Libertarianism and the burden of proof

[Walton Firm]

I was going to post this question in Paladud's thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=301701), but decided it would have been too much of a hijack so I made it a new thread instead:

How would Libertaria deal with situations where a crime has been committed and there is a suspect or a small number of suspects, but no rock-solid proof?

In our society, we have the concept of "probable cause" for that, and stuff like search warrants and wire taps, which can then be used to obtain more evidence and eventually a conviction. People can even be arrested and held in jail based on suspicion alone, so that they don't mess with the evidence-gathering or escape before the trial.

Would this work the same way in Libertaria? I can imagine that a libertarian would have a problem with the police committing force (such as searching a person's house against their will) against somebody who has not yet been convicted of a crime, and who may turn out to be innocent.

More generally, would a Libertarian society have rules about "guilty until proven innocent" and "proof beyond reasonable doubt" similar to those we have? Or would all crimes be treated as civil matters, where the defendant does not get the benefit of the doubt?

It seems to me that in a lot of debates about libertarianism, it is tacitly assumed that we have perfect knowledge about what somebody has done, and we only need to determine whether it should be allowed and, if not, what the response should be. However, in practice, most force/fraud is not going to take place in front of a video camera, so you're not going to get a lot of convictions if you can't infringe on a suspect's rights at all during the process leading up to the trial.

[Walton Firm]

Or "innocent until proven guilty", depending on where you live. :o :smack:

[treis]

Liberal and I are in the midst of a debate along these lines. You can follow along here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=300787&page=2) (the debate about the legal system begins towards the bottom) but the short of it is that there is one law "Government shall garuntee every citizens freedom from coercion". Arbitration decides whether this law has been violated in dealings between citizens.

[Liberal]

The onus upon Libertarian arbiters is to determine two things: (1) whether coercion occurred, and (2) if so, by whom. Like any adversarial system, it must use whatever evidence is at hand. The burden of proof is always on the person who is charging the coercion. Enforcers may not themselves coerce in the process of discharging their duties if they confront citizens in the process, since citizens are guaranteed freedom of coercion without qualification. Noncitizens are not protected by Libertarian law.

The question then arises, how far may enforcers go in ascertaining truth? May they go into someone's home and search? That depends upon how the investigation is conducted. Suppose, for example, that the enforcers ask the defendant whether he has the stolen goods hidden in his home. If the defendant answers, "No," then the plaintiff has the right to determine whether the defendant is initiating deception in his response, which would itself be a coercion. The defendant's house may then be searched, based on his response. But since only an appropriate measure of responsive force is allowed, enforcers could not use anything irrelevant that they found to apply to this case. If, for example, they found someone else's stolen property, who had not yet complaining, it would have no bearing here. They may, however, inform the owner, and then the owner may pursue charges of coercion if he wishes. In the event that the defendant has answered truthfully, and the plaintiff is in the end unable to prove his case, then the defendant may himself charge the plaintiff for forcing him into compliance with the plaintiff's fantasy.

[Walton Firm]

Treis, thank you for the link. From a quick browsing, I can't really find an answer to my specific questions, but it's certainly an interesting discussion.

[Walton Firm]

The onus upon Libertarian arbiters is to determine two things: (1) whether coercion occurred, and (2) if so, by whom. Like any adversarial system, it must use whatever evidence is at hand. The burden of proof is always on the person who is charging the coercion. Enforcers may not themselves coerce in the process of discharging their duties if they confront citizens in the process, since citizens are guaranteed freedom of coercion without qualification. Noncitizens are not protected by Libertarian law.This is the concept where you can have one or more governments, and "subscription" to a government is optional for each individual, isn't it? Does that mean that if Person A is a subscriber to Government A, and Person B is a subscriber to a different government or to no government at all, then Person A can do whatever he wants to Person B, and the "enforcers" (the Libertarian police, I assume) of Government A can also do whatever they want to Person B because their only loyalty here is to Person A? Or am I misunderstanding you completely?

Suppose, for example, that the enforcers ask the defendant whether he has the stolen goods hidden in his home. If the defendant answers, "No," then the plaintiff has the right to determine whether the defendant is initiating deception in his response, which would itself be a coercion. The defendant's house may then be searched, based on his response.Hmm, interesting. Are you saying that the plaintiff's word is enough to allow the enforcers to search the defendant's house if the defendant denies the accusation? If I were a Libertarian citizen, could I just point my finger at anybody and say "they stole something from me, search their house" without even the kind of evidence that would be needed to get a search warrant in Europe or the US? The defendant would be powerless to prevent the search, they could only ask for compensation afterwards?

And if the defendant actively resisted the search, would they be considered the initiator of force? Given that there is no proof, at this point, that the defendant committed the act of which he is being accused, what right do the enforcers have to initiate force against him by entering his house?

Also, are they allowed to damage stuff in the process of searching the house? Can they detain the defendant, and his family (change pronouns around if you like) to prevent them from obstructing the investigation?

In the event that the defendant has answered truthfully, and the plaintiff is in the end unable to prove his case, then the defendant may himself charge the plaintiff for forcing him into compliance with the plaintiff's fantasy.What kind of compensation could he expect in such a case? Just the compensation for anything that was broken or damaged during the search, and a reasonable reward for his time? Or would a kind of "pain and suffering" reward for having his privacy invaded against his will also be possible?

[Walton Firm]

By the way, what happens if the defendant answers "that's none of you f****ng business" instead of "no" when asked if he is hiding anything in his house?

Can the plaintiff force him to testify against himself, or would refusal to answer be considered the same as a denial? Or would the enforcers just have to say "oops, he outsmarted us" and try to make their case with only the evidence found at the crime scene?

Could a libertarian citizen, who is being suspected of a crime but who has never before been convicted of one, be force to submit to having his fingerprints taken, to provide DNA samples, to participate in a police line-up, etc?

[Walton Firm]

Yet another question (I promise I'll hold back for a while after this one, give people a chance to answer them):

In Europe and the US, it is possible for either party in a lawsuit to subpoena witnesses, and to suppoena documents and other evidence from parties who are not themselves being accused of any wrongdoing. Would it be possible for a Libertarian government to force a citizen to give up information that is needed in a lawsuit between two other parties, or could such a citizen simply refuse to cooperate?

Would a system of involuntary jury duty, such as the US and some European countries have, be enforceable in a libertarian state?

[Greenback]

A Libertaria government looking to enforce whatever laws exist would greatly benefit from a "big brother" system where everyone's whereabouts and activities are recorded. If the government and enforcement agencies hold to non-interference (A reasonable assumption as the society is already a libertarian state), then the freedoms of the public remain open and unimpeeded. When necessary, investigations can be completed without the need to barge into someone's house looking for stolen goods.

[Liberal]

This is the concept where you can have one or more governments, and "subscription" to a government is optional for each individual, isn't it? Does that mean that if Person A is a subscriber to Government A, and Person B is a subscriber to a different government or to no government at all, then Person A can do whatever he wants to Person B, and the "enforcers" (the Libertarian police, I assume) of Government A can also do whatever they want to Person B because their only loyalty here is to Person A? Or am I misunderstanding you completely?Well, Person A has to keep in mind that if he injures person B for no reason, then when person B returns force, person A has not been coerced (only initial or excessive force is coercive), and therefore his government owes him nothing in the matter. Government A has no beef with Person B unless he coerces Person A, in which case Government A must defend or retaliate.


Hmm, interesting. Are you saying that the plaintiff's word is enough to allow the enforcers to search the defendant's house if the defendant denies the accusation? If I were a Libertarian citizen, could I just point my finger at anybody and say "they stole something from me, search their house" without even the kind of evidence that would be needed to get a search warrant in Europe or the US? The defendant would be powerless to prevent the search, they could only ask for compensation afterwards?I think you might underestimate the scope and severity of such false charges. The enforcers, as I said, are authorized only within the scope of the investigation. Their task is only — only — to determine whether the defendant has initiated deception. I do see that I neglected to mention that they act only as agents of the arbiter. They may not unilaterally take any action. And the plaintiff is taking a great risk if he is unable to prove his case. He could end up losing considerable property to the defendant. It can cost quite a lot to restore a reputation. That said, every arbitration case is unique, as the arbiter is interpreting basically a principle, rather than a law. There could be cases where there are exceptions to severe punishment for false charges.


And if the defendant actively resisted the search, would they be considered the initiator of force? Given that there is no proof, at this point, that the defendant committed the act of which he is being accused, what right do the enforcers have to initiate force against him by entering his house?The defendant, like all citizens, consented to the system of arbitration before, as you call it, subscribing.


Also, are they allowed to damage stuff in the process of searching the house? Can they detain the defendant, and his family (change pronouns around if you like) to prevent them from obstructing the investigation?They would act in accordance with the instructions of the arbiter, but in general, obstruction is a form of deception.


What kind of compensation could he expect in such a case? Just the compensation for anything that was broken or damaged during the search, and a reasonable reward for his time? Or would a kind of "pain and suffering" reward for having his privacy invaded against his will also be possible?He must be restored whole. I suppose you could use the pain and suffering model as an analogy. If he has lost his reputation, it is up to the plaintiff to advertise, make contacts, or what-have-you, and advise that he has falsly charged the defendant. If he has suffered injuries or loss, the plaintiff must restore him. If he has lost more than the plaintiff can restore, then the plaintiff has lost all his liberty, and is beholden to him in the manner I described before. It is a system that requires a maturity of thought, and the exercise of care in the making of decisions. Irresponsible people would not fare well in Libertaria.

Now. All that said, this seems like as good a time as any to remind you, and all others, that this is a particular libertarian implementation that suits me. There are endless ways to implement the Noncoercion Principle. A libertarian community or state may be a monarchy with a communist economy, so long as all are volunteers. Libertarianism and volunteerism are synonyms.

[Walton Firm]

Well, Person A has to keep in mind that if he injures person B for no reason, then when person B returns force, person A has not been coerced (only initial or excessive force is coercive), and therefore his government owes him nothing in the matter. Government A has no beef with Person B unless he coerces Person A, in which case Government A must defend or retaliate.But does Government A have a beef with Person B if Person A claims to have been injured by B? On the one hand, B has not consented to their government, which may limit the options available to them when it comes to coercing his cooperation in the investigation. On the other hand, they do not have a duty to protect him, which may give Person A more leverage against B than he would have against a fellow citizen. In a dispute between a citizen and a non-citizen, where there are conflicting claims about who initiated force, would the government automatically rule in favour of their own, or would they treat B's claims as equally valid? If the non-citizen refused to cooperate with the investigation because he did not accept the government as valid, would that lead to an automatic judgment in favour of the citizen?

And the plaintiff is taking a great risk if he is unable to prove his case. He could end up losing considerable property to the defendant. It can cost quite a lot to restore a reputation.Hmm, that's a serious risk indeed. After all, even if Person A is right in his suspicion, there is no guarantee that the stolen goods will be found in B's house. So, if you can't be 100% certain that you will win your court case, then you will need to refrain from making any accusations because the counterclaim could be too devastating? That sounds as if the percentage of solved crimes in Libertaria is going to be rather low..

That said, every arbitration case is unique, as the arbiter is interpreting basically a principle, rather than a law. There could be cases where there are exceptions to severe punishment for false charges.OK, I guess you could have situations where the arbitrators say "well, we didn't find enough evidence to convict the defendant, but the suspicion which led to the search was a reasonable one, so we are not going to hold the plaintiff responsible for it". That would protect the defendant against being arbitrarily or maliciously harrassed through the legal system, while allowing the plaintiff to voice reasonable suspicions without having too much fear of counterclaims.

However, as a citizen, I would like to be able to find out in advance what my rights are and what the probable outcome of a given legal situation would be. The way you describe it now, the Libertarian justice system sounds even more arbitrary and unpredictable as the one in my country -- there, the laws may be too numerous and too complex for a normal person to learn, but at least they are written down, and I can pay somebody to explain the parts I am interested in. In Libertaria, it sounds as if I would be dependent on the whim of the arbiters. How can there be any guarantee that judgments will be fair and consistent, under such a system?

The defendant, like all citizens, consented to the system of arbitration before, as you call it, subscribing.But the arbiters are a part of the plaintiff's government, and not necessarily the defendant's, right? So unless they both happen to belong to the same government, the accused party does not get to choose the system of judgment under which he will be tried.

They would act in accordance with the instructions of the arbiter, but in general, obstruction is a form of deception.But not all forms of obstruction can be detected. Can people be jailed preventively, to prevent obstruction of evidence-gathering, when we are not sure that they intend such obstruction or even that they are guilty of anything at all? Suppose a crime has been committed and there is a suspect, but we don't know where they hid the loot. If we let them run free they can go and destroy evidence which we haven't found yet, or warn their accomplishes, or simply escape to another country. On the other hand, if we put them in jail based on nothing more than our current vague suspicion, we are initiating force against them.

[Walton Firm]

I'm signing off now, by the way, may be a while before I'm back. Thanks for your replies so far!

[Liberal]

But does Government A have a beef with Person B if Person A claims to have been injured by B? On the one hand, B has not consented to their government, which may limit the options available to them when it comes to coercing his cooperation in the investigation. On the other hand, they do not have a duty to protect him, which may give Person A more leverage against B than he would have against a fellow citizen. In a dispute between a citizen and a non-citizen, where there are conflicting claims about who initiated force, would the government automatically rule in favour of their own, or would they treat B's claims as equally valid? If the non-citizen refused to cooperate with the investigation because he did not accept the government as valid, would that lead to an automatic judgment in favour of the citizen?The same burden is on A whether or not the coercer is a citizen. He must prove to the satisfaction of an arbiter that he has been coerced, and that B did it. What is affected in your scenario is the scope of the investigation. It is a misnomer to say that a libertarian government has authority, per se, over anyone at all, citizen or not. What it has is an obligation — a contractual obligation to secure the rights of those who subscribed by arbitrating disputes. The arbiter must himself determine, by the evidence before him, whether he is facing anything from utter futility to causas belli. There might be cases in which he decides that there is simply insufficient evidence even to pursue the matter, and there might be cases in which he orders enforcement to go to war. The circumstance of B is of no concern to A's government. If A proves, for example, to the satisfaction of the arbiter, that B has stolen his car, with or without B's cooperation, (suppose, for example, there are satellite images) then the arbiter may authorize (and in fact, must authorize) a military invasion of B's property to confiscate the car. If B has a government, then what to do about that is its problem.


Hmm, that's a serious risk indeed. After all, even if Person A is right in his suspicion, there is no guarantee that the stolen goods will be found in B's house. So, if you can't be 100% certain that you will win your court case, then you will need to refrain from making any accusations because the counterclaim could be too devastating? That sounds as if the percentage of solved crimes in Libertaria is going to be rather low..Nah. It's just that the sampling from the hypotheticals is too small. I gave that question and answer merely as an example. I have neither the time nor the wherewithall to write an exhaustive analysis of every possible nuance that an investigation might have. It is unlikely that there would ever be an investigation that consisted of one question and one answer.


OK, I guess you could have situations where the arbitrators say "well, we didn't find enough evidence to convict the defendant, but the suspicion which led to the search was a reasonable one, so we are not going to hold the plaintiff responsible for it". That would protect the defendant against being arbitrarily or maliciously harrassed through the legal system, while allowing the plaintiff to voice reasonable suspicions without having too much fear of counterclaims.That's right. It also allows the arbiter to act reasonably. His hands are not tied by overproscriptive legal minutiae.


However, as a citizen, I would like to be able to find out in advance what my rights are and what the probable outcome of a given legal situation would be. The way you describe it now, the Libertarian justice system sounds even more arbitrary and unpredictable as the one in my country -- there, the laws may be too numerous and too complex for a normal person to learn, but at least they are written down, and I can pay somebody to explain the parts I am interested in. In Libertaria, it sounds as if I would be dependent on the whim of the arbiters. How can there be any guarantee that judgments will be fair and consistent, under such a system?I'm afraid that interpretation of your laws right now is dependent on the whim of magistrates. And in fact, whole schools of thought have arisen over various interpretational schemas. (There are at least three forms of strict constructionism, for example: historical, structural, and textual.) But that's neither here nor there, and I won't drag you into a comparison war. Besides, there is a law, and it is written down. There is also a contract with the government, and it is written down as well. Still, there is nothing to prevent abuse of the system by a renegade arbiter other than the fact that he, too, may be sued for coercion if he is suspected of breaching his oath to decide cases upon the basis of the law. Unlike the present system, agents of government in Libertaria are not shielded from liability in the course of their official duties.


