the human DNA sequence? Or do you mean those services are available only for people who have had the foresight to invest in the right companies? For example, a road is needed in front of my house. You are the neighbour across the street. I decide to contract with company A to build a road. You dislike the policies of company A and decide to contract with company B. Therefore two roads will be built? This seems wasteful to me.

Libertarian: Voters make laws?
Well, in California they can (referendum process.) But you're correct, I meant legislators elected by the voters.

Libertarian: And we won't even mention asset forfeiture, unless you bring it up again.
Wouldn't the same thing happen in a Libertarian government if I failed to fulfill a contractual oblication?
As far as eminent domain procedures, I had said the government doesn't seize property on "a whim." I fail to characterize a government public project as a whim.

Libertarian: In a society where government politicians and business politicians make sweetheart deals, you're right. But please explain why the same guardians of goodness whom you proudly proclaim to be elected by the majority of voters won't help you against GE and AT&T?

Because there has not been a determination that GE or AT&T are a corporation that engages in monopolistic practices egregious enough to merit intervention. However, if you are willing to argue that those companies are engaging in such activities, I am willing to listen.

Libertarian: Yes, if the dam won't hold and the river won't wait and the boat won't float and the oar won't row, then you'll have to swim. But in Libertaria, you do not "have" to do any of the things you listed. You may do as many or as few of them as you like.

I will rephrase my statement. You were saying "in a Libertarian society you can choose the form of education for your child that you prefer." The phrasing shoud be "you ch choose the form of education for your child that businesses in your area are willing to offer."


As far as the child abuse example: Let me rephrase it. I am a member of your Libertarian government. I decide to physically discipline my child. Am I free to do so? Who decides when the physical discipline becomes child abuse?

Will your Libertarian government allow anarchists to live in its midst? Those anarchists would then be exempt from the laws of Libertaria? Or do you, as a citizen of Libertaria, have the right to impose your moral code on me? I am guessing, from your response above, that the answer to that would be yes. Does then the freedom of Libertaria extend only to those who have contracted with its government, and not to its neighbours?

[xenophon41]

Libertarian:
According to Huben, "Objectivism is a type of libertarianism" (sic). Moreover, the page's title is Critiques Of Libertarianism.

Baloney. Apparently, Lib, you're either hoping that no one else actually checks Kimstu's link, or you only cursorily checked it yourself. The page to which the comment you quoted is an introduction is entitled "Criticisms of Objectivism (or Ayn Rand)" and provides many links to these critiques. It is presented because objectivism features frequently in many libertarian arguments. The author hopes that an understanding of the basic tenets of objectivism, its history and that of its primary communicator (Rand), and the flaws inherent in the philosophy will enable his readers to more effectively engage libertarians in debate.

To take Huben's introduction completely out of context and present it as if his comments on Rand were intended to stand on their own as an indictment of libertarianism is a dirty rhetorical trick.

I don't know what you mean by the "classic" definition, but "classical liberalism" is libertarianism.

The distinction between "liberalism" and "libertarianism" is that, in the former, one believes that civil liberties should be maintained through governmental process, whereas, in the latter, as you say: The Libertarian ethic is noncoercion.

Yep. The quoted statement is a broad statement which the author left totally unsupported by any argument. I'll point out that your counter statement ["the opposite of the above"] is also unsupported.

Unsupported? I gave you a link.

What do you consider support? If not logic, will you accept an anecdotal support? I have yet to meet a conservative who does not strongly disagree with the libertarian views on drugs, gambling, gay marriage, burning the rah-rah rag, and prostitution.

If you have met one, kindly name him or her.

The link you provided was to a definition for "converse accident." This in no way supports your assertion that "the opposite of the above" is true (meaning that conservatives are harsher critics of libertarianism than liberals). The fact that you are now trying to support that argument with anecdotal evidence does not make what I said untrue. You criticized Huben and then made an equally unsupported assertion. Deal with it.

The quoted statement does not beg the question, as (sorry to be so repetitive) it does not use the premise ("fringe academic view") to support any conclusion.

If Huben's conclusion is not that he dislikes libertarianism, then he wasted an awful lot of time and space. You might suggest that he retitle his page Critique of Everything Under the Sun.

Obviously Huben's site is dedicated to arming those who must argue with libertarians. He has structured his site to focus on major subjects. For each of these subjects, he provides an introductory sentence, which is frequently a statement of opinion relevant to the specific category. Do you expect every statement Huben makes, regardless of context, to support his overall conclusion? Is that a standard to which you're willing to apply the comments you've made in this thread? Please say yes!

A school of thought, represented by a Nobel laureate economist, whose work is credited by a great many economists and other thinkers with bringing down socialism the world over is hardly "fringe".

I was not defending the Austrian School (which would have been an appeal to authority); rather, I was attacking Huben's ridiculous (unsupported) assertion.

You weren't defending the Austrian School? Then why attempt to refute the statement regarding "fringe academic view"? In any case, the link you provided hardly serves as a refutation of that characterization, nor does your current hyperbolic declaration that the school has brought down socialism "the world over." (More anecdotal evidence.)

Please understand, I am not myself espousing an opinion one way or the other (I don't feel competent to evaluate any economic schools of thought). I'm merely pointing out your logical inconsistencies, as a response to your completely erroneous dissection of Huben's comments.

The quoted statement ["Libertarians are often grotesquely anti-environmental in terms of regulation..."] is hardly a misrepresentation of libertarian thought, aimed as it is at the libertarian aversion to regulation. While libertarianism is not antithetical in any way to environmental responsibility, this statement does not set up a straw man argument, as the focus of the linked documents is the efficacy of governmental action in protecting the environment.
Libertarians have no aversion to regulation. On the contrary, we advocate strong regulation against coercion. The linked documents might focus on government usurpation of land (what you call "protecting the environment"), but you should blame Huben, not me, for his own fallacies.

Lib, that's a weak argument. Did you actually read any of the links? Do you honestly think the phrase "strong regulation against coercion" in the context of environmental protection is anything but oxymoronic claptrap? If you want to argue about property rights, do so in a property rights discussion.

Speaking of which:

There are no rights but property rights. Do you not own your own life?

Here, you are employing the same poetical device that Huben does, calling the notion that your life comes from God or nature a "rather odd belief". What's so odd about it?

How dare you put such ridiculous words in my mouth! I certainly wouldn't throw a metaphysical assumption about the source of life into a discussion of real property rights! The notion that the holding of property derives from state-recognition of rights to the property is hardly a "poetical device," unlike your attempt to equate "owning" one's life with owning a deed.

The implication of libertarianism's ethic, noncoercion, is that peaceful honest people will be free to pursue their own hapiness [sic] in their own way.

Wrong. The raw implication of "noncoercion" is that all people (the brutal scum as well as the saintly) will be free to pursue happiness in their own way. Your question to Kimstu was a deliberately loaded question. My condemnation of this nasty little technique was not to defend Kimstu (she does quite well for herself), but to express my own distaste for your rhetoric.

[xenophon41]

I said:

...my own distaste for your rhetoric.

I'm sorry, Lib; that's not exactly what I intended to say. Your rhetoric is usually much more respectful of the person to whom you're speaking. I should've said "distaste for that kind of rhetoric."

[Liberal]

(Note: I am reverting, for the time being, to my old style of quoting in order to decide how I wish to do it.)

Arnold

I'll agree that my remark was sarcastic. But I still don't see a good answer to my question. You claim that one can easily choose amongst a wide variety of services to find one that suits my needs. I don't see how you can assume that such choices will always be available and affordable to everyone. If fire services are available but priced out of range of the poorer segments of the population, then effectively they have no choice in the matter.

False premise and weak paraphrase.

I never said anything would be easy. In fact, the record will show that I have said in these forums many times that life in a libertarian society, where you and you alone are responsible for your well being and happiness, might likely involve struggle and hard work. That depends, as so many things do, on your circumstances, your constitution, and your character.

What I am saying with respect to fire services and the like is that, in Libertaria, your choices are not limited by an entity that claims to dispense your rights to you.

Saying that the poor have no choice shows a remarkable disrespect for the poor. (I should know, having been poor for many years.) We are not retarded. It is not our poverty that keeps us from bettering ourselves; it is our lack of political clout. Have you been to Appalachia lately?

Given a noncoercive free-market, there is no coercion to keep a poor man from becoming a rich one, if that is what would make him happy. Heck, even in our Fabianist market, it happens every day. But here, you must build political clout along with your wealth, lest you find yourself hauled before the Department of Justice (sic) and stripped of your rights.

I never said starting a political party would be easy. I still think it would be easier than trying to convince the Teeming Millions that a Libertarian society could be effective. And I did happen to mention several examples of people that were able to produce meaningful change in their lifetimes.

And I acknowledged those.

In the Libertarian society, would there be more than one political party?

Yes. No. Maybe.

In the monarchical society that I would seek out, there wouldn't be any. In the infinite variety of other systems that remain, there might be none, some, or many.

Would a neighbour to a citizen of Libertaria be able to join another political party or contract with another government? Would then these people be living side by side? Which would mean that interaction between those people would need to involve diplomats?

Libertarian government does not conduct diplomacy.

I think you are being disingenous here [referring me to Linux]. To be compatible with most systems one needs to use Windows. Have you noticed that much of the software needed, for example, to view web pages is only available for Windows (and to a lesser extent Macintosh?)

Have you noticed that Microsoft gave out its operating system source code for free, so that developers like me could write those programs? You can view web pages in Linux.

(On an ironic aside: I notice when I said above "just start another political party", you mentioned that this was fraught with incredible difficulties, but when I said "Windows is a monopoly", you argued that it would be easy to circumvent the Microsoft market dominance. A good example of how our preconceived notions are affecting our arguments. And I mean this for myself as well as you.)

It is easy to circumvent Microsoft "market dominance", which dominance is established by its appeal to consumers. You simply make another choice. But if you want to run on a third party ticket, you have no other choice but to dedicate your whole life to campaigns in the several states against a system that is designed for the express purpose of keeping you out.

Re: the "gang rape" issue. I think there is some misunderstanding as to what I was trying to say with my example above, and a lack of comprehension on my part of the internal workings of the Libertarian government. I am a citizen of the Libertarian government. Who is in charge of punishing cases of gang rape? Is it my responsibility to contact separately with protection services to help protect myself against these occurrences? Or is it the government's responsibility?

If the government fails to protect you from any coercion, it stands in breach.

Can the government ever change the rules it uses to govern the citizens? Or are the laws frozen at the time the first citizen signs a contract with the government? What happens when new ethical issues arise, for example issues that are raised by new scientific developments? Do I need to contract with another government to decide on those issues?

You may contract with whomever you wish. Did you not understand when I told you that your consent is sacred? Of course a contract between two consenting parties may not be unilaterally changed.

By that, do you mean no roads? No dams? No research to determine the human DNA sequence? Or do you mean those services are available only for people who have had the foresight to invest in the right companies? For example, a road is needed in front of my house. You are the neighbour across the street. I decide to contract with company A to build a road. You dislike the policies of company A and decide to contract with company B. Therefore two roads will be built? This seems wasteful to me.

Well, your neighbor might not see it as wasteful.

One reason (some) people enjoy the hypotheticals is because they are so easy. You can say, "Let there be light!", and lo, there is light.

Do you not realize that, if I were to hypothecize in that manner, I could present your Fabianist society as the most horrible context in man's history?

For example, what if Senator Fatcat and Mister Tycoon make a deal to close the road in front of your home and replace it with a limited access freeway? You decide you don't want the road closed, and so you fire off a letter to Senator Fatcat, whose secretary responds, thanking you for your concern. But you press on, eventually threatening to infringe upon Senator Fatcat's ties to his business politician partners. Suddenly, you find yourself on the evening news, presented as a quack who is impeding progess; a former pot smoker in college who had a drunken trist with a man at a rest area when you drove a truck. Not true? No matter. Now, you will be fighting for your reputation instead of your road, long after the freeway is finished.

It is easier to dream up a particular scenario out of infinite possiblities, and then present that as a refutation, than it is to do actual research and learn for yourself.

Since you like easy, here. All you have to do is click this link: Roads Without the State (http://www.mannkal.org/publications/roads.htm) to see one possible solution set to roads. If you will bother to do even a cursory search at Free-Market (http://www.free-market.net) you can find hundreds more, both online and in books that you can buy.

Well, in California they can (referendum process.) But you're correct, I meant legislators elected by the voters.

Those referenda are worthless, as witnessed by Janet Waco sending in her jackbooted thugs to disenforce the California referendum on medical marijuana. Now, Peter McWilliams (and countless others) is dead, having choked to death on his vomit. He requested (and was declined) marijuana for his nausea.

Wouldn't the same thing happen in a Libertarian government if I failed to fulfill a contractual [obligation]? As far as eminent domain procedures, I had said the government doesn't seize property on "a whim." I fail to characterize a government public project as a whim.

But if you fail to fulfill a contractual obligation to which you freely and willfully consented, what do you expect?

A public project certainly can be a whim. Don't you watch John Stossel's "Give me a break"? Wouldn't you call a dam in a dry lake bed a whim?

Because there has not been a determination that GE or AT&T are a corporation that engages in monopolistic practices egregious enough to merit intervention. However, if you are willing to argue that those companies are engaging in such activities, I am willing to listen.

Red herring.

I will rephrase my statement. You were saying "in a Libertarian society you can choose the form of education for your child that you prefer." The phrasing shoud be "you [can] choose the form of education for your child that businesses in your area are willing to offer."

Or that you are willing to make happen.

It is astounding that you put up Chavez, who fought a cause for strangers, as an example of what one man can do, while at the same you express an unwillingness to invest any but the most token time to your own son's education.

Form an ownership group. Find others who share you concerns about education. Start a damn school yourself, hiring whomever you wish, and teaching whatever you want. It is like when someone said he wished there were a discussion about ways to change our society, when all he need do is start a thread.

As far as the child abuse example: Let me rephrase it. I am a member of your Libertarian government. I decide to physically discipline my child. Am I free to do so? Who decides when the physical discipline becomes child abuse?

When you contracted with Libertaria, you gave consent to its arbitration.

Will your Libertarian government allow anarchists to live in its midst? Those anarchists would then be exempt from the laws of Libertaria? Or do you, as a citizen of Libertaria, have the right to impose your moral code on me? I am guessing, from your response above, that the answer to that would be yes. Does then the freedom of Libertaria extend only to those who have contracted with its government, and not to its neighbours?