But the arbiters are a part of the plaintiff's government, and not necessarily the defendant's, right? So unless they both happen to belong to the same government, the accused party does not get to choose the system of judgment under which he will be tried.Sure he does. He may subscribe to the government of Libertaria if he wishes. The government has no authority to impose its obligations upon people without their consent. Remember that its obligation is to secure the rights of its citizens. I know that it is hard to think of government without thinking of arbitrary authority, but you must try in order to conceive these ideas.


But not all forms of obstruction can be detected. Can people be jailed preventively, to prevent obstruction of evidence-gathering, when we are not sure that they intend such obstruction or even that they are guilty of anything at all? Suppose a crime has been committed and there is a suspect, but we don't know where they hid the loot. If we let them run free they can go and destroy evidence which we haven't found yet, or warn their accomplishes, or simply escape to another country. On the other hand, if we put them in jail based on nothing more than our current vague suspicion, we are initiating force against them.Escaping to another country is no good. Libertaria does not recognize the authority of nation states, but only the authority of those whom it serves. But as for the gist of your question, it is not the case that an arbiter will punch data into a computer and get out a solution. Rather, he must use his judgment to fulfill his duty to the best of his ability, and his duty is to determine whether there has been a coercion, and if so, by whom. And he must discharge this duty without himself coercing. Therefore, unlike the present system, for example, he cannot initiate a lie to trick a man into a confession. Not all crimes (read, coercions) in Libertaria will be solved anymore than they will be anywhere else. But there is no arbitrary statute, for example, limiting the time in which the plaintiff has to settle his grievance. And there is nothing to prevent the plaintiff from conductive his own investigation or hiring whom he believes is competent to do it. And finally, and above all, there is nothing to prevent an unhappy party from seceding upon the fulfillment of his contractual obligations and going in search of a new government that he believes will more effectively ensure his safety and happiness.

Is it perfect? Objectively, no. Is it preferable? Subjectively, it is for me, yes.

[Dewey Cheatem Undhow]

In Europe and the US, it is possible for either party in a lawsuit to subpoena witnesses, and to suppoena documents and other evidence from parties who are not themselves being accused of any wrongdoing. Would it be possible for a Libertarian government to force a citizen to give up information that is needed in a lawsuit between two other parties, or could such a citizen simply refuse to cooperate?I am very interested in hearing Lib's answer to this question.

[treis]

And he must discharge this duty without himself coercing.

Perhaps you miswrote this sentance but does not the arbiter have the power in fact a duty to coerce person B into allowing a search of his home if he finds sufficient evidence?

[Mapache]

[QUOTE=Liberal]If he has lost more than the plaintiff can restore, then the plaintiff has lost all his liberty, and is beholden to him in the manner I described.

Does this mean that the plaintiff now becomes the slave of the offended party?
You have said several times something to the effect that "He will be imprisoned and forced to work"
Forced how? Torture? Starvation? Drugs? And to work at what? Whatever the offended party chooses? Can a woman (or a man) be forced to work as a prostitute, for example, and tortured if they refuse? Can someone be forced to work in a lethally dangerous occupation? If not, why not?

[Walton Firm]

Lib,

Thank you for your response. I am afraid that we are getting a little side-tracked here with the "multiple governments" thing (my fault), so let's just keep it simple and assume that both parties have contracted with the same government, OK?

So, what we have then is the following situation:

A and B have both contracted with the Libertarian government.
A accuses B of having committed a crime against him, let's say a theft.
B denies the allegation. He refuses to cooperate with the investigation, and announces that if anybody enters his property or attempts to search his person, he will consider that an initiation of force against him, and will defend himself.
Now, obviously, if A is able to prove his case without needing to enter B's property or search his person, then there's no problem. However, let's assume that while there is some circumstantial evidence suggesting B's involvement in the crime (enough that a U.S. prosecutor could get a search warrant, but not enough for a conviction), there is no clear proof of his guilt.

Now, if I understood your first post correctly, the enforcers have the right, at this point, to enter B's property and verify whether his denial is truthful, is that correct? Could you explain how this can be defended in terms of the non-coercion principle? After all, it is not clear at this point that B has initiated any coercion at all, unless we take A's accusation at face value. Entering B's property against his wishes would seem to be a clear case of coercion initiated by the government, unless and until the accusation is proven true in hindsight. What if B simply claims that A is lying and that in fact, A is the one who has initiated coercion against B?

I find it interesting that you say that "obstruction (of an investigation) would be considered a form of coercion". If a bunch of government goons show up at my house and proceed to search it without my consent, should I not have as much right to try and stop them (even using force, if necessary) as I would have against an ordinary robber or burglar?

In short, could you please clearly identify which is the initial act of coercion, in this scenario, which legitimizes the searching of B's house by the government?

I understand your point that every investigation will be unique, but it seems to me that this is a characteristic almost all of them share: that while there may be one or more suspects and there may be some evidence against them, obtaining sufficient proof for the arbiter to be convinced of a suspect's guilt will require some amount of coercive action (e.g. holding them temporarily while conducting the investigation.

I hope you agree that this is not a "giant squid" scenario, but something that happens dozens of times each day in our society: a crime has been committed and there is a suspect (or several suspects), but some amount of infringing the suspect's rights is necessary in order to get enough evidence for a conviction. It seems to me that this step is usually skipped in these kinds of discussions, and it is simply assumed that the facts of the issue are not in dispute. That may sometimes be the case (as in your example of the car theft caught on sattelite image), but I suspect that it is the rare exception rather than the rule.

By the way, Greenback also raised an interesting issue: woud privacy, in and of itself, be regarded as having value by the Libertarian government? E.g. if the government, or a private citizen, snuck into my house and installed secret cameras, but did not do anything else, would that be considered as "initiating force or fraud" against me?

Thanks in advance,

Martin

[Liberal]

Does this mean that the plaintiff now becomes the slave of the offended party?Pretty much, yes.


You have said several times something to the effect that "He will be imprisoned and forced to work"
Forced how? Torture? Starvation? Drugs? And to work at what? Whatever the offended party chooses? Can a woman (or a man) be forced to work as a prostitute, for example, and tortured if they refuse? Can someone be forced to work in a lethally dangerous occupation? If not, why not?Forced by whatever force is necessary, but only that, since excessive force is coercive. If he will not respond to command, for example, then a weapon may be aimed at him. If he will not respond to the weapon being aimed at him, then it may be fired. If he survives the firing of the weapon, and still resists, then he may be shot dead. Whatever value his property will bring is then given over to the plaintiff.

[Liberal]

Martin, your last question first: To enter someone's property without direction from the arbiter would be trespass, a coercion.

Regarding your concern about investigations, keep in mind two things. One, these are merely executed by the enforcers, but they are directed by the arbiters, who have the onus of determining how much evidence they need. Enforcement is not a stand alone component of Libertarian law; rather, it is a part of arbitration. And two, the arbitration process is absolutely critical to the functioning of Libertaria, and as such is a part of the contract that you freely and volitionally sign. The basic agreement is that the Libertarian government will guarantee you freedom from coercion so long as you will consent to its practice of arbitration. Your refusal to allow it to conduct its investigations would constitute breach, just as much as if he refused to investigate when you ask him to, the arbiter would be in breach.

B may charge A with coercion if he wishes, but again, he must hold himself up to the scrutiny of arbitration and the consequences that might entail a frivolous prosecution. I suppose that, upon giving thought to the title of your thread, the burden of proof is ultimately on the arbiter. It is he who is charged with determining truth.

[Liberal]

Perhaps you miswrote this sentance but does not the arbiter have the power in fact a duty to coerce person B into allowing a search of his home if he finds sufficient evidence?It is not a coercion because it is only the force necessary to secure the rights of A, and B has consented to this process. In the event that B is governed by someone else, then, as I said, it is up to B's government to do whatever it thinks it must, if anything. Libertaria in that case is not concerned with the rights of B.

[treis]

How has B consented to the process? In fact he has done quite the opposite. He has stated his objection to the search and will defend his property with all force at his command.

In Europe and the US, it is possible for either party in a lawsuit to subpoena witnesses, and to suppoena documents and other evidence from parties who are not themselves being accused of any wrongdoing. Would it be possible for a Libertarian government to force a citizen to give up information that is needed in a lawsuit between two other parties, or could such a citizen simply refuse to cooperate?

I am also interested in hearing this answer with the added twist that the witness is not a member of the state in queston.

[Liberal]

Yet another question (I promise I'll hold back for a while after this one, give people a chance to answer them):

In Europe and the US, it is possible for either party in a lawsuit to subpoena witnesses, and to suppoena documents and other evidence from parties who are not themselves being accused of any wrongdoing. Would it be possible for a Libertarian government to force a citizen to give up information that is needed in a lawsuit between two other parties, or could such a citizen simply refuse to cooperate?

Would a system of involuntary jury duty, such as the US and some European countries have, be enforceable in a libertarian state?I missed this question from you, Martin. A citizen accused of no crime may not be forced to do anything at all. Such force would be definitively coercive.

Regarding another matter, I do understand that it is not necessary that I reiterate for your benefit that if B is a Libertarian citizen, then he has already consented to the process of arbitration. And if he is not, then his rights are no concern of Libertaria. I know that I do not need to reiterate that for you because I know that you will have read and comprehended it the first time.

[treis]

If all you ask for is to be allowed to live under the government of your choosing why are you imposing that government system on someone else?

[Liberal]

Does anyone else care to ask the above question?

[treis]

Oh this petty bullshit again.

Who did I demonstrate a lack of caring about this time?

[Walton Firm]

Regarding another matter, I do understand that it is not necessary that I reiterate for your benefit that if B is a Libertarian citizen, then he has already consented to the process of arbitration. And if he is not, then his rights are no concern of Libertaria. I know that I do not need to reiterate that for you because I know that you will have read and comprehended it the first time.Lib, if you have something to say to treis or Dewey, could you please address them either directly or not at all? I have no wish to play the role of middleman in one of those "we're not speaking to each other" games.

That said, treis's question is pretty much the one I was going to ask next. As long as A and B are both citizens of the same government, sure, you could simply make consent to arbitration a clause of the "subscription" contract. Although I'm not sure why, in that case, the contract could not just as easily include third-party subpoenas, or jury duty for that matter. But once you force a non-citizen to submit to your arbitration process, aren't you violating the "libertarianism and volunteerism are synonyms" rule? I understand that Libertaria has no duty to protect the rights of non-citizens. But by searching B's house without his consent, you are not just refraining from protecting his rights, you are actively violating them, aren't you?

[Liberal]

Lib, if you have something to say to treis or Dewey, could you please address them either directly or not at all? I have no wish to play the role of middleman in one of those "we're not speaking to each other" games.You may suit yourself, and I will suit myself. Libertarianism in action. ;) Treis knew full well that I have no interest in debating him. That's possibly the very reason he posted. But since you feel obligated to defend him, I'll consent to wipe the slate clean when he apologizes.


That said, treis's question is pretty much the one I was going to ask next. As long as A and B are both citizens of the same government, sure, you could simply make consent to arbitration a clause of the "subscription" contract. Although I'm not sure why, in that case, the contract could not just as easily include third-party subpoenas, or jury duty for that matter. But once you force a non-citizen to submit to your arbitration process, aren't you violating the "libertarianism and volunteerism are synonyms" rule? I understand that Libertaria has no duty to protect the rights of non-citizens. But by searching B's house without his consent, you are not just refraining from protecting his rights, you are actively violating them, aren't you?We've covered this actually, although not with these exact terms and conditions. But the same principle applies: the government of Libertaria has a contractual obligation with A, and the rights of B are of no concern to it.

Libertarian government is not a dispenser of rights. It is not even a protector of rights without the consent of the person it protects. B has elected to have his rights protected by someone else (or by himself — that hasn't been made clear.) He must appeal to his own government, or provide for himself.

Regarding what the contract might include, we've covered that as well. When I said that there are countless ways to implement a libertarian government, that's the sort of thing I meant. Recall that I've said that a libertarian society may be a communist monarchy, so long as all are volunteers. If subpoenas are important to you, then you should seek out a government that is like minded.

[treis]

You may suit yourself, and I will suit myself. Libertarianism in action. ;) Treis knew full well that I have no interest in debating him. That's possibly the very reason he posted. But since you feel obligated to defend him, I'll consent to wipe the slate clean when he apologizes.

Tell ya what if you promise to go back to the other thread and answer the questions I will apologize for whatever it is you think I need to apologize for.


We've covered this actually, although not with these exact terms and conditions. But the same principle applies: the government of Libertaria has a contractual obligation with A, and the rights of B are of no concern to it.

Libertarian government is not a dispenser of rights. It is not even a protector of rights without the consent of the person it protects. B has elected to have his rights protected by someone else (or by himself ? that hasn't been made clear.) He must appeal to his own government, or provide for himself.


That isn't the point (at lest mine) though. You have said numerous times that all you want is to be allowed to live under the government of your choosing. Then one of the tenets of the government you choose is that it has the obligation to impose its self on parties that don't choose your government. Do you not see the hypocracy in that?

Regarding what the contract might include, we've covered that as well. When I said that there are countless ways to implement a libertarian government, that's the sort of thing I meant. Recall that I've said that a libertarian society may be a communist monarchy, so long as all are volunteers. If subpoenas are important to you, then you should seek out a government that is like minded.

For example if they want to set up a democratic republic with soverignty over its land that would be ok as long as everyone agrees?

If not then why not? If so then how is that any different then what we have now?

[Liberal]

Tell ya what if you promise to go back to the other thread and answer the questions I will apologize for whatever it is you think I need to apologize for.I believe I answered all your questions. It's easy to ask questions. What I want is for you to give thoughtful consideration to the responses. You were rapid-firing questions as fast as you could type them, and then accusing me of evasion. I simply won't participate in that game. You were so rude and Pittish that a moderator told you to dial it back. I owe you nothing. I don't have to respond to you at all. This is your last opportunity to apologize and promise to be civil. Failing that, I won't even read your posts anymore. Your call.

[treis]

If you didn't notice you were also warned in that thread. But you are right I was overly hostile and I apologize for that.

You say I ask a lot of questions well I say that you haven't given me much to go off of. You say the only law will be "Government shall guarantee every citizen freedom from coercon." Which is fine and dandy but how am I suppose to derive an entire societal, legal and economic system that matches your understanding from 8 words. You say that an arbiter will decide who has been coerced and what is fair which is fine. Where does that arbiter get his definition of fair from? For example if two arbiters render two opposite rulings in similar cases how is it decided which one is fair? But if you can't link to a site nor do you wan't to answer each specific question then at least please answer the questions about the economic numbers you gave.

[Liberal]

If you didn't notice you were also warned in that thread. But you are right I was overly hostile and I apologize for that.Very well.


You say I ask a lot of questions well I say that you haven't given me much to go off of. You say the only law will be "Government shall guarantee every citizen freedom from coercon." Which is fine and dandy but how am I suppose to derive an entire societal, legal and economic system that matches your understanding from 8 words.Part of what I've explained to you is that your understanding doesn't have to match mine. You may derive your own understanding. Or, if you prefer, you may seek out a government with a set of laws so complex that you will be unable to decode them upon a lifetime of effort.


You say that an arbiter will decide who has been coerced and what is fair which is fine. Where does that arbiter get his definition of fair from?I've never said he decides what's fair. While we are starting anew, allow me to state that that is something that bothers me about your approach. You don't listen. You hear what you want to hear, and you regurgitate paraphrases, and ask me to defend them. That simply won't do. I've stated at least twice in this thread alone the exact two things that an arbiter must decide. Here they are again. Please pay attention. (1) Has a coercion occurred? (2) Who did it? There is nothing about fairness.


For example if two arbiters render two opposite rulings in similar cases how is it decided which one is fair? But if you can't link to a site nor do you wan't to answer each specific question then at least please answer the questions about the economic numbers you gave.What economic numbers? From that other thread? I already told you they were guesses. How can any human being on earth possibly know what will be the budget of an entity that does not exist?

[Liberal]

Incidentally, I may or may not be available at all the early part of the week. Please do not feel ignored or abandoned.

[Walton Firm]

We've covered this actually, although not with these exact terms and conditions. But the same principle applies: the government of Libertaria has a contractual obligation with A, and the rights of B are of no concern to it.I thought I understood that point, before I started this thread, but a few recent statements from you have left me rather shocked. I can certainly get along with the notion of a government with which you have to voluntarily contract, and if you choose not to do so then you get neither the benefits nor the duties attached to that contract. I could even get along with the idea that if a citizen initiates force against a non-citizen, then it is not the Libertarian government's job to protect that non-citizen. But what you're telling me now is that the government itself can actively initiate force against a non-citizen, and that's hunky-dory because the non-coercion principle only applies to citizens?

How far does that go? For example, let's say the government of Libertaria decides that instead of taxing it citizens, it is going to derive its income from enslaving all non-citizens and forcing them to work in the local salt-mines. Would that be OK to you, on the grounds that the rights of non-citizens are of no concern to the government and the non-coercion principle does not apply to them?

What about fraud? You mentioned that an arbited cannot lie during an interrogation, because that would be initiation of fraud. But would it be permitted to use, ah, "creative interrogation techniques" against a non-citizen? After all, he doesn't have any rights, right?

It seems to me that the "libertarianism is volunteerism" rule is pretty meaningless when you interpret it like that. Sure, I can decide whether or not I want to sign the "subscription" contract. But if I don't, the government still feels free to initiate force against me, so how is that any different from any other government deriving its authority from the principle of "might makes right"? Whence does the government of Libertaria derive its authority to boss B around when he has no contractual bond with it and has not (provably, at this point) initiated any force or fraud against any of its citizens?

Regarding what the contract might include, we've covered that as well. When I said that there are countless ways to implement a libertarian government, that's the sort of thing I meant. Recall that I've said that a libertarian society may be a communist monarchy, so long as all are volunteers. If subpoenas are important to you, then you should seek out a government that is like minded.Until now, I had always interpreted the "countless ways to implement" part as saying that libertarianism only offers the absolute minimum of government: enforcing contracts and protecting citizens from attack. And that any other type of society could be implemented on top of that, through citizens voluntarily grouping together and agreeing to obey certain rules among each other. You want socialism, you get together with a bunch of like-minded people and form a socialist collective. You don't want socialism, you stay away from the socialists. And below that, libertarianism is the "meta-government" which keeps the socialists and the non-socialists from coercing each other.

But now it seems that Libertaria is just another government, and only less coercive than the others in the rather theoretical sense that you're allowed to not sign the contract, but it doesn't matter because Libertaria will assume authority over you anyway if it feels like it. And if you don't want that, your only option is to find a sufficiently strong protector to help you defend yourself against Libertaria. In other words, Libertaria does not have a philosophical justification other than "might makes right".

So what did you mean in the "majoritarianism" thread, when you claimed that Libertarianism derives its ethical authority from the non-coercion principle? It seems to me that, the way you explained it in this thread, it does no such thing: the NP cannot be its ethical justification for its authority over its citizens, because it apparently only applies to people who are already citizens; in other words, the NP is just another clause in the citizenship contract, rather than the principle from which that contract derives its validity. The claim that if you did not want to be governed by Libertaria, you should not have signed the contract, is not valid because not signing the contract just means that you don't have any rights at all as far as Libertaria is concerned -- not even the right not to be coerced.

Right?

[treis]

Part of what I've explained to you is that your understanding doesn't have to match mine. You may derive your own understanding. Or, if you prefer, you may seek out a government with a set of laws so complex that you will be unable to decode them upon a lifetime of effort.

Thats true but unless we want 6 billion governments on Earth at least some people are going to have to come to a mutual understanding.


I've never said he decides what's fair. While we are starting anew, allow me to state that that is something that bothers me about your approach. You don't listen. You hear what you want to hear, and you regurgitate paraphrases, and ask me to defend them. That simply won't do. I've stated at least twice in this thread alone the exact two things that an arbiter must decide. Here they are again. Please pay attention. (1) Has a coercion occurred? (2) Who did it? There is nothing about fairness.

I am listening. If you notice the first part of my statement was "an arbiter will decide who is coerced" which can mean you, me or no one. The and clause refers to the third step of the process which is the compensation step. That certainly has an element of fairness in it. For example lets say I damage irreparibly your wedding ring by knocking you over trying to catch a bus and Joe does the same to Franks ring. If our arbiter says heck its just a chunk of metal treis replace it and be done with it and their arbiter says thats a priceless symbol of your wifes love and forces Joe to become Frank's slave. What happens? Is Joe screwed becuase he 'got' the wrong arbiter or is there an appeal process?

Does the arbiter have to follow precident or is each decision up to him?

How does one even become an arbiter? Can I refuse a specific arbiter?

This is what I am getting at "Government shall guarantee every citizen freedom from coercon" is good and all but it doesn't tell me anything. Where does the arbiter come from? Why not by majority decision, a high council, trial by jury or any of the number of other methods?

How is this process remembered? Is it written down anywhere?


What economic numbers? From that other thread? I already told you they were guesses. How can any human being on earth possibly know what will be the budget of an entity that does not exist?

Well you said that $40,000 per year would be dirt poor and that Libertaria's fee would be $1,359.72.

I realize that it there is no Libertaria to look at but economist do theoretical models for all sorts of things. I can go to my local economist and ask for analysist of the cost of say raising the minimum wage to 1000 dollars an hour. There is no country with a minimum wage of 1000 dollars an hour but I can still get a reasonable prediction. I am only looking for an analysis by someone knowledgable of the behavior of a free-market economy to predict the economy of Libertaria. What would the GDP be and what would the median/average wage be.

If you don't know the ramifications of something how can you support it? For example if instituting your idea of Libertaria cut the average wage in half and Libertaria's fee was $30,000 per person would you still support it? What if it cut the average wage by 1/4 and the fee was $100,000? What if it meant near constant war fare between neighboring countries? You can see where I am going with this. Surely you must have some idea in your head of what Libertaria would be like. I am hoping your analysis went beyond government causes an increase in price therefore removing the government will lower the cost. There is also a benefit from that price increase. Companies have their patents, trademarks and copy rights protected. They are able to raise capital by issuing stocks due to limited liability. Removing government does not necessarily mean that prices will go down or the economy will boom. Thats not mentioning the worker safety laws, minimum wage, enviromental protection, the FDA, universal education etc etc. What will removing these mean?

For me I look at Libertaria and I see thousands of little countries with frequent warfare. If the government is obligated to go to war to enforce its arbiters rulings then every petty theft, physical altercation or slight can start a war. For example if a Libertarian from Texas was on vacation in China and had his wallet stolen. If one of his credit cards was used in a store would Libertaria send a police officer to investigate? Would it mean war if China refused entry to the police officer?

I see an economy that is stangant due to extremely limited capital becuase of the abolition of limited liability. The economy won't spend money on research and development becuase their invention can be used without royalties. The poor will be stuck in a cycle of being poor becuase they will be barely able to afford food and shelter let alone education. Unions will be destroyed and working conditions returned to levels reminscent of the industrial revolution.


Incidentally, I may or may not be available at all the early part of the week. Please do not feel ignored or abandoned.

Not a problem it seems like you have numerous questions to answer also.

[treis]

Martin's post made me think of a few more questions.

I am a memeber Libertaria and I go to an area that is not part of Libertaria and I purchase two slaves. I force them to mate so that I get more slaves. Are the off-spring of this couple considered people by Libertaria? If I father a child through the slave is the child a member of Libertaria? If the government of the slave I bought comes knocking to retrieve thier citizen will Libertaria protect me? If the slave escapes and returns to his country will Libertaria go to war to retrieve him?

[Dewey Cheatem Undhow]

Forced by whatever force is necessary, but only that, since excessive force is coercive. If he will not respond to command, for example, then a weapon may be aimed at him. If he will not respond to the weapon being aimed at him, then it may be fired. If he survives the firing of the weapon, and still resists, then he may be shot dead. Whatever value his property will bring is then given over to the plaintiff.Good Lord. I'd hope that your system of government would seize property first and shoot bullets, well, not at all, at least for contractual breaches.

Under the status quo, if I get a judgment against you for breaching a contract, I can get the measure of my damages by having your property seized or your wages garnished (each subject to certain limitations, depending on where you live), but I can't bust a cap in your ass.

[Dewey Cheatem Undhow]

I missed this question [re subpoena of witnesses] from you, Martin. A citizen accused of no crime may not be forced to do anything at all. Such force would be definitively coercive.Arbitration without subpoena power will be useless in many cases.

A steals from B, and hides the goods. C witnesses the theft. B wishes to initiate proceedings against A to recover his property and have A suitably punished. C does not wish to testify. How can B prove his case if he cannot compel testimony?

And this isn't an area where simply having B hire witnesses is appropriate. That creates a clear conflict of interest: C can sell his testimony to the highest bidder. We can see the ugliness that ensues from that sort of thing when it comes to expert testimony in the current court system; I doubt allowing it for fact witnesses would improve matters any.

[Stonebow]

Does this mean that the plaintiff now becomes the slave of the offended party?
You have said several times something to the effect that "He will be imprisoned and forced to work"
Forced how? Torture? Starvation? Drugs? And to work at what? Whatever the offended party chooses? Can a woman (or a man) be forced to work as a prostitute, for example, and tortured if they refuse? Can someone be forced to work in a lethally dangerous occupation? If not, why not?

Lib, in post #18 of this thread, you responded to this question with 'pretty much, yes.' I noticed that you avoided the second part of the question as to what the slave can be made to do as part of his/her 'restitution.' Am I to assume that sexual slavery, and indeed, any sort of servitude short of death is fair game? And that resistance to being enslaved is 'coercion' and grounds for execution?

Can you see how this might be viewed as the antithesis of a civilized society? I can easily imagine a situation in which someone gets into debt, and then is forced into slavery (sexual or otherwise)- that's the problem with a philosophy that is based on 'all rights are derived from property rights,' as you seem to be espousing. Please correct me if i have gotten your position wrong.

I am also a bit alarmed at the prospect that Libertaria is not concerned with the rights of non-citizens of Libertaria. Are we specifically speaking of property rights? And would you include 'one's body' as property?

[Walton Firm]

(bump)

In addition to Liberal, I'd also be interested in the opinion of other libertarians on the board.

In particular, I'd like to know if you agree with Lib's assessment of the degree to which a libertarian government has to respect the rights of an individual who has not contracted with that government -- that is, of course, assuming that you are a member of the "multiple competing governments" school of thought in the first place.

And, getting back to the original topic of the thread: what options does a libertarian government have when it comes to infringing an individual's rights in the context of investigating a crime?

[Liberal]

Only have a skinny minute...


Lib, in post #18 of this thread, you responded to this question with 'pretty much, yes.' I noticed that you avoided the second part of the question as to what the slave can be made to do as part of his/her 'restitution.' Am I to assume that sexual slavery, and indeed, any sort of servitude short of death is fair game? And that resistance to being enslaved is 'coercion' and grounds for execution?Of course not. How will having sex restore the usurped rights-property? As I've explained again and again, the purpose of reactive force is to restore the coerced. Excessive and irrelevant force are coercive.

[Stonebow]

Well, I'm assuming that in Libertaria, prostitution is legal. So why shouldn't I be able to make a debtor work off her debt in the sex trade? You yourself conceded that 'the plaintiff would become the slave of the offended party.'

Who gets to decide how the debt is settled? What parameters are they given? Because making a debtor go into the sex trade will surely have my debt settled much faster than say, working at McDonald's.

Like i said, once you base your entire system on 1 concept (property rights, in this case) everything becomes defined in those terms, and you can rationalize any actions as long as they conform to this principle.

[treis]

Of course not. How will having sex restore the usurped rights-property? As I've explained again and again, the purpose of reactive force is to restore the coerced. Excessive and irrelevant force are coercive.

The usurped will be getting value from the sex and presumably that could be counted towards the debt. Perhaps you ought to describe what you mean when you say that the guilty party will be pretty much a slave. For example how much value does work that the slave does for the owner have? Can I send my slave to Africa where the yearly salary is around $200 so that the guilty party will never earn enough to pay off his debt? Are there any limits for how long or what type of work the slave can do or am I free to work him to death if I so choose?

[Liberal]

Well, I'm assuming that in Libertaria, prostitution is legal. So why shouldn't I be able to make a debtor work off her debt in the sex trade? Prostitution != forcing other people to have sex.

[Liberal]

Perhaps you ought to describe what you mean when you say that the guilty party will be pretty much a slave.By "pretty much", I mean that it is in some ways the case, but not in other ways. I'm not advocating anarchy. There is a government in all this. It is the arbiter who determines what will constitute restoration.


Are there any limits for how long or what type of work the slave can do or am I free to work him to death if I so choose?"Slave" is a metaphor, indicating that the criminal has waived his rights by usurping someone else's. You seem to do well in spotting what is shady in other people's posts. Unfortunately, you examine your own with a different set of eyes.

[Stonebow]

Prostitution != forcing other people to have sex.

This is really a non-answer to my question. In Libertaria, prostitution = legal money making job. If someone is in my debt, and is, by your own admission, my slave, why should I not feel free to put them to work in would would be a very lucrative business? I would just be profiting from their 'labor.'

If you are uncomfortable with the sex trade as an example, can i put them to work as part of my militia? work in a hazardous environment? Make them risk life and limb to pay back their debt?

There would be no 'forcing' involved- they defaulted on their debt to me, initiating force, so I can do pretty much anything to them without it being coercion under your legal code. They've forfeited their rights.

If I am incorrect on this, please let me know. If it is not correct, then what checks are built into your system to prevent it? If it is, why do you assume that people would not enact schemes like I described, and how is that 'more freedom'?

[Walton Firm]

I'm not advocating anarchy.To be honest, I'm finding it more and more difficult to see the difference.

Up until a few days ago, if I had been asked to describe the many-governments interpretation of libertarianism, I would have said something like this:


"The basic principle which all libertarians agree on, is your right not to be coerced. However, just because libertarians respect that right does not mean that anybody is going to feel compelled to defend you against coercion from others. So, unless you feel able to defend yourself and your posessions against every (presumably non-libertarian) thug who wants a piece of you, you will want to contract with a government.

"When you do that, the government will defend you against coercion and enforce contracts which you have entered into with others. In addition, the contract you sign with the government may confer additional rights and/or duties on you -- for example, a tax to finance the government.

"If you choose not to contract with a particular government, it will not protect you against coercion from others, but neither will it initiate coercion against you."


That is how I would have described it. Hower, it now seems as if the second half of that last sentence is in dispute. If the government only respects the non-coercion rights of those who have contracted with it, then what makes it a libertarian government, as opposed to a Mafia-style protection racket?

If even your right to "live and let live" only exists as far as you are able to defend it, how is that different from pure anarchy?

[treis]

By "pretty much", I mean that it is in some ways the case, but not in other ways. I'm not advocating anarchy. There is a government in all this. It is the arbiter who determines what will constitute restoration.

Like I have said before this tells me absolutely nothing about my questions. In what ways are they like a slave and what ways are they not? I already know that the arbiter will decide what is restitution but you said that the guilty party waives all rights and is beholden to the coerced party. When asked if that meant the guilty party became the coerced party's slave you said 'Pretty much'. To me a slave means that you do what I say no matter what or I will use force to make you. Now at least to me we are back to where we started namely are there any limits on what the coerced can make the guilty party do?


"Slave" is a metaphor, indicating that the criminal has waived his rights by usurping someone else's.

Ok so the criminal has no rights and is beholden to me. I understand that but the questions still stand as to what I can do to make the criminal pay back his debt.

[Liberal]

"If you choose not to contract with a particular government, it will not protect you against coercion from others, but neither will it initiate coercion against you."I agree with that statement. Responsive force is not coercion. (Note that both defensive force and retaliatory force are responsive.)