What midst?

You are so used to thinking in terms of traditional natioin-states, which draw borders across people property, and then defends those borders with guns. The anarchist may live on his own property, but not on yours. Libertaria does not own your land, nor does it claim eminent domain over it.

Freedom is the absence of coercion, whether you secure that freedom for yourself, or hire a government to do it for you. Of course Libertaria discharges only its contracts with those who have contracted freely and willingly. If you contracted with Mr. Smith for a service, would you be justified in dragging in Mr. Jones, who was not a party to your contract?

Xeno

Baloney. Apparently, Lib, you're either hoping that no one else actually checks Kimstu's link, or you only cursorily checked it yourself. The page to which the comment you quoted is an introduction is entitled "Criticisms of Objectivism (or Ayn Rand)" and provides many links to these critiques. It is presented because objectivism features frequently in many libertarian arguments. The author hopes that an understanding of the basic tenets of objectivism, its history and that of its primary communicator (Rand), and the flaws inherent in the philosophy will enable his readers to more effectively engage libertarians in debate.

My point (again) is that critiques of Objectivism are irrelevant with respect to critiques of Libertarianism.

To take Huben's introduction completely out of context and present it as if his comments on Rand were intended to stand on their own as an indictment of libertarianism is a dirty rhetorical trick.

So, if I were to put out a web page titled "Critiques of Existentialism", and then link you to another page called "Critiques of Marxism", you would think it a dirty rhetorical trick if someone pointed out that I was offering a change of subject?

The distinction between "liberalism" and "libertarianism" is that, in the former, one believes that civil liberties should be maintained through governmental process, whereas, in the latter, as you say: The Libertarian ethic is noncoercion.

You are referring to modern "left liberalism", which is morphing into "centrism" even as we speak, whose ethic is "the common good".

The link you provided was to a definition for "converse accident." This in no way supports your assertion that "the opposite of the above" is true (meaning that conservatives are harsher critics of libertarianism than liberals). The fact that you are now trying to support that argument with anecdotal evidence does not make what I said untrue. You criticized Huben and then made an equally unsupported assertion. Deal with it.

"The opposite of the above" clearly meant that a converse accident is the opposite of a dicto simpliciter. The link I gave you supports this, though it is common knowledge.

Obviously Huben's site is dedicated to arming those who must argue with libertarians. He has structured his site to focus on major subjects. For each of these subjects, he provides an introductory sentence, which is frequently a statement of opinion relevant to the specific category. Do you expect every statement Huben makes, regardless of context, to support his overall conclusion? Is that a standard to which you're willing to apply the comments you've made in this thread? Please say yes!

If you are going to arm people to argue against libertarianism, then why would you present them with guns that shoot Objectivists and Austrians? Yes, Objectivists are against libertarianism on principle, but Huben does not present it that way; rather, he presents it the opposite way, that Objectivism is a type of Libertarianism, and that Objectivism's founder (who, by false implication, is a Libertarian) is truculent, and that his links will lead you to libertarians arguing against themselves.

Heck, I already gave you that. The discussion boards at Free-Market are chock full of libertarians arguing with each other.

You weren't defending the Austrian School? Then why attempt to refute the statement regarding "fringe academic view"? In any case, the link you provided hardly serves as a refutation of that characterization, nor does your current hyperbolic declaration that the school has brought down socialism "the world over." (More anecdotal evidence.)
Please understand, I am not myself espousing an opinion one way or the other (I don't feel competent to evaluate any economic schools of thought). I'm merely pointing out your logical inconsistencies, as a response to your completely erroneous dissection of Huben's comments.

The simple proof, given by Hayek in The Fatal Conceit, that socialist governments are incapable of setting prices is what brought down socialism.

You are using what you consider to be my "logical inconsistencies" (though you have, for whatever reason, scrupulously avoided assailing LaRochelle's logic) as a diversion tactic to hide the inconsistencies throughout Huben's pages.

It is Tu Quoque.

Lib, that's [Libertarians have no aversion to regulation. On the contrary, we advocate strong regulation against coercion.] a weak argument. Did you actually read any of the links? Do you honestly think the phrase "strong regulation against coercion" in the context of environmental protection is anything but oxymoronic claptrap? If you want to argue about property rights, do so in a property rights discussion.

Do you honestly think phrases like "oxymoronic claptrap" are anything but inflammatory rhetorical devices?

If you own land which no one may pollute — not just according to an arbitrary minimal standard established by the EPA, which is headquartered in one of the most environmentally sick buildings in the country, but according to your own standards — is that not environmental protection? Or is environmental protection limited to land seized by the lever pullers?

How dare you put such ridiculous words in my mouth! I certainly wouldn't throw a metaphysical assumption about the source of life into a discussion of real property rights! The notion that the holding of property derives from state-recognition of rights to the property is hardly a "poetical device," unlike your attempt to equate "owning" one's life with owning a deed.

By "real property", do you mean land? That is your own erroneous assumption. I meant all property, which originally was your life, and then whatever you acquired peacefully and honestly in the course of your life. It is your life, your brain, your wits, your initiative, your volition (note all the genitives, implying possession or ownership) that you used in those acquisitions. Thus, the property given to you by God or nature is the source of all your property. Likewise, the rights associated with your life are associated with all that you have ascquired in your life.

Wrong. The raw implication of "noncoercion" is that all people (the brutal scum as well as the saintly) will be free to pursue happiness in their own way. Your question to Kimstu was a deliberately loaded question. My condemnation of this nasty little technique was not to defend Kimstu (she does quite well for herself), but to express my own 1[distaste for that kind of rhetoric]. 1 amended by the author

Explain then how the "brutal scum" will usurp your rights even as you are protected from their initiated force and fraud. Criminals (i.e., those who coerce) have no rights, having waived their own by abridging those of others.

You will need a comprehension above that of Huben to effectively argue against libertarianism. At the very least, go to the source (http://www.free-market.net), see arguments both for and against, and then formulate your own opinions. C. S. Lewis once advised, "Do not read books about the books until you have read the books."

---

To both of you, I apologize for my tone, born of a frustration with false premises, weak paraphrases, tu quoque ad hominems, and endless hypotheticals. Especially the hypotheticals, because you want to be the only side who may engage in them.

You present them like reifications, as though they are counter-example refutations. Yet you refuse to let me participate in them. You want to lay out so-and-so possibility (A), but when I come back with (B) — equally hypothetical — you scream that I did not answer (A) satisfactorily. You want me to trace a trail with you down the infinite branches of your hypotheticals, never straying (I can't be a badder ass than you; now you are an anarchist, now you are a libertarian; there are two (and only two) fire services, and the poor can afford neither), until you reach the end, where you can proclaim, "There! You see? Libertarianism can't work!".

Dammit, if you can suppose, then so can I. Imagine someone who gives a shit about the plight of the poor. You, for example. Is it so hard to imagine that you might, oh, I don't know, HELP THEM OUT? Or is it just that you give only a hypothetical shit?

[xenophon41]

Lib I almost went and started a 'Pit thread in response to your last post. Right now, I'm way to angry to try and respond appropriately in GD. I'm NOT going to the 'Pit with this, however, because I want to respond more dispassionately to your arrogance and hypocrisy.

Many of us have shown you the flaws in your logic. Instead of examining your own statements in light of others' arguments, you assume your own mastery of logic is unassailable, and condescendingly suppose you need to teach us the language of debate!

Many have given you quite reasonable hypotheticals which you've done your best to avoid by throwing less reasonable hypotheticals back at them. When they try and interpret your hypothetical into some sort of real answer, you say "No, that was just a hypothetical..."

And your last comment, that only libertarians seriously care about the downtrodden is despicable, and reminds me of the rabid "Christian" missionaries that frequently post here to condemn us all to hell.

To Be Continued when I feel less like flaming you.

[Liberal]

Xeno

I'm sorry for my tone, which is why I apologized. I'll follow your good lead, and try to recompose myself. I'll response as dispassionately as I know how.

Many of us have shown you the flaws in your logic.

Were I to unload that statement, I might present it more like this: "Two of us have shown you what we believe to be flaws in your logic."

And I honestly think that's generous, since you alone seem concerned with my (but not LaRochelle's) rebuttals to Huben.

Instead of examining your own statements in light of others' arguments, you assume your own mastery of logic is unassailable, and condescendingly suppose you need to teach us the language of debate!

I could easily fall into a tu quoque here ("So do you! Nyah, nyah, nyah!), but in the spirit of your example, I'll refrain.

Simply because I stick to my guns and believe that I am right does not imply that I gave no consideration to arguments from others. I considered them. I disagree. Must we hate each other on account of this?

Many have given you quite reasonable hypotheticals which you've done your best to avoid by throwing less reasonable hypotheticals back at them.

Again, there is primarily one (in this thread), not many, who tosses out hypotheticals.

As I explained in some detail, I have no problem with hypotheticals so long as you let me play, too. But it is absurd to expect to raise an uncontested hypothetical as a point of refutation, which amounts to nothing more than a reification (as though your hypothetical were real).

If you are going to debate by raising hypotheticals, you could save a lot of time by taking it whole hog, thus: "Suppose a man owned all the water on earth, and suppose further that he is sociopathic scoundrel who loves nothing more in life than to revel in the misery and suffering of others. How would a libertarian government handle this?"

Not likely that a man could own all the water on earth? Well, what's to stop him if he acquires it peacefully and honestly? The likelihood of a hypothetical is a subjective judgement call. Why is it more likely that Arnold will succeed in killing his baby than it is that I will rescue it?

When they try and interpret your hypothetical into some sort of real answer, you say "No, that was just a hypothetical..."

I don't even know what you're talking about in that regard. If they want real answers, they should ask real questions. If they propose hypotheticals, they should expect counter-hypotheticals.

I'm not a potted plant here, Xeno. Expect that if you assail me, I will defend myself.

And your last comment, that only libertarians seriously care about the downtrodden is despicable, and reminds me of the rabid "Christian" missionaries that frequently post here to condemn us all to hell.

That comment, "that only libertarians seriously care about the downtrodden", is nowhere to be found in anything I posted.

The point was not that you don't care, but that you ought to put up or shut up. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. You can't, on the one hand, say that nobody will care about the plight of the poor, and so the poor won't have fire protection, while on the other hand saying that a majority of the people do care, and that's why our government helps the poor out.

Now, I hope I succeeded in maintaining a civil tone. No insults, gratuities, or condescensions toward you were intended.

[Kimstu]

Libertarian: Thus, the property given to you by God or nature is the source of all your property. Likewise, the rights associated with your life are associated with all that you have ascquired in your life.

I just want to point out that this is a big ol' arbitrary assumption. The fact that you are alive is indeed one of the facts of nature; but the notion that you "own your" life is a purely social construct. God or nature (or chance) did indeed cause your existence, but could perfectly well have ended it immediately thereafter or at any subsequent time, and will most assuredly end it at some point in the future.* So you have no kind of "right" to existence (or anything else) with regard to God or nature or chance. No irritated bear or deadly bacterium---or any other act of God or force of nature or chance event that you happen to encounter---is going to deal with you on the premise that you have a right to your life, your body, or your possessions.

Rights and ownership of any kind are a construct of the human imagination and have meaning only within human societies. Only societies can bestow or defend individual rights, and different societies define those rights in very different ways. You can certainly choose a set of individual rights that you think would be best for society to recognize, and you appear to have chosen such a set based on the notion of ownership and the initial premise that you own your life and your body. Fine, whatever, but that doesn't imply that your chosen set of rights is a priori more valid than any other.

(Our society, by the way, seems to disagree with the premise that your life is entirely "your property," despite our use of possessive genitives for it. (That argument from grammatical usage is pretty shaky anyway: we speak of "our" English language too, but who owns that, pray tell?) Surely if you really "own" something, you should be free to destroy it or to seek someone's help in destroying it, yet many laws criminalize suicide and/or assisted suicide. Again, you may well prefer to define a set of rights that does recognize your life as entirely your property, but that doesn't mean that no society is allowed to define rights differently from you.)




*sad footnote: I miss Wally. :(

[Arnold Winkelried]

Libertarian: Libertarian government does not conduct diplomacy.
Just an observation: I am not sure if you are doing this on purpose, but it seems that in order to avoid any difficult issues you try to answer a question as narrowly as possible, avoiding the real intent of the question. Have you been reading books on how to answer a prosecuting attorney's questions when on the witness stand? ;)
To rephrase my question: If you have a dispute with your neighbour, and your neighbour is not part of the Libertarian government, who resolves those disputes?

Libertarian: Have you noticed that Microsoft gave out its operating system source code for free, so that developers like me could write those programs? You can view web pages in Linux.
What I've read is that Microsoft's offer to open up its source code was a consequence of the company trying to settle its antitrust battle with the Justice Department. Without a coercive government the source code would almost certainly never have been made public. Yes, you can view web pages in Linux, but many browser plug-ins are not available for Linux.

Libertarian: It is easy to circumvent Microsoft "market dominance", which dominance is established by its appeal to consumers.
I urge you to familiarize yourself with the antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft. Its market dominance was in large part established by anti-competitive practices.

Libertarain: If the government fails to protect you from any coercion, it stands in breach.
Does this mean that the government hires and maintans a police force, judges, a law system, prisons? Does the monarch (in your Libertaria) choose the judges?

Libertarian: You may contract with whomever you wish. Did you not understand when I told you that your consent is sacred? Of course a contract between two consenting parties may not be unilaterally changed.
That does not fully answer the question. Perhaps I need to put the relevant questions in bold?
How are laws passed? Are the laws frozen at the time the first citizen signs a contract with the government? What happens when new ethical issues arise, for example issues that are raised by new scientific developments? How does the Libertarian government decide on those issues?

Libertarian: One reason (some) people enjoy the hypotheticals is because they are so easy. You can say, "Let there be light!", and lo, there is light.
Do you not realize that, if I were to hypothecize in that manner, I could present your Fabianist society as the most horrible context in man's history?
The reason I am presenting hypotheticals is to find out how a Libertarian government would work in practice. Your answers to most questions are of the order "It will all be fine and everybody will be happy." Those sunny predictions would not satisfy many people in the "real world." If I did not have to consider practical issues, I can make any government system sound like paradise on earth.

Libertarian: For example, what if Senator Fatcat and Mister Tycoon make a deal to close the road in front of your home and replace it with a limited access freeway?
Then my property value would be diminished. The public project would have been discussed in citizen's meetings at city hall before it was implemented, and I could have made my objects known then. In case of a real loss of home value, the government may compensate me for the loss.
I will point out that a similar situation is just as likely in Libertaria. e.g. I have contracted with private company X to use the road adjacent to my property. When my contract reaches its term, private company X informs me that they have decided to destroy the road and build a new Disneyland. I am equally powerless to prevent them. So Libertaria would offer no help a similar scenario.

Libertarian: It is easier to dream up a particular scenario out of infinite possiblities, and then present that as a refutation, than it is to do actual research and learn for yourself.
I'm sorry, I thought you were offering to answer questions. If you no longer wish to do so please let me know and I will cease and desist.

Libertarian: Since you like easy, here. All you have to do is click this link: Roads Without the State to see one possible solution set to roads.
Thank you for the link. I have read the document and see that the proposed solution there is a set of toll roads to replace the highway system. I'm not convinced that a private company would be more efficient than a government in building toll roads. In Southern California (where I live) there are several toll roads that have been built that are losing money. If the company that builds them decides to abandon the project, then some natural habitats will have been destroyed for no good purpose. The free-market solution is proving to be a failure in this case.

Libertarain: Those referenda are worthless (example of oppressive federal government here.)
I suppose this should be another discussion, I only presented referenda as one method that voters can use in this society to pass laws. Of course state laws are subject to constitutional issues, federal jurisdiction, etc...

Libertarian (in re asset forfeiture): But if you fail to fulfill a contractual obligation to which you freely and willfully consented, what do you expect?
Exactly. All I'm pointing out is that asset forfeiture will happen in a Libertarian government as well as our current system of government. You made it sound like asset forfeiture was strictly a feature of what you like to call the "Fabian Socialist Government."

Libertarian: A public project certainly can be a whim. Don't you watch John Stossel's "Give me a break"? Wouldn't you call a dam in a dry lake bed a whim?
Sorry, not familiar with the case.

Libertarian (in re GE and AT&T): Red herring.
Sorry, you raised the issue in the first place. I am willing to concede that you were bringing up a red herring.

Libertarian: Form an ownership group. Find others who share you concerns about education. Start a damn school yourself, hiring whomever you wish, and teaching whatever you want.
You mean starting a private school. I can do that with the government I have now. I don't see how the Libertarian solution is any different.

Libertarian: The anarchist may live on his own property, but not on yours. Libertaria does not own your land, nor does it claim eminent domain over it.
Freedom is the absence of coercion, whether you secure that freedom for yourself, or hire a government to do it for you. Of course Libertaria discharges only its contracts with those who have contracted freely and willingly. If you contracted with Mr. Smith for a service, would you be justified in dragging in Mr. Jones, who was not a party to your contract?
Before you were stating that if your anarchist neighbour were to act in contravention to your government's moral code (in my example: harsh physical discipline of a child), you would feel justified in imposing your moral code upon them. Do you now retract that statement?
My expression "in its midst" might have confused you. I meant that in the real physical sense, e.g. I live in apartment 2B, and I'm a Fabian Socialist, but apartments 2A and 2C are inhabited by citizens of Libertaria.

Libertarian (in re hypothetical cases): You present them like reifications, as though they are counter-example refutations. Yet you refuse to let me participate in them. You want to lay out so-and-so possibility (A), but when I come back with (B) — equally hypothetical — you scream that I did not answer (A) satisfactorily.
I have duly noted your dislike in engaging in practical issues affecting Libertaria. In those practical issues lie the very reasons that Libertarianism in my view is not an effective form a government. As I said before, any government can look good on paper.

[Spiritus Mundi]

I beg everyone's pardon for this brief interruption, but I just had to shar this double-take:

Objectivists are against libertarianism on principle

~Checks thread title again~
Wracked by self-conflict, Lib? Bwah ha ha ha ha ha ha.

*ahem*

sorry. I just thought folks in here could use a chuckle. I know from long experience how exasperating these discussions can be.

[Liberal]

Kimstu

At last, an epistemological debate. Thank you. (Please stop posting so infrequently.)

I just want to point out that this is a big ol' arbitrary assumption. The fact that you are alive is indeed one of the facts of nature; but the notion that you "own your" life is a purely social construct. God or nature (or chance) did indeed cause your existence, but could perfectly well have ended it immediately thereafter or at any subsequent time, and will most assuredly end it at some point in the future.* So you have no kind of "right" to existence (or anything else) with regard to God or nature or chance. No irritated bear or deadly bacterium---or any other act of God or force of nature or chance event that you happen to encounter---is going to deal with you on the premise that you have a right to your life, your body, or your possessions.

It would indeed be an arbitrary assumption were it decontextualized the way you have presented it. Truly, that which gave you your life, if unprecluded, can take it away.

We are, however, holding a discussion in the context of politics. That is, we are discussing your life and your rights as they relate to other people, not bears or bacteria.

Rights and ownership of any kind are a construct of the human imagination and have meaning only within human societies. Only societies can bestow or defend individual rights, and different societies define those rights in very different ways. You can certainly choose a set of individual rights that you think would be best for society to recognize, and you appear to have chosen such a set based on the notion of ownership and the initial premise that you own your life and your body. Fine, whatever, but that doesn't imply that your chosen set of rights is a priori more valid than any other.

Odd that you appeal to an actual human construct, society, as the source of rights, while claiming (incorrectly) that I am appealing to what you call the human construct of ownership. (An attribute is not necessarily a construct.) Since I have already defined rights in libertarian terms, I would appreciate it if you would define rights in left liberal terms. Otherwise, we are two ships passing in the night. Clearly, your comments on society, rights, and ownership are nonsense in the context of of a libertarian metaphysic.

Nowhere have I presented the libertarian notion as "valid" in such a way that it trumps your own notion. In fact, I have gone to great pains (more than once) to assure you that, libertarianly speaking, you may define rights any way you please. If you want the Clintons or the Bushes or the bears or the butterflies to give you your rights, then more power to you.

What I am giving here (note the title of the thread) is how libertarian societies view rights. This gives you a heads up, for example, if you walk onto the sidewalk of a woman governed by Libertaria, expecting that her property is public and available to you. She will not necessarily engage you in a discussion on the epistemology of rights. She might just eject you.

Just don't think that rights, as you define them, hold universally.

(Our society, by the way, seems to disagree with the premise that your life is entirely "your property," despite our use of possessive genitives for it. (That argument from grammatical usage is pretty shaky anyway: we speak of "our" English language too, but who owns that, pray tell?) Surely if you really "own" something, you should be free to destroy it or to seek someone's help in destroying it, yet many laws criminalize suicide and/or assisted suicide. Again, you may well prefer to define a set of rights that does recognize your life as entirely your property, but that doesn't mean that no society is allowed to define rights differently from you.)

[sigh...]

Define them however you please. Join Oppressivaria, where everybody has waived his rights. Join Clintonaria, where rights are dispensated according to the measure of your contributions to political campaigns. Join whatever the heck you like.

All I have tried to communicate to you is that libertairanism does not recognize in you (or in anyone) the "right" to make other people join what you join, believe what you believe, or otherwise bully peaceful honest people, and that the government of Libertaria will use whatever force necessary to stop you from doing that with respect to its citizens.

[Liberal]

Spiritus

Wracked by self-conflict, Lib?

Well, let's put it this way. Objectivists don't want me being either Libertarian or Christian, and Christians don't want me being Objectivist.

Luckily, Libertarians allow me to be anything I please.

But your point is well taken. I should have said, as I did before in so many words, that worshippers of Ayn Rand oppose libertarianism on principle. (Namely, the Noncoercion Axiom.)

Bwah ha ha ha ha ha ha

And all that without a single typo! Well done, Spiritus!

[Liberal]

Arnold

I am not sure if you are doing this on purpose, but it seems that in order to avoid any difficult issues you try to answer a question as narrowly as possible, avoiding the real intent of the question.

No issue is any more difficult than any other. I interpret them all through the same filter.

Have you been reading books on how to answer a prosecuting attorney's questions when on the witness stand?

May I plead the fifth? :)

If you have a dispute with your neighbour, and your neighbour is not part of the Libertarian government, who resolves those disputes?

When you say "not part of the Libertarian government", do you mean in the sense that they are a Libertarian citizen, but not an arbiter or enforcer, or do you mean in the sense that they are not a citizen of Libertaria? If the former, your arbiter will resolve the dispute. If the latter, whatever agency you assigned when you contracted with your neighbor will resolve the dispute.

But in any case, if you are coerced (and you are a citizen of Libertaria), then your government will defend you or retaliate on your behalf according to the findings of arbitration.

What I've read is that Microsoft's offer to open up its source code was a consequence of the company trying to settle its antitrust battle with the Justice Department.

I'm afraid you've been misinformed. Microsoft opened its source code more than a decade ago, via what we call the Application Programmer's Interface. It was a marketing strategy, based on the assumption that people would be more likely to write programs for an operating system whose interface was exposed.

It worked.

What I've read is that Microsoft's offer to open up its source code was a consequence of the company trying to settle its antitrust battle with the Justice Department.

Then demand them, commission them, or write them yourself.

I urge you to familiarize yourself with the antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft. Its market dominance was in large part established by anti-competitive practices.

That is the opinion of one sour judge, whose hatred of Microsoft is so obvious, in my opinion, as to be laughable. There are other viewpoints on that suit, many of which you can read at Free-Market, some of them by actual attorneys!

Does this mean that the government hires and maintans a police force, judges, a law system, prisons? Does the monarch (in your Libertaria) choose the judges?

Well, it maintains arbitration and enforcement, but there is only one law. The monarch is is the chief enforcer, and may act solely upon the orders of arbiters who are popularly elected.

How are laws passed?

There are no laws passed. There is no legislation of any kind.

Are the laws frozen at the time the first citizen signs a contract with the government?

There is only one law, and it does not change.

What happens when new ethical issues arise, for example issues that are raised by new scientific developments?

Nothing.

Suppression of coercion is the only ethical issue before a Libertarian government.

How does the Libertarian government decide on those issues?

It doesn't. It doesn't make decisions about any issue except whether force or fraud has been initiated against one of its citizens.

The reason I am presenting hypotheticals is to find out how a Libertarian government would work in practice.

But it could work any one of a bazillion different ways.

Your answers to most questions are of the order "It will all be fine and everybody will be happy." Those sunny predictions would not satisfy many people in the "real world."

But that's the nature of hypotheticals, sir. I would never base my decision on the answer to one. If we're all just supposin', what's the use in that? The only utility for hypotheticals is to determine the underlying principle of an argument. But I have given you those principles already. In spades. Therefore, you can answer your own hypotheticals as easily as I can answer them for you.

If I did not have to consider practical issues, I can make any government system sound like paradise on earth.

(Apologies to those who already have heard this a hundred times...)

What is practical depends entirely on what you are practicing. If you are practicing tyranny, then libertarian principles are manifestly impractical. But if you are practicing voluntary human relations in a context of nonaggression, then libertarian principles are the only practical ones there are.

Then my property value would be diminished. The public project would have been discussed in citizen's meetings at city hall before it was implemented, and I could have made my [objection] known then. In case of a real loss of home value, the government may compensate me for the loss.

Hypothetically speaking, of course.

Now, let me illustrate to you the tactic that I find to be an annoying waste of time and energy:

But the project is a federal one, and you would have had to have kept up daily with notices posted by the federal government, and would have had to make a trip to Washington (you live in Hawaii) at your own expense. And dang it, when you got there, there wasn't time for you to speak, so you had to make your objections in triplicate, and the file was lost, and the only person who ever read it was the guy who misplaced it. So you went straight to Senator Fatcat's office, only to find he wasn't there. He was out playing golf with Mister Tycoon.

I will point out that a similar situation is just as likely in Libertaria. e.g. I have contracted with private company X to use the road adjacent to my property. When my contract reaches its term, private company X informs me that they have decided to destroy the road and build a new Disneyland. I am equally powerless to prevent them. So Libertaria would offer no help [in] a similar scenario.

Yeah, see how it goes? First, there were two roads. Now, there is none. [sigh...] Does the guy who built the new Disneyland expect people to fly there in jetpacks?

How can these things possibly be answered, because with every response, you will simply change the scenario. I will answer this one, and then challenge you to exercise your own great intellegence to answer your newly modified one based on the principles I have given you.

If the road you prefer is closed at the end of term, then use another road.

(I know. I know. There aren't any more roads. All the entrepreneurs have died. There is a shortage of asphalt. A mean man who has hated you since childhood owns all the property surrounding yours. And all of your neighbors are content to stay home and never venture out.)

I'm sorry, I thought you were offering to answer questions. If you no longer wish to do so please let me know and I will cease and desist.

I expected to answer questions on metaphysics, eptistemology, and ethics, not what possible manifestations might arise out of the Universal Set of hypothetical events.

Thank you for the link. I have read the document and see that the proposed solution there is a set of toll roads to replace the highway system. I'm not convinced that a private company would be more efficient than a government in building toll roads. In Southern California (where I live) there are several toll roads that have been built that are losing money. If the company that builds them decides to abandon the project, then some natural habitats will have been destroyed for no good purpose. The free-market solution is proving to be a failure in this case.

Mixed metaphor. The market there is not free.

I suppose this should be another discussion, I only presented referenda as one method that voters can use in this society to pass laws. Of course state laws are subject to constitutional issues, federal jurisdiction, etc...

Don't forget Executive Orders. And the newest method, litigation.

All I'm pointing out is that asset forfeiture will happen in a Libertarian government as well as our current system of government. You made it sound like asset forfeiture was strictly a feature of what you like to call the "Fabian Socialist Government."

No. Libertaria may not take your property on suspicion of a crime.

Sorry, not familiar with the case.

Well, I see that it's no longer in the archive. But for many similar type things see John Stossel's Archives (http://www.abcnews.go.com/onair/JohnStossel/stossel_archive_index.html). You can also see some lively discussion there on such issues.

You mean starting a private school. I can do that with the government I have now. I don't see how the Libertarian solution is any different.

Presently, there are no private schools (http://www.splc.org/resources/private.school/private.html).