[Liberal]

Like I have said before this tells me absolutely nothing about my questions.How can you have said that before, when I only made the assertion just above?


In what ways are they like a slave and what ways are they not?It is like a slave in the sense that he is not a rights bearing entity, but it is unlike a slave in the sense that a slave does not voluntarily waive his rights. That distinction should be self-evident to a man of your mental acumen.


I already know that the arbiter will decide what is restitution but you said that the guilty party waives all rights and is beholden to the coerced party. When asked if that meant the guilty party became the coerced party's slave you said 'Pretty much'. To me a slave means that you do what I say no matter what or I will use force to make you.But does "pretty much" mean "in every way" to you?


Now at least to me we are back to where we started namely are there any limits on what the coerced can make the guilty party do?I have stated this numerous times: you may use only that force which is necessary to restore. Excessive force is itself coercive. Excessive force is itself coercive. Excessive force is itself coercive.


Ok so the criminal has no rights and is beholden to me. I understand that but the questions still stand as to what I can do to make the criminal pay back his debt.Whatever is necessary. Why you cannot grasp this is beyond me. It is, after all, exactly what you do now.

If a man does not pay his taxes, you send him a letter demanding them, and exacting a penalty fee. If he refuses, you send more letters. If he still refuses, you send an agent. If he refuses to let the agent into his home, you send more agents. Eventually, you send armed agents. If he resists them, you will use every means, including deadly force to haul him in. If he uses deadly force to resist, you will kill him.

[Stonebow]

It is like a slave in the sense that he is not a rights bearing entity, but it is unlike a slave in the sense that a slave does not voluntarily waive his rights. That distinction should be self-evident to a man of your mental acumen.
.

Now, I've never claimed to be a smart man (only charming, handsome, and well hung), but I am afraid that i don't see the distinction, really, especially from the pov of a non-rights bearing entity. That seems to be like saying that POWs pressed into slavery are not actually slaves because they signed up for the army, and it goes with the territory. I don't see any sane person signing away their right to not be a slave if they end up in debt.



If a man does not pay his taxes, you send him a letter demanding them, and exacting a penalty fee. If he refuses, you send more letters. If he still refuses, you send an agent. If he refuses to let the agent into his home, you send more agents. Eventually, you send armed agents. If he resists them, you will use every means, including deadly force to haul him in. If he uses deadly force to resist, you will kill him.

What if the refusal is a matter of not having the money to pay? Putting the debtor in prison won't make me my money back. If I am allowed to make use of his labor, are there any limitations to my powers over him?

[treis]

How can you have said that before, when I only made the assertion just above?

Becuase I am not able to discern what you think the difference is by you saying "yeah there are differences".


It is like a slave in the sense that he is not a rights bearing entity, but it is unlike a slave in the sense that a slave does not voluntarily waive his rights. That distinction should be self-evident to a man of your mental acumen.

Thats fine and I understand. What I cannot do is discern what differences there are from you merely saying that there are differences. Just to be clear he is a slave in everyother way i.e. his owner has complete say over everything he does and can force him to do anything.


I have stated this numerous times: you may use only that force which is necessary to restore. Excessive force is itself coercive. Excessive force is itself coercive. Excessive force is itself coercive.

Roger the whole point a gun then shoot etc. I got it.

That wasn't my question however. My question was are there any limits on what the coerced can force the coercer to do to repay his debt?


Whatever is necessary. Why you cannot grasp this is beyond me. It is, after all, exactly what you do now.

Except I see I cannot force her to have sex with me. I cannot force her into the sex trade.


If a man does not pay his taxes, you send him a letter demanding them, and exacting a penalty fee. If he refuses, you send more letters. If he still refuses, you send an agent. If he refuses to let the agent into his home, you send more agents. Eventually, you send armed agents. If he resists them, you will use every means, including deadly force to haul him in. If he uses deadly force to resist, you will kill him.

Yes but if he does not have the assets to pay the tax then he isn't forced to go work in the salt mines to repay it. What I am asking is are there any limits to what I may force the guilty party to do in order to have my debt repaid?

Can you also quickly respond to posts #34 and #35 please?

[Liberal]

Now, I've never claimed to be a smart man (only charming, handsome, and well hung), but I am afraid that i don't see the distinction, really, especially from the pov of a non-rights bearing entity. That seems to be like saying that POWs pressed into slavery are not actually slaves because they signed up for the army, and it goes with the territory. I don't see any sane person signing away their right to not be a slave if they end up in debt.And yet I've been asked before whether a free man may offer himself up as a slave. (Apparently, the inquirer considered it to be a clever examination of the notion of volitional praxis in a free economy.) And I responded that yes, given no conflict of other obligations, he may. The soldier, obviously, has a contractual obligation with the army. The soldier would be in breach if he offered himself as a slave to the enemy. The indebted man, however, has a contractual obligation to repay. He is already in breach if he is not paying.


What if the refusal is a matter of not having the money to pay? Putting the debtor in prison won't make me my money back. If I am allowed to make use of his labor, are there any limitations to my powers over him?Whatever limitations have been established by the arbiter. Perhaps, for example, he might declare that your coercer must build roads for two years at a wage of $10 dollars per hour (it is likely that road owners would have standing contracts for such cases), and that $8 of the $10 goes to you. The possibilities are as numerous as the cases.

[Liberal]

Becuase I am not able to discern what you think the difference is by you saying "yeah there are differences".But they are easily deduced from the NP.


Thats fine and I understand. What I cannot do is discern what differences there are from you merely saying that there are differences. Just to be clear he is a slave in everyother way i.e. his owner has complete say over everything he does and can force him to do anything. Well, in this metaphor, the arbiter is his owner. That's why you hired a government.


Roger the whole point a gun then shoot etc. I got it.

That wasn't my question however. My question was are there any limits on what the coerced can force the coercer to do to repay his debt?[...sigh...] Whatever limits are established by arbitration.


Except I see I cannot force her to have sex with me. I cannot force her into the sex trade.Humiliation and degradation are not necessary.


Yes but if he does not have the assets to pay the tax then he isn't forced to go work in the salt mines to repay it. What I am asking is are there any limits to what I may force the guilty party to do in order to have my debt repaid?What? Are you an anarchist or a Libertarian? If the latter, then you know (or should know) that your question is ill-phrased.


Can you also quickly respond to posts #34 and #35 please?No. I hear the garage door, and my wife is pleasant company. Sorry. I'm sure that whatever it is, I will be asked again forty more times in the next two years. Just hang loose. :) See you later. You're beginning to grow on me. I apologize for my gruffness with you in the past.

[treis]

Well, in this metaphor, the arbiter is his owner. That's why you hired a government.

Ok this makes much much more sense. The guilty party is not the slave of the coerced rather he is in custody of the government. Then the government will determine the fastest way to fix the coercion.


[...sigh...] Whatever limits are established by arbitration.

Are there any limits to what the arbiter may decide?


Humiliation and degradation are not necessary.

Well assuming that prostitution is legal hasn't the coercer waived any right to refuse to do any job? I am assuming the coercer can't refuse to become a janitor or shovel shit why is he allowed to refuse prostitution? The reason I ask is that I can garuntee that some waitresses/retail workers etc. can make a great deal more money in prostitution than their current employment.


What? Are you an anarchist or a Libertarian? If the latter, then you know (or should know) that your question is ill-phrased.

Well I am neither of those just confused. The Libertarian talking to me has said that whatever necessary may be done yet prostitution is out of the question.

[Dewey Cheatem Undhow]

Excessive force is itself coercive. Excessive force is itself coercive. Excessive force is itself coercive.Who decides what is excessive? Who decides what is excessive? Who decides what is excessive?

Seriously. I predict that you're going to go back to the magical aribitrator, who apparently decides all disputes in Libertaria (and on preview, I see you have). But that's a bit of a black box. Are important decisions like what is or isn't excessive left wholly to the discretion of arbitrators?

If an attractive woman steals from someone and cannot make restitution, you've said the victim has a right to her labor. Assuming prostitution is legal in this particular contracted government, and that's where she can make the most money, is the availability of that remedy entirely dependent on which arbitrator is chosen?

For that matter, how much control does an aggreived party have to control what type of labor an indigent theif must perform for restitution? If indigent thief would prefer to work in an office mailroom, can I make him work on road construction if it pays better?

[Dewey Cheatem Undhow]

On second glance, amend my last paragraph to reflect an arbitrator rather than the aggrieved party. The question still stands -- to what degree can an arbitrator direct the labor of the criminal?

[Walton Firm]

"If you choose not to contract with a particular government, it will not protect you against coercion from others, but neither will it initiate coercion against you."I agree with that statement. Responsive force is not coercion. (Note that both defensive force and retaliatory force are responsive.)
What about investigative force?

That is, after all, what this thread was meant to be about (I will happily accept my share of the blame for getting off-topic). By investigative force I mean things such as searching a person's house, searching their body, taking a DNA sample, making them stand in a police line-up, etc. All without their consent, and backed by the threat of violence if necessary. It seems to me that such force cannot be considered retaliatory or defensive, because it has not yet been decided that the accused is guilty of anything at all.

We have established that when accused and accuser are both citizen of the same government, the answer is easy: by contracting with the government, the accused has agreed to submit to whatever actions the arbiter deems necessary. So by resisting an investigation, the accused is essentially violating his citizenship contract and can be forced to obey that contract.

Those arbiters had better be angels sent directly by God, given the amount of responsibility placed on their shoulders, but that is a subject for another thread as far as I am concerned (though if you want to answer the questions posed to you by treis and Dewey, I'll certainly follow along with interest).

So, let's get back to the scenario where the accused has not accepted the authority of the government of Libertaria, and has therefore not consented to submit to a criminal investigation at the whim of an arbiter from Libertaria. What, then, gives the government the right to conduct an investigation against him? And if your answer is that the government does not need any justification because it does not care about the rights of a non-citizen, can you please explain how that is consistent with the sentence you agreed with above?

[Liberal]

Ok this makes much much more sense. The guilty party is not the slave of the coerced rather he is in custody of the government. Then the government will determine the fastest way to fix the coercion.I don't know why, unless you had confused classical liberalism with anarcho-capitalism, this even had to be explained to you.


Are there any limits to what the arbiter may decide?Yes, and I have described that to you forty ways from Sunday. Let me ask you a question to determine whether you're paying attention at all: are there any limits to what force may be used by a libertarian government? You've been told the answer. Once, I even repeated the sentence three times in a row. See if you can find it.


Well assuming that prostitution is legal hasn't the coercer waived any right to refuse to do any job? I am assuming the coercer can't refuse to become a janitor or shovel shit why is he allowed to refuse prostitution? The reason I ask is that I can garuntee that some waitresses/retail workers etc. can make a great deal more money in prostitution than their current employment.Prostitution is legal, but rape is not. It suddenly occurs to me that you do not understand what rights are in a libertarian context. I know this because you mention a "right to refuse" a job. Naturally, you understand that you cannot impose upon libertarianism a principle conceived in some other model, and expect a rational result. It would be like talking about the force of law in court while meaning mass times acceleration — applying a definition from science to a discussion of law. Rights and property are synonyms in a libertarian context; i.e., rights are an attribute of property. There is no "right" to do something; there is only the rights that accrue from the peaceful and honest acquisition of property. You cannot force the woman to do anything at all beyond surrender her liberty, since her usurpation was itself an abridgment of rights. Unless you have executed her, she is still the steward of her body and mind. She is indeed indebted to her victim, and all rights that accrue from her body and mind belong to him until he is restored.


Well I am neither of those just confused. The Libertarian talking to me has said that whatever necessary may be done yet prostitution is out of the question.Splashing boiling oil into her eyeballs is out of the question, as are pulling out her toenails and forcing broomsticks up her ass. But prostitution is not out of the question if that's what she is willing to do.

[Liberal]

What about investigative force?

That is, after all, what this thread was meant to be about (I will happily accept my share of the blame for getting off-topic). By investigative force I mean things such as searching a person's house, searching their body, taking a DNA sample, making them stand in a police line-up, etc. All without their consent, and backed by the threat of violence if necessary. It seems to me that such force cannot be considered retaliatory or defensive, because it has not yet been decided that the accused is guilty of anything at all.Liberal philosophy recognizes a force it calls "preemptive force". There is a certain threshold where preemptive force becomes indistinguishable from responsive force, and that point is when the preemption is defensive. For example, it is not necessary that you wait for a mugger to go into full arm swing with his knife before you kick him in the nuts. The mere statement, "Your money or your life," is sufficient grounds for you to render him immobile without further ado. In other words, the threat of force is tantamount to the use of force. That is why the first appropriate response to a trespasser is to say, "Get out of here," rather than to shoot him. The latter, at that stage, is excessive (assuming no special circumstances, like the trespasser is about to stab your wife or something). Regarding investigations specifically, it is not the case (and I thought I had explained this) that searches, seizures, or what have you are always appropriate. This entire discussion, as I've said before, follows from a greatly simplified example offered in passing to illustrate a point — namely, the "No" answer about whether he had stolen goods in his house. It is a mistake to carry that to an unfettered extreme and assume that enforcers are the brownshirts of the arbiters. Don't forget that an arbiter is himself open to charges of coercion, and must be extremely diligent and thoughtful in the execution of his duties. He must make his decisions while keeping in mind how a reasonable man might interpret them.


Those arbiters had better be angels sent directly by God, given the amount of responsibility placed on their shoulders, but that is a subject for another thread as far as I am concerned (though if you want to answer the questions posed to you by treis and Dewey, I'll certainly follow along with interest).I don't have any idea whether Dewey has asked any questions or what they are. I understand that you don't like this, but due to board rules, I am unable to explain this situation any further.


So, let's get back to the scenario where the accused has not accepted the authority of the government of Libertaria, and has therefore not consented to submit to a criminal investigation at the whim of an arbiter from Libertaria. What, then, gives the government the right to conduct an investigation against him? And if your answer is that the government does not need any justification because it does not care about the rights of a non-citizen, can you please explain how that is consistent with the sentence you agreed with above?It isn't just a green light; it is an obligation. Again, it's easy to forget — given years of thinking a different way — just exactly what government IS in Libertaria. It is your hired agent who is obligated to defend your rights. Its debt is to YOU. It protects YOU from coercion, and therefore is itself precluded from coercing you. (After all, it is a metaphysical impossibility to both coerce you and guarantee you freedom from coercion.) All force that it uses is on your behalf. Before it invades some other nation or anarchy, you have already decided that you have been coerced, and an arbiter has agreed with you. It is unlikely that an arbiter will commit enforcement to a war without overwhelming evidence already established. (I mentioned satellite photos before.) On the other hand, if there is overwhelming evidence and he fails to do everything possible to protect you, including war, then he is in breach. If you feel that your government has failed you, you may charge its agents with coercion (breach) because they have guaranteed you freedom from coercion. Depending on your obligations, you may even secede. But no one can guarantee you perfection. No one can solve your problems for you. Libertarianism doesn't even attempt to solve problems. It merely attempts to provide you a context of peace and honesty in which you face the fewest obstacles from others toward solving your own.

[Walton Firm]

Lib, thank you, that makes it much clearer.

However, I can't help but notice that while you draw an analogy between the concepts of pre-emptive force and investigative force, you are not quite coming out and stating that investigative force is justified as a form of pre-emptive force. Is that deliberate? The obvious difference is that with pre-emptive force, the facts are clear, whereas in the early stage of an investigation the facts themselves have yet to be determined.

As an aside:This entire discussion, as I've said before, follows from a greatly simplified example offered in passing to illustrate a point — namely, the "No" answer about whether he had stolen goods in his house.I don't think most of the issues we've been discussing are specific to that example.

And even if they are, I'd say it's a pretty relevant example, because a search of a suspect's property, in which the suspect would refuse consent if that option was available, is something which probably comes up in the majority of criminal investigations. It's not like we're discussing some obscure special case here which is never going to come up in the real world.