The following federal laws apply to "private schools". Nothing is to prevent the expanded scope of new ones:

Age Discrimination Act of 1975, 42 U.S.C.A. 6101 et seq., with implementing regulations at 34 CFR Part 110;

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI), 42 U.S.C.A. 2000d et seq., with implementing regulations at 34 CFR Parts 100 and 101;

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX), 20 U.S.C.A. 1681 et seq., with implementing regulations at 34 CFR Part 106;

Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C.A. 12131 et seq., with implementing regulations at 28 CFR Part 35;

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504), 29 U.S.C.A. 794, with implementing regulations at 34 CFR Part 104;

and

Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (Part B of IDEA), 20 U.S.C.A. 1411 et seq., with implementing regulations at 34 CFR Part 300.

The Libertarian solution is different because you write your own guidelines. You want a school for blue-eyed Cherokee Indians with three toes? Fine. Start one.

Before you were stating that if your anarchist neighbour were to act in contravention to your government's moral code (in my example: harsh physical discipline of a child), you would feel justified in imposing your moral code upon them. Do you now retract that statement?


No. If you will check back, you will find something like, "But speaking as a Christian...". The Christian ethic is love. (For the baby in this case.)

My expression "in its midst" might have confused you. I meant that in the real physical sense, e.g. I live in apartment 2B, and I'm a Fabian Socialist, but apartments 2A and 2C are inhabited by citizens of Libertaria.

Fabian Socialist?

At any rate, all of you are contracted with the apartment's owner. Unless you're squatting, of course.

I have duly noted your dislike in engaging in practical issues affecting Libertaria. In those practical issues lie the very reasons that Libertarianism in my view is not an effective form a government. As I said before, any government can look good on paper.

Libertarianism is not a form of government.

It is a political philosophy.

Any form of government (monarchy, democracy, republic, dictatorship, communist collective) may operate in a libertarian context so long as it suppresses coercion.

[Kimstu]

Libertarian: At last, an epistemological debate. Thank you.

No no, thank you. :)

L: Odd that you appeal to an actual human construct, society, as the source of rights [...]

? I don't quite see what's odd about it---I never claimed that society wasn't a human construct. Rights are thus a human construct meaningful only in relation to another human construct.

L: Since I have already defined rights in libertarian terms, I would appreciate it if you would define rights in left liberal terms.

That's kind of a stumper---I don't think there actually is a single "left liberal philosophy of rights" as there seems to be for Libertarians, or if there is I don't know it. But I can certainly tell you how I, one reasonable approximation to a left liberal, would define rights.

First, we have to establish whether we're talking about what the set of rights is or what makes that set of rights valid, i.e., what bestows those rights. As I said, what bestows rights on individuals within a society is that society's commitment to acknowledge and uphold those rights. As for what rights I think should be so acknowledged...well, I'm definitely in favor of the ones set forth in the Constitution (http://www.leftjustified.com/leftjust/lib/sc/ht/const/print.html) as currently amended, although I wish we could get a clearer consensus on the Second Amendment and I would also like to see the Equal Rights Amendment (http://www.now.org/issues/economic/eratext.html) added to them. I'd favor extending them to include the rights specified in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html), although for some reason I'd rather adopt the UN rights as part of membership in a broader society (the UN) than change the Constitution to include them.

L: Nowhere have I presented the libertarian notion as "valid" in such a way that it trumps your own notion. In fact, I have gone to great pains (more than once) to assure you that, libertarianly speaking, you may define rights any way you please. [...] Just don't think that rights, as you define them, hold universally.

Why...then everything's cool! We're totally in agreement! (Now that I didn't expect. :)) I too am solidly behind the proposition that rights are legitimately defined differently by different societies (although of course that does not preclude societies' trying to influence one another's conception of rights). What I thought you were arguing was that Libertarian rights (e.g. ownership of the body, freedom from all compulsion) were somehow special because they were bestowed by God or nature, as intrinsic to all human existence as breathing or urinating, and that therefore any non-Libertarian society that ever infringed any of those rights was automatically, foundationally, illegitimate.

My mistake, I guess---sorry.

L: All I have tried to communicate to you is that libertairanism does not recognize in you (or in anyone) the "right" to make other people join what you join, believe what you believe, or otherwise bully peaceful honest people, and that the government of Libertaria will use whatever force necessary to stop you from doing that with respect to its citizens.

Why sure, in a Libertarian society that would go without saying (though it's probably not a bad idea to put a sign up anyway :)). But if you live in a society that acknowledges a different set of individual rights, you can't expect it necessarily to recognize your "right" to own your body or be free from all compulsion or enjoy other Libertarian ideals, and you can't claim that that automatically invalidates its laws or its government as they relate to you.

[Liberal]

Kimstu

You used to pop people's balloons at birthday parties, didn't you? ;)

I'm afraid you and I have come to an agreement, with one possible exception. I'll leave that for you to say.

Libertarianism recognizes a universal right of consent (born from the unique consciousness given to you by God or nature); that is, you are free to choose whatever society you like, whatever government you like, whatever friends and neighbors you like. But neither you nor anyone else is "free" to override the consent of another person who is peaceful and honest.

There is precedent in your left liberal history (you came from us) for that notion, found here in the precursor document to the Constiution, the Declaration of Independence (http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/declaration/declaration.html):

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

Does left liberalism still hold to this principle?

[Spiritus Mundi]

And all that without a single typo! Well done, Spiritus!

lol.
Right back atya, Lib. See, I knew thi conversation needed a sprinkle of humor.

BTW, I meant no ridicule in pulling that one sentence out of context. It simply made me chuckle when I read it so I thought I would share the joy.

BTW 2, I don't really wish to dive headlong into this debate (I think you and I have danced this tune before) but I had to respond to your Microsoft comment. APIs are not a release of the OS source code. APIs are hooks into the OS soure, but they do not come close to representing the whole picture. There are open source operating systems on teh market, but WINDOWS ain't one of 'em.

Minor point of fact, by as a dedicated Unix hack I have a contractual obligation to slap down the GUI beast whenever possible. ;)

[August West]

ChiefWahoo

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As an Objectivist, I strongly protest your self-characterization as an Objectivist.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

While your protest is duly noted, you will understand that your being an Objectivist confers upon you no mystical authority over me.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you have merely taken what you like out of the philosophy and abandoned the fundamentals, you have no cause in calling yourself an Objectivist.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What I have done is the opposite. I have retained the fundamentals while discarding the ornamentals.

OK,Lib,
In what way did I imply that in being an Objectivist I have mystical power over you?

You are a self-titled Objectivist Christian.
Objectivism:Your life is the ultimate value.
Christianity:"Greater love has no man than this,that he lay down his life for his friends."

Objectivism: Reason is your tool for knowledge.
Christianity:Knowledge is acquired through faith,prophecy,and revelation.

Objectivism:The goal of all proper action is to remain alive.
Christianity: The goal of all proper action is to die and recieve your eternal reward.

Acoording to Christianity, He was born of a Virgin. Do you believe this? What about Jesus' turning water into wine? That would be a violation of identity.Or is He omnipotent? Impossible, by the axioms set forth in Objectivism.

True Objectivism can not be reconciled with true Christianity. If you claim to be both, you are neither. Apparently you are saying that you are a Christian who acts in his own self-interest. YOU ARE A LIVING PARADOX!

[Kimstu]

Libertarian: You used to pop people's balloons at birthday parties, didn't you?

Nope, I was the little girl cowering in the corner with her hands over her ears when that started. Balloon popping...ooh, bad craziness.

L: There is precedent in your left liberal history (you came from us)

Thank heavens, something we can disagree about again! :) I don't agree that libertarianism and classical liberalism are the same thing, though I think it's reasonable to say that both modern liberalism and libertarianism are ultimately descended from classical liberalism. To my thinking, there are enough major differences between classical-liberal (as in this example (http://socserv2.socsci.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/mill/prin/book5/bk5ch11)) and libertarian thinking to show that some serious speciation has happened in the intervening time.

L: for that notion, found here in the precursor document to the Constiution, the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

Does left liberalism still hold to this principle?

Well, I've already disclaimed the role of spokesperson for left-liberalism in general, but again, I can answer for myself. Do governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed? Sure. That's why the people who make our laws have to be popularly elected representatives, and why the US maintains (unlike China and Cuba, say) the free emigration policy that Cecil explained to us (http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a4_229.html). A government may not justly obligate a person to continue under its governance without his or her consent.

Does that principle imply that a government may not justly do anything without first obtaining the explicit and particular consent of every one of the governed? Heck, no.

[tracer]

Libertarian wrote:

Now, Peter McWilliams (and countless others) is dead, having choked to death on his vomit. He requested (and was declined) marijuana for his nausea.

And only this June 16th, 4 days before Wally passed away, too.

I have an old humor book he wrote called The McWilliams II Word Processor (the "word processor" was a pencil, get it?), and a copy of Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do that I still refer to from time to time. I even have an e-mail from him I first read a couple of years ago, still sitting in my Inbox (I said I was going to vote Yes on California's medical marijuana referendum, and he replied, "As an AIDS/cancer patient, I thank you.").

I never met him, or even chatted with him online, but damn, I'm gonna miss that guy. :(

[2sense]

Do all libertarians believe that rights are established by a diety or nature as opposed to agreed upon by societies?

What do you see as the benefits of a monarchy vs a democracy?
I am interested in your answers to this question assuming a libertarain context in both and in neither.

:)

[Arnold Winkelried]

Libertarian: When you say "not part of the Libertarian government", do you mean in the sense that they are a Libertarian citizen, but not an arbiter or enforcer, or do you mean in the sense that they are not a citizen of Libertaria? If the former, your arbiter will resolve the dispute. If the latter, whatever agency you assigned when you contracted with your neighbor will resolve the dispute.
Does this mean that when a neighbour moves into the aparment/townhouse/condo next to me, he has to sign a contract with me first? If I buy a property between two other properties, I have to sign contracts with both people? Even (or especially) if I am not part of their government?

Libertarian: But in any case, if you are coerced (and you are a citizen of Libertaria), then your government will defend you or retaliate on your behalf according to the findings of arbitration.
In my example, I meant "not a citizen of Libertaria." I'm not sure how an arbiter can decide for me (the non-citizen) since I probably will have different arbiters than the citizen of Libertaria. Therefore the government of Libertaria will be exerting its authority upon citizens of other governments. Authority that I may well view as being immoral and illegal since your definition of non-coercion may very well be different than mine. You had stated "Libertaria does not engage in diplomacy", but this sounds like diplomatic negotiations with the other citizen's government may be required.

Libertarian: I'm afraid you've been misinformed. Microsoft opened its source code more than a decade ago, via what we call the Application Programmer's Interface. It was a marketing strategy, based on the assumption that people would be more likely to write programs for an operating system whose interface was exposed.
As Spiritus Mundi has pointed out, this is not what you said before ("published the source code"), but it's just a technicality that may not be obvious to someone not well-versed in the field of computer science. In any event, it's not an important point.

Libertarian (in re the Microsoft source code): Then demand them, commission them, or write them yourself.
I am not demanding the Microsoft source code, I am demanding that Microsoft cease its unfair business practices.

Libertarian (in re the Microsoft antitrust suit):
That is the opinion of one sour judge, whose hatred of Microsoft is so obvious, in my opinion, as to be laughable. There are other viewpoints on that suit, many of which you can read at Free-Market, some of them by actual attorneys!
I can just as well point you to many opinions that view the judgment as being justified. Many of them from actual people in the computer science industry, who understand the technical issues involved, and many from attorneys. You are free, of course, to disagree with the judge. Nonetheless his judgment stands (for now, I realize of course that a company like Microsoft, with such a large budget, can appeal any unfavourable decision to death. And I don't begrudge Microsoft the right to appeal.)

Libertarian: Well, it maintains arbitration and enforcement, but there is only one law. The monarch is is the chief enforcer, and may act solely upon the orders of arbiters who are popularly elected.
Populary elected? Is this a unanimous vote? Does every arbiter need to be approved by every citizen? If not, then this is the majority imposing their will upon the minority. If every arbiter does need to be approved by every citizen, then it would be almost impossible to find arbiters.
By the way, how are the enforcers chosen?

Libertarian: There are no laws passed. There is no legislation of any kind.
There is only one law, and it does not change.
Suppression of coercion is the only ethical issue before a Libertarian government.
This is naive in the extreme. Even with the attempt at preciseness in the language of our complex legal system issues are not always cut and dry. If every arbiter is issued only one law (suppression of coercion), then it seems obvious that any two arbiters will have different interpretation of the law when forced to apply it. (As a relevant example, look at the different interpretations of any verse in the Bible.) There will be no consistency in the application of justice. If an arbiter has an incorrect interpretation (in my view) of the single law in Libertaria, is a popular vote needed to remove her? Or does this have to be a unanimous decision by all citizens?
Please note also that arbiters and enforcers will have authority over people the same way that Senator Fatcat has now. To use your example, if an arbiter finds against me and I want to ask her for redress, I may very well find that arbiter Fatcat has gone to lunch with businesswoman Moneybags. The potential for injustice is there just as well as in our current government.

Libertarian (in re new scientific developments): It doesn't. It doesn't make decisions about any issue except whether force or fraud has been initiated against one of its citizens.
But a new scientific development may very well influence the way force or fraud is defined, or determined by an arbiter. Let us take the example of DNA testing. Is an arbiter required to abide by the results of DNA testing in, for example, the case of rape? Or does an arbiter have the choice to go with their "gut feeling" and ignore DNA testing because she doesn't "believe" in it?

Libertarian (in re 'how does a libertarian government work): But it could work any one of a bazillion different ways.
What I mean by my questions in this thread "Ask the Libertarian..." is 'how does YOUR Libertarian government work.'

Libertarian: But I have given you those principles already. In spades. Therefore, you can answer your own hypotheticals as easily as I can answer them for you.
OK, please note that I answered one of my own hypotheticals above (concerning the judicial system), and found that the answer is that the Libertarian government will lead to lack of consistency in enforcing the law, the tyranny of the majority upon the minority, and the risk of abuse of authority.

Libertarian: (Apologies to those who already have heard this a hundred times...)
I'm sorry that this may seem to you like rehashing the same subject over and over, but if you think that you are repeating yourself, then perhaps the time has come to cease discussing this issue? I am not advocating any course of action for you, but if you grow weary of these discussions I will not blame you.