I think you may be underestimating the amount of cases where the "whodunnit" question cannot be answered with a reasonable degree of certainty, without resorting to investigative force -- especially if we assume that criminals are not stupid and will adapt their behaviour to the methods that the government is using. You can say things like "maybe there are sattelite photos" or "maybe the suspect will incriminate himself and thereby open the door for an investigation", but that doesn't help you in the majority of cases where that it not the case.

Skip those rounds of investigation, and you either catch only the very dumbest of criminals (if the government chooses to err on the side of caution, and only acts when overwhelming evidence is available), or the NCP becomes meaningless and the government essentially becomes a bunch of ordinary mercenaries (if the government takes the accuser at his word without demanding hard evidence first).

A political philosophy which does not have an answer on how to deal with that large majority of cases where there exists reasonable suspicion but not proof, is not quite ready for the real world yet, in my humble opinion.

[Liberal]

Martin

All initial force or deception is unethical. That's the NP, and it is where all deduction begins. The first deduction is that ethical force entails all force that is NOT initial. (By modus tollens.) An arbiter is not excused from the NP with respect to the citizenry he serves. Otherwise, if a car is stolen, then every building in the land may be searched and pillaged until the car is turned up. The answer on how to deal with investigations is to be found within the philosophy — it's just that it isn't what you're used to. You're used to an agent (or agents) of government flipping through libraries of documents for proscriptions about what they may do in the pursuit of their investigation. In this case, an agent (or agents) of government do not look for proscriptions, but to principle. It is rather remarkable to me that you are worried over how an arbiter might conduct an investigation while you do not complain about a magistrate whose piece of paper entitles an enforcer to enter your home. It is almost an identical process. One system calls it "probable cause", and the other calls it "reasonable suspicion". The main difference, in my opinion, exhonerates one above the other: in one system, you have no recourse to punish a maverick prosecutor who is acting in his official capacity, while in the other, you may bring the system itself to bear on its agents. The fact of the matter is that it is libertarianism, and not Americanism, that best protects you from rogue investigations. At the same time, the criminal has more to fear because he may not hide behind a good lawyer with the wherewithall to invoke one of a thousand technicality exceptions. I suppose that, in the end, it is all just a matter of preference, but even in that, I demand nothing from you. I am willing to allow you to select whatever you prefer — i.e., whatever you believe best ensures your safety and happiness. I ask nothing more than that from you.

I've enjoyed our discussion. Thanks for your civility.

[treis]

Yes, and I have described that to you forty ways from Sunday. Let me ask you a question to determine whether you're paying attention at all: are there any limits to what force may be used by a libertarian government? You've been told the answer. Once, I even repeated the sentence three times in a row. See if you can find it.

Then in effect there are no limits on an arbiters power becuase the arbiter is the one that decides what is excessive.


Prostitution is legal, but rape is not. It suddenly occurs to me that you do not understand what rights are in a libertarian context. I know this because you mention a "right to refuse" a job. Naturally, you understand that you cannot impose upon libertarianism a principle conceived in some other model, and expect a rational result. It would be like talking about the force of law in court while meaning mass times acceleration ? applying a definition from science to a discussion of law. Rights and property are synonyms in a libertarian context; i.e., rights are an attribute of property. There is no "right" to do something; there is only the rights that accrue from the peaceful and honest acquisition of property. You cannot force the woman to do anything at all beyond surrender her liberty, since her usurpation was itself an abridgment of rights. Unless you have executed her, she is still the steward of her body and mind. She is indeed indebted to her victim, and all rights that accrue from her body and mind belong to him until he is restored.

Perhaps I am missing something here. A woman has the right to use her body in the way she wishes becuase it is her property. Since she coerced someone all of her rights go to the coerced. This means that the right to use her body as she wishes is no longer hers but it is in the custody of the coerced. If the coerced tells her to go become a prostitute why is she able to refuse?


Splashing boiling oil into her eyeballs is out of the question, as are pulling out her toenails and forcing broomsticks up her ass. But prostitution is not out of the question if that's what she is willing to do.

Again I don't understand why her will comes into play anymore. She no longer has any rights or claims to how her body is used. On what basis may she refuse prostitution and not be forced to using reasonable force up to shooting her dead.

[Walton Firm]

It is rather remarkable to me that you are worried over how an arbiter might conduct an investigation while you do not complain about a magistrate whose piece of paper entitles an enforcer to enter your home. It is almost an identical process.Well, I guess the difference is that my current government does not pretend to be constrained by anything other than its own rules. I don't have to like it, but at least I know approximately what they'll say when I ask where they get their authority. But since libertarianism is so big on the NCP and on the concept of voluntary acceptance of a government's authority, I was wondering how this issue would be resolved.

A "majoritarian" government, or a minarchist libertarian government which claims sovereignty over a particular area of land, may not necessarily be more fair or just but at least it would not have this particular philosophical contradiction to worry about. It's a bit like how, if you don't have any principles, you can never be accused of hypocrisy. :)

One system calls it "probable cause", and the other calls it "reasonable suspicion". The main difference, in my opinion, exhonerates one above the other: in one system, you have no recourse to punish a maverick prosecutor who is acting in his official capacity, while in the other, you may bring the system itself to bear on its agents. The fact of the matter is that it is libertarianism, and not Americanism, that best protects you from rogue investigations.Actually, I do have recourse, and it is pretty similar to what I would do in the libertarian context. In the case of a rogue prosecutor using excessive force, I could sue him. In the case of an unfair judge, I can ask another judge to overturn the judgment. In the libertarian case, if I were treated unfairly by a government of which I am not a citizen myself, my only recourse would be to ask my own government to start a war against them -- not very practical for your run-of-the-mill speeding ticket dispute, I'm afraid.

At the same time, the criminal has more to fear because he may not hide behind a good lawyer with the wherewithall to invoke one of a thousand technicality exceptions.You know, I actually like the idea of the State being required to cross its t's and dot its i's before it can haul me off to jail, even it that means that the occasional bad guy is given a benefit-of-the-doubt he does not deserve..

I suppose that, in the end, it is all just a matter of preference, but even in that, I demand nothing from you. I am willing to allow you to select whatever you prefer — i.e., whatever you believe best ensures your safety and happiness. I ask nothing more than that from you.Granted -- until such time as one of us has his house broken into, and suspects the other one of being the burglar. Then, all bets are off.. ;)

I've enjoyed our discussion. Thanks for your civility.You too, thank you for your time. You have not made a libertarian of me yet, but I enjoyed the conversation as well.

[Dewey Cheatem Undhow]

I don't have any idea whether Dewey has asked any questions or what they are. I understand that you don't like this, but due to board rules, I am unable to explain this situation any further. :rolleyes:

I can only assume by this line that Lib has placed me on his ignore list -- board rules prohibit publicizing the persons on you ignore list.

But in the off chance that he hasn't taken that step, and that he can read this post: Lib, don't you think this is a bit childish? I've asked reasonable questions in good faith. You really only undermine your own credibility by ignoring them.

And I fully intend to continue to participate in these threads. I recognize, as you apparently do not, that I am not just writing responses to the person I'm quoting, but also to other readers of the thread. The points I raise and questions I ask in response to your posts have value even if you don't read them.

[Liberal]

Then in effect there are no limits on an arbiters power becuase the arbiter is the one that decides what is excessive.Hardly. He knows that his decisions can be reviewed by some other arbiter. It seems to me that shielding officials from prosecution is what gives them unlimited power.


Perhaps I am missing something here. A woman has the right to use her body in the way she wishes becuase it is her property. Since she coerced someone all of her rights go to the coerced. This means that the right to use her body as she wishes is no longer hers but it is in the custody of the coerced. If the coerced tells her to go become a prostitute why is she able to refuse?Her only obligation is to settle her debt, in the form of restoring her victim. She is not obligated to be anyone's toy for amusement. She lost the rights (property) that she owned at the time of her conviction, and must use what remains to generate more. But that does not mean that she may be forced into rape or torture. Why you think otherwise is unclear. She may choose whatever work she wishes to restore her victim, but she must choose. If she is recalcitrant, and chooses some low-paying work just to spite the victim, then she is cutting off her own nose because it will take her longer.


Again I don't understand why her will comes into play anymore. She no longer has any rights or claims to how her body is used. On what basis may she refuse prostitution and not be forced to using reasonable force up to shooting her dead.No, you've extrapolated far beyond what is implied here. The only way to snuff out the rights that remain after she has lost her liberty is to kill her. Incarceration is her opportunity to begin anew. She now has the same property with which she was born.

[Liberal]

Well, I guess the difference is that my current government does not pretend to be constrained by anything other than its own rules. I don't have to like it, but at least I know approximately what they'll say when I ask where they get their authority. But since libertarianism is so big on the NCP and on the concept of voluntary acceptance of a government's authority, I was wondering how this issue would be resolved.The laws of your current government are written to protect government from its citizens, not the other way around. Your police officers are not even required to defend individuals from harm. Because your laws are based on scribbles from the whims of legislators who are out to protect their own interests, you stand to be surprised at any moment by some new law or Patriot Act that redefines what your government may do. It already may do anything it pleases. All it needs to do is scribble it down.


Actually, I do have recourse, and it is pretty similar to what I would do in the libertarian context. In the case of a rogue prosecutor using excessive force, I could sue him.Not necessarily. Qualified immunity (http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/q063.htm) might shield him. "Even where a constitutional violation has occurred, an officer will be immune from suit if he or she 'could have reasonably believed that his particular conduct was lawful'."


In the case of an unfair judge, I can ask another judge to overturn the judgment.Only in certain circumstances, and never if you are the plaintiff.


In the libertarian case, if I were treated unfairly by a government of which I am not a citizen myself, my only recourse would be to ask my own government to start a war against them -- not very practical for your run-of-the-mill speeding ticket dispute, I'm afraid.How on earth did you get from an arbiter is unlikely to start a war without compelling evidence to starting a war is your only option? At any rate, if your government is unwilling to fight for your rights when you have been wronged, then what good is it? Any old government can just tootle along while everything is hunky-dory. But suppose it is your wife who is wronged, and being held prisoner by the offending entity. Don't you want your government to spare no effort in freeing her? As to practicality, what is practical depends entirely on what you are practicing. If you are practicing impotent government, then libertarianism is not practical for your needs.


You know, I actually like the idea of the State being required to cross its t's and dot its i's before it can haul me off to jail, even it that means that the occasional bad guy is given a benefit-of-the-doubt he does not deserve..But it writes the t's and i's that it crosses and dots. If "you have a right to privacy" does not suit it, it may simply change the words to "we can enter your house when you're not there and search for whatever we wish." Do you have any idea how many of these words it writes on a given day?


You too, thank you for your time. You have not made a libertarian of me yet, but I enjoyed the conversation as well.Honestly, I'm not prosyletizing. I can understand very many reasons why libertarianism might not appeal to other people. For some, it is a matter of a differently held principle or set of principles. They are not bad people; they just think differently from me. For others, it is a fear of being on their own and fending for themselves without a teat to suck. They aren't bad people either; they've just become accustomed to being dependent on someone else. Again, I'm not asking you to be a libertarian; I am asking only that you allow me to be one, and to pursue my own happiness in my own way so long as I initiate no force or deception in my dealings.

[ouryL]

Liberal and I are in the midst of a debate along these lines. You can follow along here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=300787&page=2) (the debate about the legal system begins towards the bottom) but the short of it is that there is one law "Government shall garuntee every citizens freedom from coercion". Arbitration decides whether this law has been violated in dealings between citizens.


"Coercion" (or "violent force") is an act by a human or humans against the will or without the permission of another human being with respect to that which is his own (his own person or property). It means for someone to take, use, meddle with or otherwise do something to the body or property of another human being without the permission or against the will of that other human being. This includes fraud and embezzlement and other indirect uses of force as well as direct physical violence.

[Liberal]

"Coercion" (or "violent force") is an act by a human or humans against the will or without the permission of another human being with respect to that which is his own (his own person or property). It means for someone to take, use, meddle with or otherwise do something to the body or property of another human being without the permission or against the will of that other human being. This includes fraud and embezzlement and other indirect uses of force as well as direct physical violence.
An excellent description, except that I would replace "an act" with "a voluntary and volitional act". (What Ludwig von Mises calls a "praxis".) Libertarianism has borrowed the term and modified it slightly to mean the initiation of what you describe. The use of what you describe in the defense of rights and property is not, within the philosophy, considered to be coercive.

[Dewey Cheatem Undhow]

The laws of your current government are written to protect government from its citizens, not the other way around. You're fond of saying this, but it really isn't true, at least not universally. Indeed, if anything, the history of American government has been one of increasing individual protection from government rather than less.


Your police officers are not even required to defend individuals from harm. That doesn't mean police officers aren't required to respond to crime -- they are, and if they don't, they will not be police officers for long. However, it is recognized that the cops can't be everywhere at once. Our system of governance does not demand omnipresence or omnipotence on the part of law enforcement.


Not necessarily. Qualified immunity (http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/q063.htm) might shield him. "Even where a constitutional violation has occurred, an officer will be immune from suit if he or she 'could have reasonably believed that his particular conduct was lawful'."Point of fact, the doctrine of qualified immunity is not a legislative enactment, but rather a common law doctrine that evolved through the courts. That is not much different than how I imagine doctrines would emerge in a libertarian arbitration scheme -- I assume that good arbitrators would seek consistency, and in doing so would look to earlier arbitrations to ensure later complainants who are similarly situated are treated similarly.

[Dewey Cheatem Undhow]

Hardly. He knows that his decisions can be reviewed by some other arbiter. So there's an appeals system in Libertaria? Care to flesh that out? When is a party entitled to an appeal of an arbiter's judgment? How is this any different from the endless litigation you so depsise under the status quo?
Her only obligation is to settle her debt, in the form of restoring her victim. She is not obligated to be anyone's toy for amusement. She lost the rights (property) that she owned at the time of her conviction, and must use what remains to generate more. But that does not mean that she may be forced into rape or torture. Why you think otherwise is unclear. She may choose whatever work she wishes to restore her victim, but she must choose. If she is recalcitrant, and chooses some low-paying work just to spite the victim, then she is cutting off her own nose because it will take her longer.Can this woman just decide that she'll never be able to work off the debt in her lifetime and go live in her parent's basement? Can the arbiter command the use of force to make her work and pay off the debt?
No, you've extrapolated far beyond what is implied here. The only way to snuff out the rights that remain after she has lost her liberty is to kill her. Incarceration is her opportunity to begin anew. She now has the same property with which she was born.Wait, is there a debtor's prison or not? Is a person free to go work to pay her debt or not?

[ouryL]

I don't know why, unless you had confused classical liberalism with anarcho-capitalism, this even had to be explained to you.


Yes, and I have described that to you forty ways from Sunday. Let me ask you a question to determine whether you're paying attention at all: are there any limits to what force may be used by a libertarian government? You've been told the answer. Once, I even repeated the sentence three times in a row. See if you can find it.


Prostitution is legal, but rape is not. It suddenly occurs to me that you do not understand what rights are in a libertarian context. I know this because you mention a "right to refuse" a job. Naturally, you understand that you cannot impose upon libertarianism a principle conceived in some other model, and expect a rational result. It would be like talking about the force of law in court while meaning mass times acceleration — applying a definition from science to a discussion of law. Rights and property are synonyms in a libertarian context; i.e., rights are an attribute of property. There is no "right" to do something; there is only the rights that accrue from the peaceful and honest acquisition of property. You cannot force the woman to do anything at all beyond surrender her liberty, since her usurpation was itself an abridgment of rights. Unless you have executed her, she is still the steward of her body and mind. She is indeed indebted to her victim, and all rights that accrue from her body and mind belong to him until he is restored.


Splashing boiling oil into her eyeballs is out of the question, as are pulling out her toenails and forcing broomsticks up her ass. But prostitution is not out of the question if that's what she is willing to do.

So how does the victim exact payment from a perpetrator who refuses to cooperate? :confused:

[treis]

Liberal-

Perhaps you would be kind enough to respond to post #34, detail what rights a person has and what rights they lose after they are found guilty of coercion. Let us get solid definitions and move on from there.

[ouryL]

Hardly. He knows that his decisions can be reviewed by some other arbiter. It seems to me that shielding officials from prosecution is what gives them unlimited power.