Libertarian: What is practical depends entirely on what you are practicing. If you are practicing tyranny, then libertarian principles are manifestly impractical. But if you are practicing voluntary human relations in a context of nonaggression, then libertarian principles are the only practical ones there are.
This sounds like wordplay to me. What I say "practical issues", I use the word practical in the sense "of, relating to, or manifested in practice or action : not theoretical or ideal". In theory, almost any political philosophy can be made to sound acceptable.

Libertarian (in re how my dispute with the government would be resolved:) Hypothetically speaking, of course. (then proceeds to illustrate that my method for resolving the governmental abuse of power could very well fail)
Yes, if the people we appoint to positions of authority over us are corrupt, then injustices may very well occur. (See my discussion of the Libertarian arbiters above)

Libertarian (in re my road example): If the road you prefer is closed at the end of term, then use another road.
I suppose I could use this response to the example you had given, where senator Fatcat has stolen my road. I was only pointing out that the Libertarian citizen is dependent on other entities for his well-being in the same way I am dependent on my government.

Libertarian: I expected to answer questions on metaphysics, eptistemology, and ethics, not what possible manifestations might arise out of the Universal Set of hypothetical events.
I'm sorry to disappoint you. I personally am more interested in the practical applications of your philosophy of government. As I said above, if you wish me to cease questioning you, just give me the word and I will go away.

Libertarian (in re toll roads): Mixed metaphor. The market there is not free.
The USA has one of the least regulated markets in the Western Industrialized world. Since you are arguing for unregulated capitalism, I will point out that socialist laws arose due to the perceived injustices caused by unrestricted capitalism.

Libertarian (in re assert forfeiture): No. Libertaria may not take your property on suspicion of a crime.
I don't understand then, what happens to me if I am in breach of contract? If my property is not taken, then what is my punishment?

Libertarian (in re private schools): Presently, there are no private schools. (lists example of federal laws that govern private schools.)
Concerning the issue of education, you had said previously The standard for the parent, in this regard, is even greater than the standard for government, since government may refuse to contract with you (and you with it), but the parent is already under a contract with the child, which he must not breach. I took that to mean that there are certain educational standards that a parent is expected to fulfill. This is in part why we have regulations covering our schools. Other reasons being for the safety of the students, to ensure equal access to most students, etc...

Libertarian: The Libertarian solution is different because you write your own guidelines. You want a school for blue-eyed Cherokee Indians with three toes? Fine. Start one.
The freedom for businesses to discriminate based on arbitrary or even ridiculous criteria is, in my view, one of the least attractive aspects of Libertaria.

Libertarian (in re Libertaria imposing its moral code upon a non-citizen neighbour): No. If you will check back, you will find something like, "But speaking as a Christian...". The Christian ethic is love. (For the baby in this case.)
I suppose you mean by this that the enforcers of Libertaria would not support you in your attempt to impose your moral code upon me? This would then become vigilante justice. Another unpalatable idea in my view.

Libertarian: Fabian Socialist?
I apologize for using a term unfamiliar to you. You can find a definition here. (http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/8/0,5716,34108+1+33515,00.html) Perhaps you prefer the term Fabianist. In any event, I had no reason to pick that in my example, any government type other than the monarchist Libertaria would have served for the purposes of discussion.

Libertarian: At any rate, all of you are contracted with the apartment's owner.
Who could belong to yet another government. See my discussion above about resolving differences of opinion amongst people of different governments.

Libertarian: Libertarianism is not a form of government. It is a political philosophy.
I apologize for my lack of precision. In the future I will say "monarchy that follows the guidelines of the Libertarian political philosophy." I choose monarchy because you had stated that would be your preferred form of government, and since I am asking you how your government would work, I will direct my questions to your "parameters."

[Liberal]

Spiritus

I don't really wish to dive headlong into this debate (I think you and I have danced this tune before) but I had to respond to your Microsoft comment. APIs are not a release of the OS source code. APIs are hooks into the OS soure, but they do not come close to representing the whole picture. There are open source operating systems on teh market, but WINDOWS ain't one of 'em.

Egad, you're right! I shouldn't have called that a release of the source code. My error.

[Liberal]

Chief Wahoo

In what way did I imply that in being an Objectivist I have mystical power over you?

The implication of your protest against what I title my philosophy (which you have yet to get right) was that I must desist.

You are a self-titled Objectivist Christian.

No, I am not.

Now we have the following equivocations:

Objectivism:Your life is the ultimate value.
Christianity:"Greater love has no man than this, [that] he lay down his life for his friends."

It is your Spiritual Life that is the ultimate value, which is born by voluntary and volitional submission of your ego eimi to the Owner of the Heaveans and the Earth.

Objectivism: Reason is your tool for knowledge.
Christianity:Knowledge is acquired through faith,prophecy,and revelation.

The brain is for apprehension. The heart is for comprehension.

Objectivism:The goal of all proper action is to remain alive.
Christianity: The goal of all proper action is to die and [receive] your eternal reward.

The death of the old is the birth of the new. You needn't wait for your cells to decay to enter the Kingdom of God.

"The Kingdom of Heaven is within you." — Jesus

[According] to Christianity, He was born of a Virgin. Do you believe this?

Yes. But it is not according to Christianity; it is according to the writers of the Gospels.

What about Jesus' turning water into wine? That would be a violation of identity. [Or] is He omnipotent? Impossible, by the axioms set forth in Objectivism.

Morphing atoms is a violation of identity? Good thing Rand was a 10th century figure, rather than a 20th. Most everything we're doing today is impossible.

True Objectivism can not be reconciled with true Christianity. If you claim to be both, you are neither. Apparently you are saying that you are a Christian who acts in his own self-interest. YOU ARE A LIVING PARADOX!

Yes, I know. "True" Objectivism. She is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to Objectivity except by her.

Consider, if you wish, that my Objectivism is not "True". Makes no difference to me.

[Liberal]

Kimstu

Well, I've already disclaimed the role of spokesperson for left-liberalism in general, but again, I can answer for myself.

My apologies. What are you, then. A Centrist?

A government may not justly obligate a person to continue under its governance without his or her consent.

But will it force him to abandon his property, or does it claim eminent ownership of it?

[Liberal]

Tracer

I never met [Peter McWilliams], or even chatted with him online, but damn, I'm gonna miss that guy.

It is my most fervent hope to stir up that great well of compassion in left liberals that they pour onto a faceless society in wave after wave, such that at least some of it might spill over onto individuals with beating hearts, thinking brains, and eternal Spirits.

[Liberal]

2Sense

Do all libertarians believe that rights are established by a [deity] or nature as opposed to agreed upon by societies?

To be a libertarian, it is only necessary that you believe every person has the right to be free from the coercion and fraud of all other people.

What do you see as the benefits of a monarchy vs a democracy?

It might be easier to take down one tyrant than to take down a hundred million of them.

I am interested in your answers to this question assuming a [libertarian] context in both and in neither.

Well, that's easy:

Libertarian Monarchy: The queen secures the rights of the citizens.

Antilibertarian Monarchy: The queen abridges the rights of the citizens.

Libertarian Democracy: The majority secures the rights of the citizens.

Antilibertarian Democracy: The majority abridges the rights of the citizens.

[Liberal]

Arnold

Does this mean that when a neighbour moves into the aparment/townhouse/condo next to me, he has to sign a contract with me first? If I buy a property between two other properties, I have to sign contracts with both people? Even (or especially) if I am not part of their government?

I'm so lost in the bowels of your hypothetical that I cannot remember which witch was which.

You do not have to sign contracts with anyone. But contracts are proof of consent; therefore, a prudent man will make use of them. With respect to property, rights inhere to the owner. You have yours, and the man beside you has his.

In my example, I meant "not a citizen of Libertaria." I'm not sure how an arbiter can decide for me (the non-citizen) since I probably will have different arbiters than the citizen of Libertaria. Therefore the government of Libertaria will be exerting its authority upon citizens of other governments. Authority that I may well view as being immoral and illegal since your definition of non-coercion may very well be different than mine. You had stated "Libertaria does not engage in diplomacy", but this sounds like diplomatic negotiations with the other citizen's government may be required.

Again, Libertarian government recognizes nothing but its own obligation, which is to its citizen. It has no obligation whatsoever to anarchists, citizens of other governments, or agents of other governments. It will use whatever force necessary to restore its citizen when he has been coerced, no matter whether the source of that coercion is a solitary thug or a nation-state.

As Spiritus Mundi has pointed out, this is not what you said before ("published the source code"), but it's just a technicality that may not be obvious to someone not well-versed in the field of computer science. In any event, it's not an important point.

Yes, I was wrong in that regard. Thank you for the kindness of your indulgence.

I am not demanding the Microsoft source code, I am demanding that Microsoft cease its unfair business practices.

What do you mean by unfair?

I can just as well point you to many opinions that view the judgment as being justified. Many of them from actual people in the computer science industry, who understand the technical issues involved, and many from attorneys. You are free, of course, to disagree with the judge. Nonetheless his judgment stands (for now, I realize of course that a company like Microsoft, with such a large budget, can appeal any unfavourable decision to death. And I don't begrudge Microsoft the right to appeal.)

Are you from England?

Populary elected? Is this a unanimous vote? Does every arbiter need to be approved by every citizen? If not, then this is the majority imposing their will upon the minority. If every arbiter does need to be approved by every citizen, then it would be almost impossible to find arbiters.
By the way, how are the enforcers chosen?

If you don't like the way we do things, don't sign the contract. Seek out a government whose form you like, or start your own.

The arbiters are elected by majority vote, consent to which was given by each citizen. The enforcers are chosen by the monarch.

This is naive in the extreme.

No, it isn't.

Even with the attempt at preciseness in the language of our complex legal system issues are not always cut and dry. If every arbiter is issued only one law (suppression of coercion), then it seems obvious that any two arbiters will have different interpretation of the law when forced to apply it.

That is as it should be. Every person and every situation is quite different. That's why centralized laws (especially those as complex as ours) are naive in the extreme.

To apply a single law regarding housing, for example, to those who live in South Central Los Angeles as well as to those who live in rural Idaho is patently absurd.

(As a relevant example, look at the different interpretations of any verse in the Bible.) There will be no consistency in the application of justice. If an arbiter has an incorrect interpretation (in my view) of the single law in Libertaria, is a popular vote needed to remove her? Or does this have to be a unanimous decision by all citizens?

If you believe the arbiter has coerced or defrauded you, then you may bring charges against her. Or, at your discretion, you may vote her out the following year.

Please note also that arbiters and enforcers will have authority over people the same way that Senator Fatcat has now. To use your example, if an arbiter finds against me and I want to ask her for redress, I may very well find that arbiter Fatcat has gone to lunch with businesswoman Moneybags. The potential for injustice is there just as well as in our current government.

Are you concerned about a quid pro quo between them? Of what? She has no power to challenge your authority over your property, no power to take anything from you, no power to give Moneybags any status, property, or favor. Moneybags wouldn't waste his time with her.

You are used to thinking of government as a Nanny.

But a new scientific development may very well influence the way force or fraud is defined, or determined by an arbiter. Let us take the example of DNA testing. Is an arbiter required to abide by the results of DNA testing in, for example, the case of rape? Or does an arbiter have the choice to go with their "gut feeling" and ignore DNA testing because she doesn't "believe" in it?

The arbiter has full discretion in determining whether force or fraud has been initiated for a particular case. But if you prefer an arbiter who "believes in DNA", then select her to arbitrate your dispute.

What I mean by my questions in this thread "Ask the Libertarian..." is 'how does YOUR Libertarian government work.'

Oh.

OK, please note that I answered one of my own hypotheticals above (concerning the judicial system), and found that the answer is that the Libertarian government will lead to lack of consistency in enforcing the law, the tyranny of the majority upon the minority, and the risk of abuse of authority.

Then form one (or join one) that you believe is less risky.

I'm sorry that this may seem to you like rehashing the same subject over and over, but if you think that you are repeating yourself, then perhaps the time has come to cease discussing this issue? I am not advocating any course of action for you, but if you grow weary of these discussions I will not blame you.

Please understand that I have been answering these questions for a long time and that I do often repeat. Disclaimers are for the sake of those who have been here as long as I have. I do realize that newbies have never heard any of this.

This sounds like wordplay to me. What I say "practical issues", I use the word practical in the sense "of, relating to, or manifested in practice or action : not theoretical or ideal". In theory, almost any political philosophy can be made to sound acceptable.

Yes, and that is what I said. What principles are practical depend entirely on what you are practicing.

Yes, if the people we appoint to positions of authority over us are corrupt, then injustices may very well occur. (See my discussion of the Libertarian arbiters above)

Ay, there's the rub. Corruption.

It will bring down Libertaria just as easily as it will bring down Tyrannia. Keep the power to the minimum for maximum hope.

I'm sorry to disappoint you. I personally am more interested in the practical applications of your philosophy of government. As I said above, if you wish me to cease questioning you, just give me the word and I will go away.

If you went away, I would feel a loss.

But sadly, you are limiting yourself to one person's vision of how to apply libertarianism, when you could see the views of thousands of others, and perhaps begin the wonderful exercise of envisioning your own.

The USA has one of the least regulated markets in the Western Industrialized world. Since you are arguing for unregulated capitalism, I will point out that socialist laws arose due to the perceived injustices caused by unrestricted capitalism.

Let us clarify this again.

I am not arguing for unregulated capitalism. I am arguing for capitalism in a context of noncoercion. Make all the money you please; just don't think you can buy anything of mine without my consent.

Concerning the issue of education, you had said previously The standard for the parent, in this regard, is even greater than the standard for government, since government may refuse to contract with you (and you with it), but the parent is already under a contract with the child, which he must not breach. I took that to mean that there are certain educational standards that a parent is expected to fulfill. This is in part why we have regulations covering our schools. Other reasons being for the safety of the students, to ensure equal access to most students, etc...

But the parent (not government) decides on those standards. Wouldn't you really rather decide on the standards for your children, or would you rather leave that up to Miss Paperpusher at the Department of Education thousands of miles away?

The freedom for businesses to discriminate based on arbitrary or even ridiculous criteria is, in my view, one of the least attractive aspects of Libertaria.

Then don't join it.

I suppose you mean by this that the enforcers of Libertaria would not support you in your attempt to impose your moral code upon me? This would then become vigilante justice. Another unpalatable idea in my view.

But surely more palatable than leaving babies to be beaten, no?

Perhaps you prefer the term Fabianist.

Yes, I do. Socialism is one thing; Fabianism is another. Mixing terms that way can lead to careless analogies, like linking libertarianism with unregulated capitalism.

I apologize for my lack of precision...

No problem. Just trying to keep everything clear.

[Kimstu]

Libertarian replied to me:


Well, I've already disclaimed the role of spokesperson for left-liberalism in general, but again, I can answer for myself.

My apologies. What are you, then. A Centrist?


No apology required (on this point). As I said before, I do consider myself a reasonable approximation to a left liberal, I simply do not undertake to speak for "left-liberalism" in the abstract because I think it's much more diverse than my own individual views.

However, I do identify myself with other left liberals sufficiently to resent in the extreme your indefensible remark to tracer that left liberals have compassion for "faceless society" but none for "individuals with beating hearts and thinking brains". The ACLU, a strongly left-liberal organization, helps defend the rights of thousands of actual living individuals each year, and the legalization campaign that might have saved the late Mr. McWilliams and many others was fervently supported by many left liberals. All civil liberties of real individuals in this society would be in much worse shape if it weren't for left liberals, and you'll also find a large proportion of left liberals in the front lines of compassionate endeavors to help and empower our individual fellow citizens.

Yours is the sort of comment that invites the accusation of indulging in "dirty rhetorical tricks." I don't go around claiming that Libertarians are all selfish and greedy plutocrat wannabes, and you should refrain from making similarly inaccurate and offensive statements about the personal beliefs and feelings of people of other political persuasions.


A government may not justly obligate a person to continue under its governance without his or her consent.

But will it force him to abandon his property, or does it claim eminent ownership of it?


Not sure I get your meaning here---are you asking whether former citizens of the state are allowed to own property in it? As far as I know, any non-US citizen may own property in the US.

In fact, I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at overall in our present exchange. It seemed to me that at first we were discussing the validity of the concept of "natural rights," and then you wanted to know if I thought a government derived its just powers from the consent of the governed, and now you seem to be asking what the property rights of the formerly-governed would be. Is there a particular point that this is intended ultimately to clarify? To me, for lack of seeing what it is you're driving at, this feels rather like trying to follow a grasshopper.

[Liberal]

Kimstu

However, I do identify myself with other left liberals sufficiently to resent in the extreme your indefensible remark to tracer that left liberals have compassion for "faceless society" but none for "individuals with beating hearts and thinking brains".

I regret my sweeping generalization, and apologize to you and to other left liberals who do indeed have compassion for individuals, leaving them to pursue their own happiness in their own way peacefully and honestly. But I would be most delighted to learn of left liberals who believe that you shouldn't take either a man's money or his marijuana from him against his will, for purposes deemed good or necessary by society (like The State's treasury, for example).

In fact, I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at overall in our present exchange. It seemed to me that at first we were discussing the validity of the concept of "natural rights," and then you wanted to know if I thought a government derived its just powers from the consent of the governed, and now you seem to be asking what the property rights of the formerly-governed would be. Is there a particular point that this is intended ultimately to clarify? To me, for lack of seeing what it is you're driving at, this feels rather like trying to follow a grasshopper.

I suppose I am trying to find grounds for a debate.

You and I are discussing values that left liberals and libertarians (for the most part) share in common, rather than those where we part ways. Presently, I was asking about your views on secession (in the context of withholding consent), thinking you might oppose it.

[Arnold Winkelried]

Libertarian: You do not have to sign contracts with anyone. But contracts are proof of consent; therefore, a prudent man will make use of them. With respect to property, rights inhere to the owner. You have yours, and the man beside you has his.
Before, when I had said "How do you resolve disputes with your neighbour who is not a citizen of Libertaria", you had said "whatever agency you assigned when you contracted with your neighbor will resolve the dispute." But the contract may or may not exist. A more precise answer would have been "the dispute will be resolved using the contract you had signed with your neighbour, assuming one exists; otherwise the dispute will not be resolved."

Libertarian: Again, Libertarian government recognizes nothing but its own obligation, which is to its citizen. It has no obligation whatsoever to anarchists, citizens of other governments, or agents of other governments. It will use whatever force necessary to restore its citizen when he has been coerced, no matter whether the source of that coercion is a solitary thug or a nation-state.
Therefore, the obligation of the Libertarian government (I know you said there was no such thing, but I'll just use the same term you do) will include enforcing its moral code upon non-citizens of Libertaria to defend its citizens. It will be guilty of coercion, just not upon its own citizens.

Libertarian: Thank you for the kindness of your indulgence.
Don't mention it. Or actually please do mention it, I love feeling generous and magnanimous.

Libertarian (in re Microsoft): What do you mean by unfair [business practices]?
Do you really want to rehash the Microsoft court case in this thread? I submit to you that this debate would be complex enough to warrant a whole other thread.

Libertarian: Are you from England?
No, dual citizen of Switzerland and United States of America.

Libertarian: The arbiters are elected by majority vote, consent to which was given by each citizen. The enforcers are chosen by the monarch.
So I as a citizen have freely consented to the tyranny of the majority, and allowing the carnie of government to have authority over me. I suppose that if I have freely consented then I can't complain when the government abuses its power.
You say "consent to which was given by each citizen." This must have been specified in the contract I signed when I joined Libertaria. So contract law is the main source for determining legal issues in Libertaria (e.g. how arbiters are chosen, how enforcers are chosen, etc...). Do all the citizens have to sign the same contract, or can they ask for amendments before signing? If they are allowed amendments, does the monarch decide which amendments s/he will accept in the contract for a citizen of Libertaria? Who is signing the contract on behalf of Libertaria?

Libertarian (in re the statement 'relying on as single law is naive'): No, it isn't.
Yes it is (times infinity). Top that! :D

Libertarian (in re laws being interpreted by the arbiter): That is as it should be. Every person and every situation is quite different. That's why centralized laws (especially those as complex as ours) are naive in the extreme.
It therefore also means that I may see my neighbour engaging in an activity approved by an arbiter, I might assume that activity A is allowed under the law of Libertaria, and when I engage in it, arbiter B may very well decide that arbiter A has incorrectly interpreted the law and forbid me from engaging in the same activity because it contravenes the law of Libertaria. Correct?

Libertarian: If you believe the arbiter has coerced or defrauded you, then you may bring charges against her. Or, at your discretion, you may vote her out the following year.
Fair enough.

Libertarian: Are you concerned about a quid pro quo between them? Of what? She (the arbiter) has no power to challenge your authority over your property, no power to take anything from you, no power to give Moneybags any status, property, or favor. Moneybags wouldn't waste his time with her.
She has the power to decide whether or not in my contract dispute with businesswoman Moneybags I am the wronged person or businesswoman Moneybags is the wronged person. The outcome of the judgment may very well be a financial compensation. The arbiter will order one of the parties in the contract dispute to turn over a portion of their (financial) property to the wronged party. Therefore, the arbiter has authority over my property.

Libertarian: You are used to thinking of government as a Nanny.
Yes, but a benevolent Nanny, in the Mary Poppins mode. Who can think of Julie Andrews' charming portrayal in that movie without feeling their spirits lifted, and a song rising to their lips?

Libertarian: The arbiter has full discretion in determining whether force or fraud has been initiated for a particular case. But if you prefer an arbiter who "believes in DNA", then select her to arbitrate your dispute.
An arbiter is usually deciding a case involving two people. In the example of a rape case, I have DNA evidence that in my mind proves that person X is guilty. Person X, of course, would prefer that this evidence not be admitted in court. Who gets to choose the arbiter? I, the plaintiff, or Person X, the defendant?

Libertarian (in re my dislike of Libertaria): Then form one (or join one) that you believe is less risky.
I have, it's the USA (as we all know, Libertaria can have many forms of government.)

Libertaria (in re corruption:) It will bring down Libertaria just as easily as it will bring down Tyrannia. Keep the power to the minimum for maximum hope.
Can't argue with that. The smaller the government, the easier it is for me to ignore it and/or rebel against it.

Libertarian: But sadly, you are limiting yourself to one person's vision of how to apply libertarianism, when you could see the views of thousands of others, and perhaps begin the wonderful exercise of envisioning your own.
Don't sell yourself short! Of course, I could see the views of thousands of others, and those thousands of others will have thousands of different governments. A daunting task indeed! But since you're here, I'll pick your brain first.
As far as envisioning my own, I already have, and it's not a government obeying Libertarian principles (unless you're willing to accept my statement above that USA is a form of Libertaria.)
Libertaria: I am not arguing for unregulated capitalism. I am arguing for capitalism in a context of noncoercion. Make all the money you please; just don't think you can buy anything of mine without my consent.
OK, I will rephrase my sentence to say "almost unregulated capitalism" instead of "unregulated capitalism."

Libertarian (in re the education of children): But the parent (not government) decides on those standards. Wouldn't you really rather decide on the standards for your children, or would you rather leave that up to Miss Paperpusher at the Department of Education thousands of miles away?
So if every one is in charge of choosing their own standard, then I as a parent am free to refuse education to my child, or for example teach them that evolution is bunk, the world is flat and diseases can be healed by prayer. Or is there a point at which the (lack of education) I am giving my child can be considered a breach of the implied social contract I have with my child?

Libertarian (in re joining Libertarian): Then don't join it.
So far I haven't seen any compelling reasons to join it. My questions to you are to help me decide if the libertarian political thought is an effective basis for a government.

Libertarian: But surely more palatable than leaving babies to be beaten, no?
Yes. My problem is that you, a citizen of Libertaria, have taken it upon yourself to decide what is an appropriate level of discipline for me, the anarchist. Isn't that coercion? Not everyone will have the same ideas on raising children. I, the anarchist, will have no recourse. I can't appeal to the arbiters of Libertaria, since I'm not a citizen of Libertaria. You have the enforcers of Libertaria to protect you, I have nothing.

Libertarian: Yes, I do. Socialism is one thing; Fabianism is another. Mixing terms that way can lead to careless analogies, like linking libertarianism with unregulated capitalism.
Perhaps I should let the editors of Encyclopædia Britannica know that their article contains an error.

[Gilligan]

“Who can think of Julie Andrews' charming portrayal in that movie without feeling their spirits lifted, and a song rising to their lips?”

Thanks, Arnold, now I can’t get that damn Spoonful of Sugar out of my head!

[xenophon41]

Lib I'm not gonna waste much of our time here. I just read through everything I missed since I stomped off in a huff. Not much has changed.

I really have no interest in defending Mike Huben's site (http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html), although it's understandable that you thought so. My intention was to take some wind out of your sails, as your voyage through the wonderful world of logical fallacies has apparently left you so smitten with the beauty of Boolean logic and deductive argument that you tend to overutilise the language while underemploying the rules.

Why did I decide to take umbrage with your list of objections? Simply put, I felt suckered when I started following your references to the Huben comments. Up to that point I had skimmed only a few of Huben's links (mostly Humor and Satire (http://world.std.com/~mhuben/humor.html)). When I saw your post, I thought "Oh, Lib's found some problems with the site," whereupon I followed not only your links to the list of fallacies, but also took a harder look at the site in question.

It quickly became apparent to me that you were applying Huben's various introductory comments to a supposed general argument against libertarianism. Since Huben's site is not offered as a general argument against libertarianism, and he does not attempt to make any direct arguments in his site (see the About this Site (http://world.std.com/~mhuben/about.html) section), I wondered why you were deliberately mislabelling his introductory remarks as fallacies. I decided that it would be uncharitable to assume that you did it for the cool appearance of superiority your objections would provide (these Latin terms sure are impressive when cited in refutations of other people's statements), but that you probably should be cautioned about your abuse of the fine and sharp tools provided by the Atheism Web (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#complexq), before you cut yourself too badly.

Since you and LaRochelle might as well be joined at the hip in terms of your rhetorical technique, I should've just quoted Huben re: LaRochelle and left it at that:

By far the largest of the criticisms, though it is fundamentally flawed. The biggest error is his misunderstanding of FAQ-nature: presentation of useful background for newsgroups, rather than the most rigorous possible argument. Comical touches are accusations of fallacies (which he commits frequently in his criticisms) and the frequent portraits of the authorities he likes. Major flaws include definition of libertarianism as the glittering generality "libertarianism is the ideology that aggression is bad", assumption that rejection of libertarianism means preference for its diametric opposite, and the pretense that property, rights, and common law are not created by force, without consent.

Hypotheticals

Since Libertaria itself is a hypothetical, I'm quite surprised at your continued refusal to explore your beloved mental construct within the mirror provided by the hypothetical situations Arnold and Kimstu have posed. However, I understand how pointless it is for me to insist on straight answers from you. It's your thread, after all, and I don't really care to upset any of the other conversations going on in it. Your most recent response to Arnold (6/29 @ 10:41am) supports my charge that you duck the hard questions far better than any argument from me could do. It seems that you are becoming the ideal self-parodist.

I objected to this statement of yours:

Dammit, if you can suppose, then so can I. Imagine someone who gives a shit about the plight of the poor. You, for example. Is it so hard to imagine that you might, oh, I don't know, HELP THEM OUT? Or is it just that you give only a hypothetical shit?

While I mischaracterized you, in my anger, as saying that "only libertarians care about the downtrodden" it's certainly a provocative and peurile charge that those who question Libertaria's ability to deal with poverty are themselves bereft of empathy! You seem to want us to do your work for you, and tell you how your vaunted system of non-coercion would work in real world conditions. Silly me! I must've read too much into the title of your thread, as I expected you to try and actually answer the questions put to the LOC. As you said yourself: "The point was not that you don't care, but that you ought to put up or shut up. You can't have your cake and eat it, too."

You admonished us:

You can't, on the one hand, say that nobody will care about the plight of the poor, and so the poor won't have fire protection, while on the other hand saying that a majority of the people do care, and that's why our government helps the poor out.

I haven't seen anyone do that on this thread. What some are saying is that our government provides a system whereby the poor are helped, whereas Libertaria provides no such system. (Or if it does, you aint sharin' that information.)

[Kimstu]

Libertarian: I regret my sweeping generalization, and apologize to you and to other left liberals who do indeed have compassion for individuals [...]

Okay then, sorry I snapped at you.