Her only obligation is to settle her debt, in the form of restoring her victim. She is not obligated to be anyone's toy for amusement. She lost the rights (property) that she owned at the time of her conviction, and must use what remains to generate more. But that does not mean that she may be forced into rape or torture. Why you think otherwise is unclear. She may choose whatever work she wishes to restore her victim, but she must choose. If she is recalcitrant, and chooses some low-paying work just to spite the victim, then she is cutting off her own nose because it will take her longer.


No, you've extrapolated far beyond what is implied here. The only way to snuff out the rights that remain after she has lost her liberty is to kill her. Incarceration is her opportunity to begin anew. She now has the same property with which she was born.

How does incarceration benefit her "victim"?

[Liberal]

So how does the victim exact payment from a perpetrator who refuses to cooperate? :confused:Well, he may not be able to. The lady may wish to spend the rest of her life in prison.

[Liberal]

How does incarceration benefit her "victim"?It ensures that there will be sufficient force to extract from her wages his share until he is repaid. Without such supervision, she might pay him nothing at all.

[Liberal]

Thats true but unless we want 6 billion governments on Earth at least some people are going to have to come to a mutual understanding.Which is what people tend to do. You're likely familiar with Hayeks' Theory of Spontaneous Order. There will not be 6 billion governments any more than there are 6 billion languages. Few people want to be islands. Most understand the benefits of commerce and trade.


I am listening. If you notice the first part of my statement was "an arbiter will decide who is coerced" which can mean you, me or no one. The and clause refers to the third step of the process which is the compensation step. That certainly has an element of fairness in it. For example lets say I damage irreparibly your wedding ring by knocking you over trying to catch a bus and Joe does the same to Franks ring. If our arbiter says heck its just a chunk of metal treis replace it and be done with it and their arbiter says thats a priceless symbol of your wifes love and forces Joe to become Frank's slave. What happens? Is Joe screwed becuase he 'got' the wrong arbiter or is there an appeal process?Not an appeal process per se, but you may charge your arbiter with breach, and confidently so considering that any reasonable man understands that a wedding ring is not just a chunk of metal.


Does the arbiter have to follow precident or is each decision up to him?His oath is to apply the Noncoercion Principle. He may use precedent as a guide, but he is not bound to it. That allows for the correction of error.


How does one even become an arbiter? Can I refuse a specific arbiter?Personally, I prefer monarchial arbitration, but I'm amenable to alternatives, like one who is popularly elected. I like a system where the accused selects the arbiter, but on that I am also flexible.


This is what I am getting at "Government shall guarantee every citizen freedom from coercon" is good and all but it doesn't tell me anything. Where does the arbiter come from? Why not by majority decision, a high council, trial by jury or any of the number of other methods?Those are fine if they are what you want. That's what libertarianism is all about. You choose for yourself what government you believe might best ensure your safety and happiness. The idea is not at all new:

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 whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.


How is this process remembered? Is it written down anywhere?I've written only a couple of short stories, and a lot of posts. But no, I've never formalized the whole thing with a citizen's contract or a procedure manual or anything. That might be fun to do, though.


Well you said that $40,000 per year would be dirt poor and that Libertaria's fee would be $1,359.72. I think I said probably and roughly. It was just a guess based on how much the US government spends (and wastes) on policing the whole world. It seemed reasonable to me that they could police the homeland for a like amount.


I realize that it there is no Libertaria to look at but economist do theoretical models for all sorts of things. I can go to my local economist and ask for analysist of the cost of say raising the minimum wage to 1000 dollars an hour. There is no country with a minimum wage of 1000 dollars an hour but I can still get a reasonable prediction. I am only looking for an analysis by someone knowledgable of the behavior of a free-market economy to predict the economy of Libertaria. What would the GDP be and what would the median/average wage be. I'm not an economist, but if you're interested in the economic aspects of free societies, then I recommend the writings of Hayek, Mises, and other economists of the Austrian school. Mises' magnum opus, Human Action is available in its entirety online if you care to read it.

http://www.mises.org/humanaction.asp


If you don't know the ramifications of something how can you support it? For example if instituting your idea of Libertaria cut the average wage in half and Libertaria's fee was $30,000 per person would you still support it? What if it cut the average wage by 1/4 and the fee was $100,000? What if it meant near constant war fare between neighboring countries? You can see where I am going with this. Surely you must have some idea in your head of what Libertaria would be like. I am hoping your analysis went beyond government causes an increase in price therefore removing the government will lower the cost. There is also a benefit from that price increase. Companies have their patents, trademarks and copy rights protected. They are able to raise capital by issuing stocks due to limited liability. Removing government does not necessarily mean that prices will go down or the economy will boom. Thats not mentioning the worker safety laws, minimum wage, enviromental protection, the FDA, universal education etc etc. What will removing these mean?What will instituting new government bureaucracies and policies mean? No one knows. You don't know. And yet, they are implemented every day. I am of the opinion that if men do what is right, then their end will be just. Establish an ethical noncoercive free market, and the best of the best will bubble to the top. Those are the theories of the Austrians.


For me I look at Libertaria and I see thousands of little countries with frequent warfare. If the government is obligated to go to war to enforce its arbiters rulings then every petty theft, physical altercation or slight can start a war. For example if a Libertarian from Texas was on vacation in China and had his wallet stolen. If one of his credit cards was used in a store would Libertaria send a police officer to investigate? Would it mean war if China refused entry to the police officer?Quite possibly. And you're right that, for a time, it might indeed mean much warfare. Of course, there is much warfare today, and there has been forever.


I see an economy that is stangant due to extremely limited capital becuase of the abolition of limited liability. The economy won't spend money on research and development becuase their invention can be used without royalties. The poor will be stuck in a cycle of being poor becuase they will be barely able to afford food and shelter let alone education. Unions will be destroyed and working conditions returned to levels reminscent of the industrial revolution.Well, you demand evidence for assertions, but provide none yourself. I simply disagree. I don't know what you believe you need to succeed, but all I need is freedom from the coercive fists and devious minds of men who would try to stop me.


Not a problem it seems like you have numerous questions to answer also.Thanks for your patience. Sorry it took so long to respond.

[Liberal]

Liberal-

Perhaps you would be kind enough to respond to post #34, detail what rights a person has and what rights they lose after they are found guilty of coercion. Let us get solid definitions and move on from there.Okay, your post 34 is answered. A person has all rights with respect to property that he owns so long as he is peaceful and honest in his dealings. Property and rights are synonyms, or two aspects of the same thing. A coercer waives his own rights in the process of usurping someone else's. Effectively, he is declaring, "I hold my own rights to be cheap and worthless and instead seek to have yours." He loses all but the rights he is born with until such time as he restores his victim. Libertarianism is not compatible with institutionalized execution. Nothing is restored by killing someone, although killing someone may be necessary in defense of one's own life. (If someone fires at an enforcer, for instance, he may return fire.)

[treis]

Not an appeal process per se, but you may charge your arbiter with breach, and confidently so considering that any reasonable man understands that a wedding ring is not just a chunk of metal.

Are there any 'superior' arbiters at all? There has to be a resolution at some point both parties can not continually go to different arbiters and get different rulings.

Using the ring example lets say arbiter A forces me to pay 10 grand in 'pain and suffering' compensation. I go to arbiter B and he finds the arbiter A in violation of the non coercion principle. Arbiter A goes to arbiter C who finds arbiter B in violation. Arbiter B goes to arbiter D who finds arbiter C in violation. Repeat ad nasuem. What will the resolution end up being?


His oath is to apply the Noncoercion Principle. He may use precedent as a guide, but he is not bound to it. That allows for the correction of error.

It does allow for correction of error but it prevents anyone from knowing what constitutes a coercion and what does not. For example if arbiter A rules that an act is a coercion while arbiter B rules that it isn't how will I know if the act is legal or not? Or for example if I see arbiter A, B and C ruled that a certain act isn't coercion and I commit that act there is no garuntee arbiter D won't find it to be coercion.

Those are fine if they are what you want. That's what libertarianism is all about. You choose for yourself what government you believe might best ensure your safety and happiness.

But then again I have to comply with your governments legal system unless I am able to defend myself.

I'm not an economist, but if you're interested in the economic aspects of free societies, then I recommend the writings of Hayek, Mises, and other economists of the Austrian school. Mises' magnum opus, Human Action is available in its entirety online if you care to read it.

http://www.mises.org/humanaction.asp

I am certainly not interested in reading an 890 page book about economics. Anything a bit shorter?


What will instituting new government bureaucracies and policies mean? No one knows. You don't know. And yet, they are implemented every day. I am of the opinion that if men do what is right, then their end will be just. Establish an ethical noncoercive free market, and the best of the best will bubble to the top. Those are the theories of the Austrians.

No one absolutely knows what will happen but there is a good idea what will. Studies are done, experts lend their opinions and the populace (or their representitives) choose whether or not to enact it.


Quite possibly. And you're right that, for a time, it might indeed mean much warfare. Of course, there is much warfare today, and there has been forever.

Yes but imagine how much warfare there would be if every crime that happened between foriegners obligated the government to go to war. For example Britain currently holds prisoners from 168 different countries. Thats 168 countries that would be obligated to go to war against Britain. Britain may have been involved in a good number of wars but I doubt they have fought a total of 168 countries.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Refugees_in_Britain/Story/0,2763,1221431,00.html


Well, you demand evidence for assertions, but provide none yourself. I simply disagree. I don't know what you believe you need to succeed, but all I need is freedom from the coercive fists and devious minds of men who would try to stop me.

You are the one making the claim that Libertarianism is better for the economy. You need to provide evidence that your claim is correct. It is not my responsibilty to prove your claim wrong rather it is yours to prove it correct. I will indulge you a bit however. If you want evidence of what limited liability, patent protection, copyright and trademark protection do for an economy look around.

For example in 1995 there were 6 trillion dollars worth of stock in America. Thats a whole lotta money that companies have raised through the sale of stock. If you remove limited liability you will destroy the incentive for anyone to invest in stock. No one is going to buy stock when that means you potentially can be made the slave of someone else. How are they going to raise that money? Loans and Bonds are nice but if you start losing money for a bit and are unable to make payments your companies assets can be seized.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3653/is_199601/ai_n8749884

You also run into the problem of who is going to be able to own massive corporations. For example the market value of GE is 379.33 billion dollars. That is $379,330,000,000 who is ever going to accumulate that much money/wealth to be able to own GE? Even if you got the 14 richest people in the world together they would not be able to afford GE.

cite (http://www.forbes.com/lists/results.jhtml?passListId=10&passYear=2004&passListType=Person&searchParameter1=unset&searchParameter2=unset&resultsStart=1&resultsHowMany=25&resultsSortProperties=%2Bnumberfield1%2C%2Bstringfield2&resultsSortCategoryName=Rank&passKeyword=&category1=category&category2=category)

I'll even throw in an anecdotle example. I am not sure if you are familiar with GE's trivection (http://www.marketwire.com/mw/release_html_b1?release_id=76069) oven but the short of it is that its a new oven technology that cooks food up to 5 times faster. It took a huge amount of R&D to make the ovens and GE makes that up with ridiculously large margins on their product. The reason they can make these margins is that no one else is allowed to produce ovens with similair technology becuase it is all patented. If it weren't for the patents they wouldn't be able to make that margin and they would not have invested the capital. All the people that worked on the R&D would not have had jobs, a new product would not have been introduced and the long term profitability of GE appliances would be in jeopardy. Multiply that effect across the thousands and thousands of companies in America and you lose a good number of jobs in R&D and kill innovation.

I am not an economist nor do I play one on TV but limited liability, patent protection, copyright protection and trademark protection are cornerstones of a modern economy. Removing these will not make the economy boom it will bring it crumbling down to the ground.

[Liberal]

Using the ring example lets say arbiter A forces me to pay 10 grand in 'pain and suffering' compensation. I go to arbiter B and he finds the arbiter A in violation of the non coercion principle. Arbiter A goes to arbiter C who finds arbiter B in violation. Arbiter B goes to arbiter D who finds arbiter C in violation. Repeat ad nasuem. What will the resolution end up being?Do I look like Miss Cleo? :D Since we're just supposing, let's suppose that the third arbiter dismisses the whole thing as the obvious pissing contest that it is. I mean, if you're smart enough to concoct it deliberately as much ado over nothing, then what fantasy are you concocting that pins utter obliviousness onto other thinking men? Is your skill at seeing through A and B's game a special one that only you hold? Or is it the case that you get to make up fantastic stories about Giant Squids, and I have to patiently address them all? If the latter, then we're done. If you get to make up things, then I get to counter with made up things. Meanwhile, your own system is real, and once you've reached the end of your rope, you're dead.


It does allow for correction of error but it prevents anyone from knowing what constitutes a coercion and what does not. For example if arbiter A rules that an act is a coercion while arbiter B rules that it isn't how will I know if the act is legal or not? Or for example if I see arbiter A, B and C ruled that a certain act isn't coercion and I commit that act there is no garuntee arbiter D won't find it to be coercion.The arbiter will explain to you why or why not. He will say something like, "You cannot stab Mr. Jones in the eye for wearing a pink shirt because it is a usurpation of his right to see with his eye."


But then again I have to comply with your governments legal system unless I am able to defend myself.I'm reminded of our spoiled cat, Jane. When he is lounging on the left side of the room and sees Great Whore Jezzebel lounging on the right side, he cannot rest until he has moved over to the right side and displaced her. If she then goes to the left side and lounges in the place where he was, he voices his disapproval and moves back to the left side, pushing her away again. If you like my government's legal system, join it. If you don't, what are you whining about? If you don't want to wrangle with my government, then don't tread on me.


Yes but imagine how much warfare there would be if every crime that happened between foriegners obligated the government to go to war.I imagine it would be quite much. But I don't know what chain of inferences brought you to such a conclusion. I daresay that by its reputation alone, the very existence of Libertaria would pretty much leave people with a respectful caution in dealing with it. As I've stated and you've ignored repeatedly, there are very few instances in which war would be necessary — all being when you can prove unilaterally that you've been coerced AND the opposing government decides that its citizen has a right to coerce you. And if your rights have been robbed from you, then any government that will not stand up for you is a poor champion indeed. I suppose you're probably so used to thinking of government as a nanny cow, that it is hard for you to conceive of it as the champion of your liberty.


I am certainly not interested in reading an 890 page book about economics. Anything a bit shorter?Um, no. And frankly, I'm flabbergasted by that response.


No one absolutely knows what will happen but there is a good idea what will. Studies are done, experts lend their opinions and the populace (or their representitives) choose whether or not to enact it.Hopefully, they won't have to read more than 800 pages, eh? ;) Seriously, here's a brief article about a concept called unintended consequences (http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/UnintendedConsequences.html). An exerpt:

The law of unintended consequences is at work always and everywhere. In 1968, for instance, Vermont outlawed roadside billboards and large signs in order to protect the state's pastoral vistas. One unintended consequence was the appearance of large, bizarre "sculptures" adjacent to businesses. An auto dealer commissioned a twelve-foot, sixteen-ton gorilla, clutching a real Volkswagen Beetle. A carpet store is marked by a nineteen-foot genie holding aloft a rolled carpet as he emerges from a smoking teapot. Other sculptures include a horse, a rooster, and a squirrel in red suspenders.

If by some chance, you care to read Merton's original article from the American Sociological Review, it too is available online: http://www.compilerpress.atfreeweb.com/Anno%20Merton%20Unintended.htm


You are the one making the claim that Libertarianism is better for the economy.Despite all efforts to get you to stop attributing to me views that I do not hold or have not voiced, you continue the practice. This practice does not sneak by anyone other than those who have already predisposed my argument in favor of yours. So you're gaining nothing. I claim that libertarianism is better FOR ME and MY economic circumstance. I have also explicitly stated that it is not better for everyone. With respect to your huzzahs over giant corporations and their assets, if that is your end, then cronyism is your best means — business and government working in partnership to enrich one another. The result of your system is that you have concentrated most of the nation's wealth with government. The assets of all corporations put together pale in comparisons to the assets of government. And you have no logical basis upon which to assert that a free market would not fair far better than a coercive one.