L: But I would be most delighted to learn of left liberals who believe that you shouldn't take either a man's money or his marijuana from him against his will, for purposes deemed good or necessary by society (like The State's treasury, for example).

That sounds to me as though you are looking for people who are both left liberal and libertarian---probably not a large set! To clarify: I and many other left liberals, particularly ACLU'ers, often describe ourselves as committed civil libertarians, meaning we are for rigorous enforcement of the individual freedoms specified in the Constitution. But we are not libertarians per se, because we don't dispute the essential legitimacy of governmental acts provided for elsewhere in the Constitution (such as taxation) that a libertarian society would call unlawful coercion.

L: Presently, I was asking about your views on secession (in the context of withholding consent), thinking you might oppose it.

Oh okay, I get it: you are asking whether the formerly-governed have a right to maintain property within their former sovereign state in the form of a separate state. Hmmm. IANAL, but I believe that most constitutional scholars hold that the Constitution (http://www.geocities.com/~heritageman//1st_floor/birth/1bc4e_doc.html) prohibits secession from the US (probably on the basis of Sections 3 and 4 of Article II, though I hasten to reiterate that I'm no expert), although some others disagree.

- Do I think that the Constitution can legitimately prohibit secession? Sure; after all, your property within a nation-state is only recognized as yours because the sovereign authority of the nation is willing to back up your claim to it, so why should the nation support you in refusing to recognize that authority?

- Do I think the Constitution ought to prohibit secession? Not so sure. I can certainly think of hypothetical situations in which I would consider secession the best solution (for example, the twentieth-century colonial independence movements in Asia and Africa). And there is something to be said in favor of maintaining the option of secession, like that of emigration, in order to curb government complacency about citizens' support for it. But I think we'd have to pass a constitutional amendment, with pretty strict anti-frivolity safeguards, if we really wish to make that a viable option.

And I must say that as a practical possibility, the chances of successfully seceding from the US in order to form a state that has no intention of recognizing the US government or engaging in international diplomacy seem pretty much nil. Any legislator could foretell the outcome with half an eye: little Libertaria will refuse to make treaties or have any official dealings with the US, and sooner or later the Queen of Libertaria will do something that the US considers an act of aggression (maybe punishing a US citizen for committing what Libertaria calls coercion upon a Libertarian citizen). Boom, Congress will declare war, in roll the tanks, and Libertaria is conquered and probably re-annexed. Who needs the aggravation? If disaffected citizens want to start a new state that refuses to maintain any diplomatic relations, let 'em go start it somewhere else, preferably in a different galaxy: that's what the legislators, and the vast majority of citizens, will think.

[pldennison]

What some are saying is that our government provides a system whereby the poor are helped, whereas Libertaria provides no such system. (Or if it does, you aint sharin' that information.)

I would venture a guess that the "system" in Libertaria is that those who want to help the poor will, and those who don't won't. It certainly would make people selective about who they want to have as neighbors.

Look at it this way (and forgive me if this is poorly explained or unsophisticated--I tend not to be very good at these thought experiments):

For the purposes of these few paragraphs, nation-states do not exist, and there is no government claiming eminent domain over the land on which I and my neighbors live. We don't even have to imagine Libertaria exists. There don't have to be any governments at all.

Because there is no such government, there are no government-provided fire or safety services. There are, however, entrepreneurs who have found it profitable to offer fire protection services to any nearby residents who want to buy them.

I am Mister B. I live between Mr. A and Mr. C. A and C have contracted with one of the local fire protection companies. I, being near the poverty line, have not.

One night my house catches fire. I am in a pickle, am I not? After all, I have no recourse for fire protection, because I cannot afford it. So my house is going to burn to the ground, right?

Well, we can be assured that, at some point, Messrs. A and C are going to call their fire protection service. After all, they at least need to be on hand should the fire spread; they're going to want to have it contained to my property, at a minimum.

Now, here, there are several things that could happen:

1) A and C can direct their fire protection service to contain the fire outside their property line but let mine burn. This is certainly a pragmatic option, but it certainly isn't very neighborly. I may be poor, but I may also provide some service A and/or C may want sometime, and I may remember that they could have kept my house from burning and didn't.

2) A and C could simply not call their fire service at all. This would be manifestly stupid, as their houses would almost certainly catch fire as well, should the blaze continue unabated.

3) A and/or C can offer to have my house put out, and offer to pay for it. This would be the act of a compassionate person and a good neighbor.

4) A and/or C can offer to have my house put out and pay them for it later somehow. This is also fairly compassionate and neighborly, and practical as well.

If I am B, I hope I have chosen not to live next to people who would act like A and C do in choices 1 and 2. I suspect most people would be more likely to act like they do in 3 and 4.

[xenophon41]

Good "thought experimenting" there, pldennison, but let's posit a more likely situation:

I am Mr. B. I live in Neighborhood Y, which is across the railroad tracks from Neighborhood Z, and down the river from Neighborhood X. Nieghborhoods X and Z are pretty well covered by a variety of fire protection services. My nieghborhood (Y) has much lower property values and predominantly houses what would've been called "the working poor" in the USA. Only a few of us can afford the service, and in any case there's only one service that will venture into our neighborhood, and they are unreliable.

Therefore, we've formed our own volunteer fire department, which we equip however we can, using pooled resources. (Typically, we form a bucket brigade, which is not very good for large fires, but keeps the department operating within budget.) Operation of the fire department within our neighborhood causes us to adapt other forms of public effort on a community basis. Since this type of cooperative effort seems to produce results, we've decided to secede from the rest of the town and form a commune.

Sooner or later, as our growing nest of communism begins to cause unrest in the other neighborhoods, Mr. A and Mr. C lead a vigilante crowd (in a purely reactive action, as they would never "initiate" force) and we are herded into the "Ask the Commie Bastard" thread, never to be heard from again.

[August West]

Lib, your refutations of my comparisons makes it clear to me that there is no point in continuing my objections. If you were an Objectivist, you would know that you are sowing the seeds of your own destruction by trying to have it both ways. Call yourself whatever you want. I think I'll call myself a Christian because I like the name Chris. I just won't bother with all the beliefs and such.Adios.

[Liberal]

Arnold

Before, when I had said "How do you resolve disputes with your neighbour who is not a citizen of Libertaria", you had said "whatever agency you assigned when you contracted with your neighbor will resolve the dispute." But the contract may or may not exist.

Well, that's up to you, Arnold, whether there exists a contract or not. If you do not give your consent to be governed, why would you blame a government for not governing you? In your scenario, aren't we operating under the assumption that you were not forced into some disputative activity with your neighbor at the point of a gun?

A more precise answer would have been "the dispute will be resolved using the contract you had signed with your neighbour, assuming one exists; otherwise the dispute will not be resolved."

Were you expecting a libertarian government to butt into a private transaction which it was not invited to arbitrate? Perhaps you have your governments mixed up.

Therefore, the obligation of the Libertarian government (I know you said there was no such thing, but I'll just use the same term you do) will include enforcing its moral code upon non-citizens of Libertaria to defend its citizens. It will be guilty of coercion, just not upon its own citizens.

Libertarian government does not coerce. It uses defensive or retaliatory force to the degree necessary to secure the rights of its citizens.

So I as a citizen have freely consented to the tyranny of the majority, and allowing the carnie of government to have authority over me. I suppose that if I have freely consented then I can't complain when the government abuses its power.

That's right.

If you freely have consented, you may be someone's field slave if that makes you happy. Moreover, if your consent was given conditionally or temporally, you may withdraw your consent upon breach of that condition or end of that time. Thereupon, your property is no longer of any concern to your government. In effect, you have seceded.

Yes it is (times infinity). Top that!

No it isn't (times infinity ^ infinity). :p

It therefore also means that I may see my neighbour engaging in an activity approved by an arbiter, I might assume that activity A is allowed under the law of Libertaria, and when I engage in it, arbiter B may very well decide that arbiter A has incorrectly interpreted the law and forbid me from engaging in the same activity because it contravenes the law of Libertaria. Correct?

Because he believes that you initiated force or fraud.

And thank goodness! Sometimes the exact same activity is okay in one context, but not in another. Take pot, for example. If a person without an essential or fiduciary obligation to the contrary were to smoke a joint, there would be no coercion. But a person who is smoking a joint on his neighbor's property, when his neighbor has forbidden that activity, is initiating force.

Laws ought not to be against things. Laws ought to be against unethical (or coercive) behavior.

She has the power to decide whether or not in my contract dispute with businesswoman Moneybags I am the wronged person or businesswoman Moneybags is the wronged person.

As I told you before, select a different arbiter.

The outcome of the judgment may very well be a financial compensation. The arbiter will order one of the parties in the contract dispute to turn over a portion of their (financial) property to the wronged party. Therefore, the arbiter has authority over my property.

She has no more authority than that to which you willingly and freely consented.

Yes, but a benevolent Nanny, in the Mary Poppins mode. Who can think of Julie Andrews' charming portrayal in that movie without feeling their spirits lifted, and a song rising to their lips?

Sometimes, Nanny's can be mean or overbearing.

An arbiter is usually deciding a case involving two people. In the example of a rape case, I have DNA evidence that in my mind proves that person X is guilty. Person X, of course, would prefer that this evidence not be admitted in court. Who gets to choose the arbiter? I, the plaintiff, or Person X, the defendant?

The person accused of coercion selects the arbiter.

I have, it's the USA (as we all know, Libertaria can have many forms of government.)

Fine, then. Are you not glad to have made that choice willingly and freely? Would you not grant that same dignity to any man?

As far as envisioning my own, I already have, and it's not a government obeying Libertarian principles (unless you're willing to accept my statement above that USA is a form of Libertaria.)

A government is Libertarian if it does this and only this: secure its citizens (all of them) from coercion and fraud.

OK, I will rephrase my sentence to say "almost unregulated capitalism" instead of "unregulated capitalism."

Unsatisfactory. "Almost unregulated" is obfuscatory.

There is a clear and utter regulation that, despite its focus and simplicity, drastically alters the behavior of a potentially anarchocapitalist economy. When you regulate out coercion and fraud, you regulate in peace and honesty.

What's wrong with that?

So if every one is in charge of choosing their own standard, then I as a parent am free to refuse education to my child, or for example teach them that evolution is bunk, the world is flat and diseases can be healed by prayer.

You, as a parent, are free to raise your children with the values you cherish most.

Or is there a point at which the (lack of education) I am giving my child can be considered a breach of the implied social contract I have with my child?

You do not have an "implied social contract" with your child. You have an explicit unary contract with him. Your responsibility in that regard is to teach him how to give meaningful consent, that is, to teach him how to be an adult. The easiest way to do that is to teach him responsibility, the same as you are discharing.

For the benefit of those who like their abstractions cast into practicalities for them, that means that if you raise your son to be a farmer, you must teach him (or see that he is taught) what he needs to know to farm. If you are raising him to be a doctor, then you must teach him (or see that he is taught) what ne needs to know to heal. If you decide on a general education for your child, you need only teach him (or see that he is taught) what he needs to know to give meaningful consent.

Naturally, if you raise your child to be a doctor, he, when he is an adult, then has control over his own consent, and may be whatever he wants, so long as he is peaceful and honest.

So far I haven't seen any compelling reasons to join it. My questions to you are to help me decide if the libertarian political thought is an effective basis for a government.

Well, if you like the idea of your neighbor being held to account for his actions in his dealings with you, then join it. But if you value something else, then join whatever you like.

Perhaps I should let the editors of Encyclopædia Britannica know that their article contains an error.

If indeed they have made an error, you may inform them or not as you please, assuming you are free to make that decision. Do not discount out of hand, however, that you might have come away with a misinterpretation. Fabianism is government control over the means of production, whereas Socialism is government ownership of the means of production. The latter is more honest in its intentions than the former.

[Liberal]

Xeno

Since Libertaria itself is a hypothetical, I'm quite surprised at your continued refusal to explore your beloved mental construct within the mirror provided by the hypothetical situations Arnold and Kimstu have posed. However, I understand how pointless it is for me to insist on straight answers from you. It's your thread, after all, and I don't really care to upset any of the other conversations going on in it. Your most recent response to Arnold (6/29 @ 10:41am) supports my charge that you duck the hard questions far better than any argument from me could do. It seems that you are becoming the ideal self-parodist.

If that is how you see it, you're entitled.

As I thought I made clear, I do not object to the hypotheticals except when you insist that I can't play, too. Got it? If you want to say, "Let's suppose," then I get to say, "Well, let's suppose otherwise." Else, you are reserving to yourself a privilege that you will not allow your adversary. When taken, understandably, as a show of blatant disrespect, the tactic can often bring out a display of irritation. Sometimes (but surely not in your case) that is the whole point of such bully tactics — to piss off your adversary and thus disorient him.

I plainly do not duck any questions. Rather, I have attempted diligently to respond to every question (other than scattered rhetoricals), even citing them in the form of copy-and-paste quotations.

What some are saying is that our government provides a system whereby the poor are helped, whereas Libertaria provides no such system. (Or if it does, you aint sharin' that information.)

Well, Libertaria doesn't provide it. It is provided by people like you, me, Phil, Gilligan, Kimstu, Arnold, and all the others who think it is important.

[Liberal]

Kimstu

Okay. Thanks for your candid answers. I guess at this point, you and I could say that we agree that noncercion is, in principle, a satisfactory ethic, but that I would apply it as a categorical imperative, whereas you would apply it as a conditional imperative.

Is that essentially right?

[Liberal]

Chief Wahoo

I think I'll call myself a Christian because I like the name Chris. I just won't bother with all the beliefs and such.

As you wish.

[Liberal]

Someone recently asked about well known libertarians. At the Liberarian Party Convention today, Melanie (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00000JFRK/o/qid=962488608/sr=2-4/103-3999957-7471813) announced that she is.

You might remember her as a Woodstock generation folk blues singer. Her most successful song was "Brand New Key" (Oh, I got a brand new pair of roller skates. You got a brand new key...). My personal favorite was "Ring the Living Bell".