[Walton Firm]

Lib,

Please note that I am not from the US myself, so some of your specific examples (e.g. the Patriot act, or specific jurisprudence about the duties of police officers) may not apply to me. Which is not to say, of course, that my country does not have its own examples of laws written to protect the government from its citizens.

However, I assume that a smart libertarian government would also include some disclaimers and "the arbiter's decision is binding and you agree to accept it" clauses in its contract. Given the importance of contracts in libertarianism, this would offer them a considerable amount of shielding from the consequences of bad arbitration. There would be the possibility of competition between governments on who has the most reasonable citizen's contract, but it may not be easy to find an arbiter who is willing to take full personal responsibility for every case where another arbiter later decides that his ruling was unfair.

Dewey Cheatem Undhow has written several responses to your points, by the way, so I'm not going to repeat those -- if you can't or won't see them, that is your choice, of course.

I'm following your conversation with treis with great interest, though. If you ever get around to working out a concrete example of what the citizen's contract for your ideal libertarian government would actually look like, please let me know!

[Liberal]

However, I assume that a smart libertarian government would also include some disclaimers and "the arbiter's decision is binding and you agree to accept it" clauses in its contract. Given the importance of contracts in libertarianism, this would offer them a considerable amount of shielding from the consequences of bad arbitration. There would be the possibility of competition between governments on who has the most reasonable citizen's contract, but it may not be easy to find an arbiter who is willing to take full personal responsibility for every case where another arbiter later decides that his ruling was unfair.I think that's a reasonable position to hold, and I can see why you would prefer it. I just prefer the most ambiguous law possible, confident that order will spontaneously arise. (See prior references to Hayek's theories.)


Dewey Cheatem Undhow has written several responses to your points, by the way, so I'm not going to repeat those -- if you can't or won't see them, that is your choice, of course.I imagine he is on his very best behavior, but I have no interest in what he has to say.


I'm following your conversation with treis with great interest, though. If you ever get around to working out a concrete example of what the citizen's contract for your ideal libertarian government would actually look like, please let me know!I'm actually thinking about writing a novel. I hope you've had the opportunity to read my short story, Sarah's Gold, which you can see from the homepage in my profile. Writing it was a challenge from someone very much like Dewey, at least in certain ways.

[treis]

Do I look like Miss Cleo? :D Since we're just supposing, let's suppose that the third arbiter dismisses the whole thing as the obvious pissing contest that it is. I mean, if you're smart enough to concoct it deliberately as much ado over nothing, then what fantasy are you concocting that pins utter obliviousness onto other thinking men? Is your skill at seeing through A and B's game a special one that only you hold? Or is it the case that you get to make up fantastic stories about Giant Squids, and I have to patiently address them all? If the latter, then we're done. If you get to make up things, then I get to counter with made up things. Meanwhile, your own system is real, and once you've reached the end of your rope, you're dead.

I am not talking about a pissing contest I am talking about $10,000. Even if your 3rd arbiter dismisses it as a pissing contest all that means is that I need to appeal his decision to a 4th arbiter. I don't see how this is a Giant Squid argument. If I am sentanced into slavery I am going to go to every arbiter I possibly can. What will be the end result of me continually going to different arbiters be?


The arbiter will explain to you why or why not. He will say something like, "You cannot stab Mr. Jones in the eye for wearing a pink shirt because it is a usurpation of his right to see with his eye."

That didn't answer my questions. If arbiter A says yes go ahead and stab Mr. Jones and arbiter B says you can't stab Mr. Jones is it legal or not for me to stab Mr. Jones? Or for example if arbiters A, B and C say sure go ahead and stab Mr. Jones there is no garuntee that arbiter D won't find it in violation of the NP.


If you like my government's legal system, join it. If you don't, what are you whining about? If you don't want to wrangle with my government, then don't tread on me.

I never treaded on you. You merely are accusing me of treading on you. For one who started a debate about this concept in regards to majoritarianism you seem to ignore it with Libertarianism.

What ethical principle entitles the majority to displace this man and move him to Somalia ? where he has not even one memory or one iota of investment in time or labor ? simply because he does not wish to bend to their demands? What entitles them to draw a polygon on a map and say, "Within these boundaries, our voices rule."?

You are in effect saying the samething about Libertarianism. If I do not want to be coerced by your government I need to avoid the citizens of Libertaria. Unfortunately if the citizens of Libertaria live around me that leaves me with the only option of moving away. What ethical principle entitles the citizens of Libertaria to say to his neighbor move away from us or bend to our demands?


I imagine it would be quite much. But I don't know what chain of inferences brought you to such a conclusion. I daresay that by its reputation alone, the very existence of Libertaria would pretty much leave people with a respectful caution in dealing with it. As I've stated and you've ignored repeatedly, there are very few instances in which war would be necessary ? all being when you can prove unilaterally that you've been coerced AND the opposing government decides that its citizen has a right to coerce you.

That simply isn't true. From what I gather as long as you are in possesion of your body you have all the rights that go along with it. If I am in prison I am being coerced to abadon my rights to my body. Namely the prison guards are using force to contain me in a cell, wear certain clothing and eat certain food. That would be an open and shut case in front of an arbiter. The arbiter will find Britain in violation of the NP and is then obligated to enforce the ruling by going to war.

Um, no. And frankly, I'm flabbergasted by that response.

You are flabbergasted that someone doesn't want to read an 800 page book about economics?


Despite all efforts to get you to stop attributing to me views that I do not hold or have not voiced, you continue the practice. This practice does not sneak by anyone other than those who have already predisposed my argument in favor of yours. So you're gaining nothing. I claim that libertarianism is better FOR ME and MY economic circumstance. I have also explicitly stated that it is not better for everyone.

Again this simply is not true. You said that $40000 would be dirt poor in Libertaria. That would entail a better economic situation for nearly everyone in America.


With respect to your huzzahs over giant corporations and their assets, if that is your end, then cronyism is your best means ? business and government working in partnership to enrich one another.

What operating system are you running on your computer? What type of routers and servers do you think allow you to connect to the internet? Who laid all of the copper wire connecting you to the internet? Who built your computer? I will garuntee you that it all instances it was a corporation that did it. Corporations do not just benefit the stockholders they are a more efficient way of doing business that small privately owned companies. We see the benefits of them every single day.


The result of your system is that you have concentrated most of the nation's wealth with government. The assets of all corporations put together pale in comparisons to the assets of government. And you have no logical basis upon which to assert that a free market would not fair far better than a coercive one.

Care to provide a cite for your assertion?

I will ask you again. Have you done any analysis of the economic consequences of Libertaria? If so would you please detail that analysis further than "government costs businesses money".

[Liberal]

I am not talking about a pissing contest I am talking about $10,000. Even if your 3rd arbiter dismisses it as a pissing contest all that means is that I need to appeal his decision to a 4th arbiter. I don't see how this is a Giant Squid argument. If I am sentanced into slavery I am going to go to every arbiter I possibly can. What will be the end result of me continually going to different arbiters be?I think you've lost track of the process. As I've said, there is no appeal in the sense you're used to. What you are doing is charging an arbiter with coercion, specifically breach. If you fail to prove your case, nothing remains but to charge the new arbiter. Again, I'm no psychic, but it seems to me that, at some point, the government is going to consider you to be an unstable quack, incapable of giving meaningful consent. It will then likely consider its obligation to you fulfilled, assuming that all the arbiters you have charged are finished with their cases against you. You will need a new government. It behooves a free man to get along with his fellow volunteers.


That didn't answer my questions.Let's get one thing clear. Your dissatisfaction with an answer does not constitute my evasion. I'm a bit sensitive about that specific charge. I'm not typing all this stuff as a WPM exercise. I am answering ALL your questions. If you do not appreciate how I answer you, stop asking.


If arbiter A says yes go ahead and stab Mr. Jones and arbiter B says you can't stab Mr. Jones is it legal or not for me to stab Mr. Jones? Or for example if arbiters A, B and C say sure go ahead and stab Mr. Jones there is no garuntee that arbiter D won't find it in violation of the NP.I can't say, and that is my answer. You have something in your head, and I can't read your mind. Why would any of the arbiters say that it's okay for you to stab Mr. Jones? What happens when one of your courts upsets the precedent of another? And why doesn't it happen all the time.


I never treaded on you. You merely are accusing me of treading on you. For one who started a debate about this concept in regards to majoritarianism you seem to ignore it with Libertarianism. Ignore? Do you mean to say that I am wasting my time responding to you, providing you links to the best possible information, parsing and answering every single one of your questions, including digging up old posts to which you hadn't even the decency to provide a link — and your conclusion is that I'm ignoring you? I've already answered you on this in fact. I must have compelling evidence that you coerced me before an arbiter will consider invading your property as a non-Libertarian. It is you, sir, who is doing the ignoring.


You are in effect saying the samething about Libertarianism. If I do not want to be coerced by your government I need to avoid the citizens of Libertaria. Unfortunately if the citizens of Libertaria live around me that leaves me with the only option of moving away. What ethical principle entitles the citizens of Libertaria to say to his neighbor move away from us or bend to our demands?My government would never coerce you. Where do you get that from? No one is demanding anything from you. My government doesn't exist to coerce on my behalf. It won't even protect me if I am the one coercing you.


That simply isn't true. From what I gather as long as you are in possesion of your body you have all the rights that go along with it. If I am in prison I am being coerced to abadon my rights to my body. Namely the prison guards are using force to contain me in a cell, wear certain clothing and eat certain food. That would be an open and shut case in front of an arbiter. The arbiter will find Britain in violation of the NP and is then obligated to enforce the ruling by going to war.No, you have been forced to abandon the rights that you usurped. You. Must. Restore. Them. That is when you obligation will be complete. The force the guards are using is responsive. That's. Why. You're. There. You. Initiated. Force.


You are flabbergasted that someone doesn't want to read an 800 page book about economics? Yes indeed I am. It is like telling me you're hungry, and then when I show you the kitchen, it's "What, you want me to cook?"


Again this simply is not true. You said that $40000 would be dirt poor in Libertaria. That would entail a better economic situation for nearly everyone in America.No, you misunderstood. Again. That was not to say (and did not say) that no one would be poorer than that, but that a man with the freedom to succeed who could do no more than that would be considered dirt poor. It stands to reason that men who can succeed will.


What operating system are you running on your computer? What type of routers and servers do you think allow you to connect to the internet? Who laid all of the copper wire connecting you to the internet? Who built your computer? I will garuntee you that it all instances it was a corporation that did it. Corporations do not just benefit the stockholders they are a more efficient way of doing business that small privately owned companies. We see the benefits of them every single day.So what? A man stuck in a tent all his life sees the benefits of the tent. It keeps him dry. It let's fresh air in and stale air out. He cannot imagine what a house would be like because he's never seen one.


Care to provide a cite for your assertion?What assertion? That most of the nation's wealth is concentrated with government? Are you joking? The federal government alone has more than $112 billion dollars in capitalized fixed assets, and that doesn't even include revenues or other significant assets. It also doesn't include state, provincial, or local governments. Check the GAO for yourself. You'll find that it also says there, "Assets included on the balance sheets are resources of the Government that remain available to meet future needs. The most significant assets that are reported on the balance sheets are property, plant, and equipment, inventories, and loans receivable. There are, however, other significant resources available to the Government that extend beyond the assets presented in these financial statements. Those resources include stewardship assets, including natural resources (see Stewardship Information section), and the Government’s sovereign powers to tax, regulate commerce, and set monetary policy." But I'm not giving you any more links. You don't bother reading them.


I will ask you again. Have you done any analysis of the economic consequences of Libertaria? If so would you please detail that analysis further than "government costs businesses money".Oh, that's rich! You haven't asked me that, and I'm not even capable of doing such a thing. I linked you to the most detailed analysis possible by one of history's most notable economists, and you wouldn't even read it! :D

[treis]

I think you've lost track of the process. As I've said, there is no appeal in the sense you're used to. What you are doing is charging an arbiter with coercion, specifically breach. If you fail to prove your case, nothing remains but to charge the new arbiter.

You charge the first arbiter with breach for wrongful conviction or what have you. Then you charge the second arbiter with breach for not overturning the first arbiters ruling. etc. etc.


Again, I'm no psychic, but it seems to me that, at some point, the government is going to consider you to be an unstable quack, incapable of giving meaningful consent. It will then likely consider its obligation to you fulfilled, assuming that all the arbiters you have charged are finished with their cases against you. You will need a new government. It behooves a free man to get along with his fellow volunteers.

You are assuming that they give the same ruling. Lets take abortion for example. Roughly half the people in this country think it should be legal while the other half think it should be illegal. Its reasonable to assume that the arbiters would have a similiar breakdown. Half saying that abortion is a coercion of the unborn child while the other saying that the mother may do whatever she likes with her body. If I am brought before arbiter A who says you coerced your unborn I can charge him with breach by going to arbiter B. Arbiter B may be of the opinion that Arbiter A is in breach becuase the unborn child does not have rights. Arbiter C might find Arbiter B in breach becuase he agrees with arbiter As ruling. Repeat this process throughout your arbiters and you get half saying abortion is a coercion and the other half saying it isn't. The question then is is abortion a coercion?

I can't say, and that is my answer. You have something in your head, and I can't read your mind. Why would any of the arbiters say that it's okay for you to stab Mr. Jones?

The stabbing example is a bad example for the point I am trying to illustrate I merely used it becuase you did. Lets take a better example of pollution. Lets say I want to build a factory that will put 1 ton of pollution into a river. I want to know if that is a legal action or may I be found guilty of coercion (damage to my neighbors property). I look at see that Arbiters A and B found it to be a coercion while Arbiters C and D found it not to be a coercion. Is dumping 1 ton of pollution into a river a coercion in Libertaria or not? If I am the plantiff that went to arbiter C may I go to arbiter A and sue him for breach of contract? If I am the defendant in front of Arbiter A may I go to arbiter C and sue him for a breach of contract?

What happens when one of your courts upsets the precedent of another?

If it violates a precedent it is bound to follow then the ruling is appealed and overturned.


And why doesn't it happen all the time.

Courts are obligated to follow the precedent of the higher courts. Continually not following precedent is an excellent way to lose your job as a judge.


Ignore? Do you mean to say that I am wasting my time responding to you, providing you links to the best possible information, parsing and answering every single one of your questions, including digging up old posts to which you hadn't even the decency to provide a link ? and your conclusion is that I'm ignoring you? I've already answered you on this in fact. I must have compelling evidence that you coerced me before an arbiter will consider invading your property as a non-Libertarian. It is you, sir, who is doing the ignoring.

Disagreeing does not mean ignoring. Your definition of compelling may not be stringent enough for my liking but that isn't stopping you from forcing me to comply. You are forcing me to defend myself under a legal system that I did not choose nor do I like. Busting down my door to search my house against my will does not constitute retaliatory force.


My government would never coerce you. Where do you get that from? No one is demanding anything from you. My government doesn't exist to coerce on my behalf. It won't even protect me if I am the one coercing you.

Oh yes it will. It will search my house using force if necessary despite my most strenous objections, kidnap me from my house and try me under its judicial system. After this whole ordeal when I am found innocent I am forced to accept whatever it is Libertaria deems compensation for it.


No, you have been forced to abandon the rights that you usurped. You. Must. Restore. Them. That is when you obligation will be complete. The force the guards are using is responsive. That's. Why. You're. There. You. Initiated. Force.

None of Britain's prisoners were found guilty by an arbiter of violating the NP principle. Doesn't Libertaria have a contractual obligation to ensure that my rights are not being violated? Does it not have to conduct its own investigation and does an arbiter not have to rule I have violated the NP principle before I may be punished?



Yes indeed I am. It is like telling me you're hungry, and then when I show you the kitchen, it's "What, you want me to cook?"

Not at all its like me asking where the salt is and you pointing towards a 100,000 square foot warehouse.


No, you misunderstood. Again. That was not to say (and did not say) that no one would be poorer than that, but that a man with the freedom to succeed who could do no more than that would be considered dirt poor. It stands to reason that men who can succeed will.

A family of four in Libertaria that makes only the equivalent of forty grand a year would be considered bottom of the barrel dirt poor.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5819811&postcount=92

I am finding it hard to believe that there is a way to misunderstand a clear statement like that.


So what? A man stuck in a tent all his life sees the benefits of the tent. It keeps him dry. It let's fresh air in and stale air out. He cannot imagine what a house would be like because he's never seen one.

But we can stick our head outside our tent and see what else is out there. Let me try another example. I don't know if you are familiar with mathematica (http://www.academicsuperstore.com/q/PartNo-qk_srch/f/market-marketdisp/v/700119-Mathematica+Pro+5.1/Mathematica+Pro+5.1/Mathematica.html?sourcecode=s10142&promocode=pc11320) but it is an extremely powerful piece of software with an extremely steep price tag of $895. The reason they have to sell it for that much is becuase it cost a bunch of money to develop. Now they can sell it for $895 becuase it is illegal for someone to copy their work and sell it for 10 bucks on the street corner. If they were unable to sell it for $895 they wouldn't be able to afford to develop the software and it would not have been made. All those software engineers and mathematicians they employ are now unemployed. The businesses that use their software to make money are now less profitable and might have to cut jobs too.


What assertion? That most of the nation's wealth is concentrated with government? Are you joking? The federal government alone has more than $112 billion dollars in capitalized fixed assets, and that doesn't even include revenues or other significant assets. It also doesn't include state, provincial, or local governments. Check the GAO for yourself. You'll find that it also says there, "Assets included on the balance sheets are resources of the Government that remain available to meet future needs. The most significant assets that are reported on the balance sheets are property, plant, and equipment, inventories, and loans receivable. There are, however, other significant resources available to the Government that extend beyond the assets presented in these financial statements. Those resources include stewardship assets, including natural resources (see Stewardship Information section), and the Government?s sovereign powers to tax, regulate commerce, and set monetary policy." But I'm not giving you any more links. You don't bother reading them.

So then its a no you don't want to provide a cite for your assertion.


Oh, that's rich! You haven't asked me that, and I'm not even capable of doing such a thing. I linked you to the most detailed analysis possible by one of history's most notable economists, and you wouldn't even read it! :D

[Liberal]

You charge the first arbiter with breach for wrongful conviction or what have you. Then you charge the second arbiter with breach for not overturning the first arbiters ruling. etc. etc.Yeah, I get it. And like I said already, they'll get it too.


You are assuming that they give the same ruling. Lets take abortion for example. Roughly half the people in this country think it should be legal while the other half think it should be illegal. Its reasonable to assume that the arbiters would have a similiar breakdown. Half saying that abortion is a coercion of the unborn child while the other saying that the mother may do whatever she likes with her body. If I am brought before arbiter A who says you coerced your unborn I can charge him with breach by going to arbiter B. Arbiter B may be of the opinion that Arbiter A is in breach becuase the unborn child does not have rights. Arbiter C might find Arbiter B in breach becuase he agrees with arbiter As ruling. Repeat this process throughout your arbiters and you get half saying abortion is a coercion and the other half saying it isn't. The question then is is abortion a coercion?Why shouldn't there be different results for different circumstances? That's the whole advantage to ethical government. When you apply the same welfare regulation, for example, to someone in rural Wyoming that you apply to someone in South Central Los Angeles, you're pissing in the wind. Sometimes, abortion might be coercive, and sometimes it might not. Then again, it might always be or never. Why not open the process so people can make the best arguments? Maybe it will turn out like birth, and always be coercive.


The stabbing example is a bad example for the point I am trying to illustrate I merely used it becuase you did. Lets take a better example of pollution. Lets say I want to build a factory that will put 1 ton of pollution into a river. I want to know if that is a legal action or may I be found guilty of coercion (damage to my neighbors property). I look at see that Arbiters A and B found it to be a coercion while Arbiters C and D found it not to be a coercion. Is dumping 1 ton of pollution into a river a coercion in Libertaria or not? If I am the plantiff that went to arbiter C may I go to arbiter A and sue him for breach of contract? If I am the defendant in front of Arbiter A may I go to arbiter C and sue him for a breach of contract?Changing the example doesn't really change anything because the principle is the same. Why isn't vandalizing someone's property coercive? Maybe in some oddball special cases, it might not be. But in general, poisoning someone is an assault.


If it violates a precedent it is bound to follow then the ruling is appealed and overturned.Then it's too tight-assed a system. Aren't you giving far more authority to judges than you feared giving to arbiters?


Courts are obligated to follow the precedent of the higher courts. Continually not following precedent is an excellent way to lose your job as a judge. Then who can make an injustice go away? Suppose it is against the law to drive without a seat belt, but Ms. Jones drove without one on account of her rib was broken and she was on the way to the doctor. One of the monster critters from Libertaria hypotheticals is the cop, and he charges her. Where's the justice if a judge can't say, "Get the hell outta here."

Also, if courts can't go against precedence, how does precedence start anyway? Is it first come first serve? Judge A was the first to opine, so now every judge from B to Z must follow along?


Disagreeing does not mean ignoring. Your definition of compelling may not be stringent enough for my liking but that isn't stopping you from forcing me to comply. You are forcing me to defend myself under a legal system that I did not choose nor do I like. Busting down my door to search my house against my will does not constitute retaliatory force. Sure it does. Even if it weren't, then you'd have a case against the Libertarian arbiter or charger. Sign up and get your due.


Oh yes it will. It will search my house using force if necessary despite my most strenous objections, kidnap me from my house and try me under its judicial system. After this whole ordeal when I am found innocent I am forced to accept whatever it is Libertaria deems compensation for it.That doesn't seem to be a problem for you with eminent domain in your majoritarian system. You have no compunction about throwing a man out of his home after thirty years and paying him whatever you think its worth. You seem to apply an ethics of convenience. To yourself.


None of Britain's prisoners were found guilty by an arbiter of violating the NP principle. Doesn't Libertaria have a contractual obligation to ensure that my rights are not being violated? Does it not have to conduct its own investigation and does an arbiter not have to rule I have violated the NP principle before I may be punished? I'm not sure. I've lost track of your story. I thought you were always assuming the role of anti-Lib. Refresh me on this one. (And please, no post numbers. Just say it or provide a link.)


Not at all its like me asking where the salt is and you pointing towards a 100,000 square foot warehouse.No, that's no right. Austrian economic theory is deductively derived. If you asked for Godel's proof, which would you prefer — one of the papers about his paper, or his paper?


http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5819811&postcount=92

I am finding it hard to believe that there is a way to misunderstand a clear statement like that. You routinely misunderstand, misattribute, and misrepresent. What's hard to believe.


But we can stick our head outside our tent and see what else is out there.Apparently not if it requires reading a big book. You know, in all this time you've spent with me gaining pretty much nothing, you could have finished one of the most imporant economic treatises in the world. Think about that.


Let me try another example. I don't know if you are familiar with mathematica (http://www.academicsuperstore.com/q/PartNo-qk_srch/f/market-marketdisp/v/700119-Mathematica+Pro+5.1/Mathematica+Pro+5.1/Mathematica.html?sourcecode=s10142&promocode=pc11320) but it is an extremely powerful piece of software with an extremely steep price tag of $895. The reason they have to sell it for that much is becuase it cost a bunch of money to develop. Now they can sell it for $895 becuase it is illegal for someone to copy their work and sell it for 10 bucks on the street corner. If they were unable to sell it for $895 they wouldn't be able to afford to develop the software and it would not have been made. All those software engineers and mathematicians they employ are now unemployed. The businesses that use their software to make money are now less profitable and might have to cut jobs too.And yet bootleg copies, open source knock-offs, and reverse engineered competitive products proliferate anyway. Personally, I'd rather have the very real advantage of no special government deals favoring my competition than the merely perceived advantage of a coercive monopoly.


So then its a no you don't want to provide a cite for your assertion.Again, I gave you a cite, and you won't read it. And everytime you repeat that meme, I'm going to remind everyone of it. Also, you left a lot of my questions on the table. Answer them.

[treis]

Why shouldn't there be different results for different circumstances? That's the whole advantage to ethical government. When you apply the same welfare regulation, for example, to someone in rural Wyoming that you apply to someone in South Central Los Angeles, you're pissing in the wind.

I never said you should. My point is that you need to apply the same regulations to everyone in rural Wyoming. Assuming similair situations a standard regulation should be applied equally to everyone.

Sometimes, abortion might be coercive, and sometimes it might not. Then again, it might always be or never. Why not open the process so people can make the best arguments? Maybe it will turn out like birth, and always be coercive.

A pregnant woman comes up to you and asks if an abortion is a coercion and you answer well sometimes it is then again sometimes its not heck maybe it will turn out that it always is. Don't worry though you will find out if your specific arbiter thinks so about 5 seconds before he sentances you into slavery or sets you free. You honestly don't see a problem with that situation?


Changing the example doesn't really change anything because the principle is the same. Why isn't vandalizing someone's property coercive? Maybe in some oddball special cases, it might not be. But in general, poisoning someone is an assault.

You are missing the point of my question. I am asking when there are conflicting rulings on what constitutes a coercion what happens? Half the arbiters think an act is coercion and the other half don't . If I am convicted by an arbiter and I sue that arbiter for breach of contract half of the arbiters will agree with me and half won't. Is that arbiter in breach of his contract or not?


Then it's too tight-assed a system. Aren't you giving far more authority to judges than you feared giving to arbiters?

I don't see how. Judges don't decide what the law is, convict someone of the crime and sentance them.


Then who can make an injustice go away? Suppose it is against the law to drive without a seat belt, but Ms. Jones drove without one on account of her rib was broken and she was on the way to the doctor. One of the monster critters from Libertaria hypotheticals is the cop, and he charges her. Where's the justice if a judge can't say, "Get the hell outta here."

Who says the judge can't? In this case he is responsible for sentencing the guilty party and he may sentence them as he wishes unless there is a specific legislative mandate otherwise.


Also, if courts can't go against precedence, how does precedence start anyway? Is it first come first serve? Judge A was the first to opine, so now every judge from B to Z must follow along?

Well the first precedent is from common law and that is just becuase its how the first judge did it. The other precedents come from interpeting the legislatures laws. If Judges B to Z are on a lower bench then Judge A was then yes they have to follow his precedent. Judge A's replacement or a superior judge is allowed to over rule the precedent if they wish.


Sure it does. Even if it weren't, then you'd have a case against the Libertarian arbiter or charger. Sign up and get your due.

See that is exactly my point. I have to submit to your judicial system if I want restitution.


That doesn't seem to be a problem for you with eminent domain in your majoritarian system. You have no compunction about throwing a man out of his home after thirty years and paying him whatever you think its worth. You seem to apply an ethics of convenience. To yourself.

I certainly have a compuncation about throwing a man out of his home becuase I have just coerced him into doing so. I freely admit that our current system is coercive. You on the other hand are claiming that Libertaria does not instigate coercion which is not the case. Libertaria will coerce anyone they please into allowing a search of their home even those that do not voluntarily consent to its governance.


I'm not sure. I've lost track of your story. I thought you were always assuming the role of anti-Lib. Refresh me on this one. (And please, no post numbers. Just say it or provide a link.)

A citizen signs a contract with Libertaria that says Libertaria will protect his rights from coercion. The only way for Libertaria to waive this responsibility is by an arbiter finding the accused guilty of violating the NP. The prisoners in Britain have not been convicted by an arbiter of violating the NP therefore Libertaria still has an obligation to protect his rights. Certainly imprisoning someone and stripping them of property is a coercion. Until such time that the accused is found guilty of violating the NP Libertaria has an obligation to protect his rights up to and including going to war. Ergo the 168 governments of those prisoners are obligated to go to war with Britain unless Britain allows an arbiter to conduct his own investigation and conviction.


No, that's no right. Austrian economic theory is deductively derived. If you asked for Godel's proof, which would you prefer ? one of the papers about his paper, or his paper?

At this point all I want is a summary of his arguments from an unbiased source.


You routinely misunderstand, misattribute, and misrepresent. What's hard to believe.

Even if you think that there is in no way a misunderstanding, misattribution or misrepresentation here. Its plain as day what you said and what you said is that 40,000 would be bottom of the barrel dirt poor in Libertaria.


And yet bootleg copies, open source knock-offs, and reverse engineered competitive products proliferate anyway. Personally, I'd rather have the very real advantage of no special government deals favoring my competition than the merely perceived advantage of a coercive monopoly.

I would not say they proliferate at least not at any reputable institution. Regardless there is certainly no way any business would develop a software like mathematica becuase they would lose an enormous sum of money. That means that jobs are lost, other businesses are less efficient and the economy suffers overall.


Again, I gave you a cite, and you won't read it. And everytime you repeat that meme, I'm going to remind everyone of it. Also, you left a lot of my questions on the table. Answer them.

You didn't even give me a number for the total government assets nor did you give me a number for the total private assets. If that is what you consider a cite feel free to remind everyone anytime you like.

Which questions did I miss?

[Dewey Cheatem Undhow]

I'll comment further on Lib's post in more detail later, but this part just begs for rebuttal:What assertion? That most of the nation's wealth is concentrated with government? Are you joking? The federal government alone has more than $112 billion dollars in capitalized fixed assets, and that doesn't even include revenues or other significant assets.
1. The "nation's wealth" is in its economic activity, not in a static number like fixed assets. The US had a GDP of 11 trillion dollars (http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/Z1/current/accessible/f6.htm) in 2003, the last full year for which figures are available. That's 'trillion' with a 'T'. Consolidated federal, state and local governments consumption expenditures and gross investment for the same period totaled 2.075 trillion dollars. That's a big number, but hardly "most of" the nation's wealth.

2. Even taking asset values as a relevant number, private sector assets are far larger in the aggregate than assets held by the federal government. The total market capitalization of all domestic publicly listed firms (http://www.nyse.com/Frameset.html?displayPage=/marketinfo/1022963613722.html) is a whopping $37.3 trillion. Again, that's trillion with a 't'. Double or, hell, quadruple your $112 billion figure and it's still just a drop in the bucket.

The government is a heavy hitter in the economy, but it's small potatoes compared to the whole of private economic activity.

(Also -- you do understand the difference between revenue and assets, right?)

[Dewey Cheatem Undhow]

And yet bootleg copies, open source knock-offs, and reverse engineered competitive products proliferate anyway. Again, briefly, this is the worst possible argument against copyrights and patents. It's tantamount to saying we shouldn't have laws against murder because people kill other people every day.

I have a lot of beefs with the US IP system, but I recognize that at some basic level it is necessary. And frankly, the things you list aren't serious problems in the US (China and other places abroad are another story). That would not be the case without IP protections.

[Walton Firm]

I don't think Liberal was using that as an argument against IP protection, just saying that the advantages of libertarianism would be worth the price, to him. Also, note that two of the three things he mentioned are not actually illegal.

It seems there are different perspectives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_perspectives_on_intellectual_property) on copyright and patents from a libertarian point of view. Depending on how you look at it, copyright could be considered as a form of property ownership, a special kind of contract, or a government-granted monopoly. Maybe it's another one of those things where it all depends on the opinion of the individual arbiter?

[Dewey Cheatem Undhow]

I don't think Liberal was using that as an argument against IP protection, just saying that the advantages of libertarianism would be worth the price, to him.I don't think so, partially because this is a common refrain from Lib when discussing libertarianism, an argument that essentially goes "the status quo isn't perfect, therefore libertarianism is better."

We had a similar go-round on the issue of children who trespass and child safety and welfare in general. Lib seized on a couple of horrible real-world cases whenever he was asked how Libertaria would handle certain situations and just kept running back to them, in spite of the fact that (1) no one had ever denied that the current system is flawed, (2) the folks participating had raised some very pertinent (and non-sentient-squidlike) examples of how Libertaria would make things worse.

I agree that there are varying attitudes towards IP amongst Libertarians. However, those who support IP protection tend to be minarchists rather than scrap-the-state-entirely types. I'd love to get Lib to flesh this one out, but he's balked at the question before and, as you've seen, he's less than eager to answer my queries.
Maybe it's another one of those things where it all depends on the opinion of the individual arbiter?Y'know, "arbitrate" and "arbitrary" share the same Latin root. Libertaria would end up making that more than just an interesting etymological tidbit.