[Gilligan]

"Well, I got a brand new pair of roller skates
You got a brand new key
I think that we should get together and try them out you see
I been looking around awhile
You got something for me
Oh! I got a brand new pair of roller skates
You got a brand new key"

Yeah, I see it. She's not saying "collectively, we have roller skates and a key"; she respects individual private property. She indicates a desire to conduct a free-market transaction with the key holder, to their mutual benefit. But she never demands the transaction, as indicated by the repeat of the line "You got a brand new key." This is repeated later, even after realizing the transaction will not take place, since the key holder does not consent, but has chosen a different trading partner:
"I asked your mother if you were at home
She said yes but you weren't alone"

An individualist philosophy, with the understanding that her needs are best met by social interaction is clear from this line from the first verse:
"I'm okay alone, but you got something I need"

More importantly, she doesn't let her economic situation define her. She makes the most of her life with what nature (or God) has given her, making no demands on "society":
"I ride my bike, I roller skate don't drive no car
Don't go too fast, but I go pretty far
For somebody who don't drive
I been all around the world
Some people say, I done all right for a girl"

Definitely a libertarian.

[2sense]

I saw a little of the coverage of the Libertarian Convention on C-Span. Whould you care to give us your thoughts on it?

In my last post, I was asking because you stated earlier that rights come from a deity or from nature. I was wondering why you excluded the idea of rights coming from people themselves.

Also, how about some more ethics of philosophies. I presume that Freedom is the ethic of Anarchism. I would like to know the ethic of Conservatism and any other -isms that you care to think of.

[Kimstu]

Libertarian: I guess at this point, you and I could say that we agree that noncercion is, in principle, a satisfactory ethic, but that I would apply it as a categorical imperative, whereas you would apply it as a conditional imperative. Is that essentially right?

Well, I have learned to hesitate before assuming that I'm using any word or concept in the same sense that you're using it! I think that I'd locate our essential difference in the definition of "coercion". I don't consider constitutionally permitted and legally mandated taxation to fall under the heading of coercion. I don't think it's intrinsically coercive for a society to build into its constitution and laws certain shared goals and activities which will bind every citizen unless they a) change the constitution and laws or b) renounce their citizenship. I consider that continuing to be a citizen of a nation that permits emigration at will constitutes a voluntary acceptance of those citizenship obligations. I imagine that you'd consider all these views to be quite "soft on coercion" by libertarian standards!

[Liberal]

2sense

I saw a little of the coverage of the Libertarian Convention on C-Span. Whould you care to give us your thoughts on it?

Overall, I was favorably impressed.

I was surprised when the two fellows on the production staff, who had been hearing the convention through their headphones, joined the party live on stage. I heard the usual heady libertarian humor, as when Dasbach said he often describes himself as a liberal who learned economics. And I was greatly impressed by the candidate who refused, on principle, to accept a shoe-in nomination that came about from a suspension of the rules. And there were very sad moments, as when Peter McWilliams was honored and when the litany of police-state laws, enacted in the last ten years, was read to the crowd.

I must say that Harry's commercials were quite good, especially the Rosemary's baby one.

In my last post, I was asking because you stated earlier that rights come from a deity or from nature. I was wondering why you excluded the idea of rights coming from people themselves.

God or nature pre-existed us. Laws of God and laws of nature are immutably objective. When men make laws over other men, they are presuming a status which neither God nor nature gave to them. I was not born your Nanny, nor has God appointed me to judge you.

Also, how about some more ethics of philosophies. I presume that Freedom is the ethic of Anarchism. I would like to know the ethic of Conservatism and any other -isms that you care to think of.

Great question!

Here are how I see a few of them. (I assume you meant political and economic, and not teleological, philosophies.)

Anarchy — Natural selection

(Right) Conservatism — Power

(Left) Liberalism (traditional) — The common good

Centrism (modern liberalism) — Compromise

Authoritarianism — Authority

Fabianism — Expedience

Socialism — Entitlement

[Liberal]

Kimstu

Well, I have learned to hesitate before assuming that I'm using any word or concept in the same sense that you're using it!

A good lesson indeed. One we all would be wise learn with respect to one another.

I think that I'd locate our essential difference in the definition of "coercion".

Well, in the context of politics, mine, as you know, is "initiation of force or fraud". That's its definition. Its connotation is heinous, and I am categorically opposed to it.

I don't consider constitutionally permitted and legally mandated taxation to fall under the heading of coercion. I don't think it's intrinsically coercive for a society to build into its constitution and laws certain shared goals and activities which will bind every citizen unless they a) change the constitution and laws or b) renounce their citizenship.

I think it does make sense, then, to say that you are conditionally opposed to coercion as I define it. Would you agree?

I consider that continuing to be a citizen of a nation that permits emigration at will constitutes a voluntary acceptance of those citizenship obligations.

But forcing you to emigrate and leave behind the property you toiled and cared for! :( It is as though I came into your home and said, "I'm laying down the rules here, but to be fair, if you don't like them, you can leave."

I imagine that you'd consider all these views to be quite "soft on coercion" by libertarian standards!

You know, I really misread you early on. I assumed, foolishly, that you were attacking me. But as I pay greater attention, I sense a noble respect from you, and I notice in you a gentle nature and a good character. I trust you to understand that the Christian side of me compels me to consider the individual above all else. God saves us one by one, and not a society at a time. Every person matters. Even those people we think are nuts.

Yes, I believe you are quite soft on coercion, but only because you do not realize the potential vast scope of a tiny insignificant tyranny. An avalanche can have an almost imperceptible beginning.

[Kimstu]

Libertarian replied to me:


Well, in the context of politics, [my definition of "coercion"], as you know, is "initiation of force or fraud". That's its definition. Its connotation is heinous, and I am categorically opposed to it. [...] I think it does make sense, then, to say that you are conditionally opposed to coercion as I define it. Would you agree?


Um...well, but that simply pushes the contested definition back to the terms "force" and "fraud"! I am indeed categorically opposed to the initiation of force or fraud, but I don't consider constitutionally-permitted-and-legally-mandated-blah-blah-blah to fall into either of those categories. I think our conceptions of these terms are so fundamentally different that we may just have to give up on establishing agreement on such statements.


I consider that continuing to be a citizen of a nation that permits emigration at will constitutes a voluntary acceptance of those citizenship obligations.

But forcing you to emigrate and leave behind the property you toiled and cared for! It is as though I came into your home and said, "I'm laying down the rules here, but to be fair, if you don't like them, you can leave."


Seems to me it's more as though my landlord reminded me, "There are certain obligations set forth in your lease, and unless you can persuade me to change the terms, you have to abide by them; to be fair, if you don't like them, you can leave." After all, "my" home is only mine because my landlord admits my claim to it; similarly, "my" property within the territory of the nation is only mine because the national government backs up my claim. Strictly speaking, I suppose, "my" home belongs (if we invalidate all property transfers effected via force or fraud) to the Narragansett or maybe Pequot tribe of Native Americans; but the US government recognizes my claim to it---or rather my landlord's---and doesn't recognize theirs (or that of the French or the Danes or anyone else who might like to get their paws on it), so that's my good luck and their tough noogies. Since the sovereign authority of the US is what upholds my claim to my property, I have to recognize that authority as my side of the deal.

And just a brief note on your exchange with 2sense:


In my last post, I was asking because you stated earlier that rights come from a deity or from nature. I was wondering why you excluded the idea of rights coming from people themselves.

God or nature pre-existed us. Laws of God and laws of nature are immutably objective. When men make laws over other men, they are presuming a status which neither God nor nature gave to them. I was not born your Nanny, nor has God appointed me to judge you.


This sounds very noble, but it seems to me that when it comes to a discussion of human rights, such declarations are pretty much meaningless. An immutably objective law of God or nature would be, for example, the law of gravity, because God or nature can be counted on to enforce it. You may consider your "rights" to be similarly guaranteed by God or nature, but if God or nature really bothered to uphold them, we should be seeing a lot more evildoers struck by thunderbolts. That was the point of my bear-&-bacteria example a while back: as far as practical enforcement goes, we don't have any rights in the sight of God or nature (except maybe the right to be killed only once), so it's not very meaningful to say that our rights are bestowed by God or nature. (Though of course it sounds nice and forms an indispensable feature of new rights proclamations. :)) The only meaningful rights we have do come from people themselves, because only people consider it important to defend them.


You know, I really misread you early on. I assumed, foolishly, that you were attacking me. [...] I trust you to understand that the Christian side of me compels me to consider the individual above all else. God saves us one by one, and not a society at a time. Every person matters. Even those people we think are nuts.


Er...thanks, I think! ;)


Yes, I believe you are quite soft on coercion, but only because you do not realize the potential vast scope of a tiny insignificant tyranny.


Hmmm, but perhaps it's unwise to assume you know why I believe what I believe? Perhaps I'm fully aware of the dangers of my position but have chosen it with my eyes open because I think the alternatives are worse.

[Liberal]

Kimstu

Um...well, but that simply pushes the contested definition back to the terms "force" and "fraud"!

Indeed it is the bain of philosophy that definitions consist of terms, each of which has its own definition, each of which has its own terms, each of which...

That is why it is said that definitions are, by nature, tautological.

I am indeed categorically opposed to the initiation of force or fraud, but I don't consider constitutionally-permitted-and-legally-mandated-blah-blah-blah to fall into either of those categories.

I assume that, because you have allowed for exceptions to the category based on perceived authority, you also will allow for exceptions to the exceptions. For example, if the law said that gang rape is okay, I assume you would oppose that law. Or if the Constitution still said that Americans of African descent are one-third of a person, I assume you would call for an amendment.

I think our conceptions of these terms are so fundamentally different that we may just have to give up on establishing agreement on such statements.

I agree. I do not believe that God or nature confers upon any human authority over another human. Such authority ultimately must be either conferred by consent or taken by force or fraud. You, on the other hand, recognize such authority when it is imposed by a majority or authenticated by scribbles in ancient documents — but those only within limits that you, as an individual, will allow. (May I assume that you would not allow either the majority or the documents to sway you in your opposition to gang rape?)

Seems to me it's more as though my landlord reminded me, "There are certain obligations set forth in your lease, and unless you can persuade me to change the terms, you have to abide by them; to be fair, if you don't like them, you can leave." After all, "my" home is only mine because my landlord admits my claim to it; similarly, "my" property within the territory of the nation is only mine because the national government backs up my claim.

Although that sounds like a Fabianist argument, I think you mean it (and always feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) centristically; that is, you mean that nationalized property is a compromise, rather than an expedience. Would you agree?

That might be why the appeal ad populum and the documents are so important to you. After all, what is to stop any man who, with sufficient force, can "back up your claim" or else take your (rather, his) property away? I pray that you remain ever vigilant, lest that exact same man find his way into the hearts of your populace or the office authorized by your document.

Strictly speaking, I suppose, "my" home belongs (if we invalidate all property transfers effected via force or fraud) to the Narragansett or maybe Pequot tribe of Native Americans; but the US government recognizes my claim to it---or rather my landlord's---and doesn't recognize theirs (or that of the French or the Danes or anyone else who might like to get their paws on it), so that's my good luck and their tough noogies.

As I see it, the property belongs to whoever can show either by claim, possession, or title (in ascending order of authority) that he has acquired it peacefully and honestly.

You, on the other hand, recognize the authority of the guns in this case. Is that right?

This sounds very noble, but it seems to me that when it comes to a discussion of human rights, such declarations are pretty much meaningless. An immutably objective law of God or nature would be, for example, the law of gravity, because God or nature can be counted on to enforce it. You may consider your "rights" to be similarly guaranteed by God or nature, but if God or nature really bothered to uphold them, we should be seeing a lot more evildoers struck by thunderbolts.

Whoa, Nellie!

I have never said that rights are guaranteed by God or nature. Rights are given to us by God or nature; that is, God or nature is their source.

Libertarianly speaking, that is the definitive role of government: to guarantee (or secure) the rights (or property) with which we are born, and that which we peacefully and honestly acquire in the course of our lives.

The only meaningful rights we have do come from people themselves, because only people consider it important to defend them.

Surely, you are not saying that might makes right. A moment ago, I thought you were saying that rights come from institutions, but in these latest portions, you seem to be saying they come from guns.

Hmmm, but perhaps it's unwise to assume you know why I believe what I believe? Perhaps I'm fully aware of the dangers of my position but have chosen it with my eyes open because I think the alternatives are worse.

Let me ask you flat out.

Do you believe that the alternative of leaving peaceful honest people free to pursue their own happiness in their own way is worse than interfering in their affairs?

[Kimstu]

Libertarian: For example, if the law said that gang rape is okay, I assume you would oppose that law. Or if the Constitution still said that Americans of African descent are one-third of a person, I assume you would call for an amendment.

Sure: I never said that everything in the law or the Constitution is necessarily right. All I said is that it's not intrinsically illegitimate just because I never signed a piece of paper agreeing to abide by the law or the Constitution.

L: Although that sounds like a Fabianist argument, I think you mean it (and always feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) centristically; that is, you mean that nationalized property is a compromise, rather than an expedience. Would you agree?

I dunno. What are you talking about?

L: As I see it, the property belongs to whoever can show either by claim, possession, or title (in ascending order of authority) that he has acquired it peacefully and honestly.

Again, that sounds nice and simple but conceals a whole raft of ambiguities. One person might peacefully and honestly acquire property from someone else who did not acquire it peacefully and honestly. In real-life situations, this principle of ownership will frequently serve to legitimize the results of coercive acts, just as any other principle of ownership will.

L: You, on the other hand, recognize the authority of the guns in this case. Is that right? [/b]

If by "recognize the authority of the guns" you mean that the practical defense of all property claims comes down in the end to force or the threat of force, I agree that that's so. Libertarians think so too, which is why they insist that a libertarian government would fight to defend what it considers its citizens' property.

L: [i]I have never said that rights are guaranteed by God or nature. Rights are given to us by God or nature; that is, God or nature is their source.

Well, that's where we enter into the realm of individual faith and preference and leave "objectivity" and "immutability" far behind. Unfortunately, neither God nor nature ever signed the Declaration of Independence or any other rights proclamation, so since neither God nor nature will defend the rights they "gave" us, we have no objective way of knowing what rights God or nature "intended" us to have.

L: [Kimstu]: "The only meaningful rights we have do come from people themselves, because only people consider it important to defend them." Surely, you are not saying that might makes right.

Of course not.

L: Let me ask you flat out. Do you believe that the alternative of leaving peaceful honest people free to pursue their own happiness in their own way is worse than interfering in their affairs?

But citizenship is our common affair. We are not "interfering" with one another by fulfilling, enforcing, or legally altering our mutual responsibilities of citizenship.