A few questions for Liberal

[LH75]

friend john mace,

Yep, that’s the idea. The only benefit that a libertarian asks of his society is to be free from coercion by other citizens. What you see as a benefit, beyond freedom from coercion, a libertarian sees as an undesirable constraint.

so, for example, if i do not feel that iraq is a threat to me personally, that portion of my tax dollar that is spent to pay for the support of the troops there is taken from me by coersion?

second example: when it snows, i stay home. it that portion of my tax dollar allocated to snow removal taken from me by coersion?

lh

[LH75]

just a quick note: you would think that by this point in the discussion i would realize that i have been spelling corecion improperly.

my apologies

lh

[John_Mace]

@longhair75

friend john mace,

so, for example, if i do not feel that iraq is a threat to me personally, that portion of my tax dollar that is spent to pay for the support of the troops there is taken from me by coersion?

second example: when it snows, i stay home. it that portion of my tax dollar allocated to snow removal taken from me by coersion?

lh

In a libertarian society, there are no taxes. That should answer both of your questions. In a lib society, you’d have a lot more insurance. When you don’t crash your car, do you get your insurance payment back? No, but you paid it voluntarily (assuming you don’t live in a state that requires insurance).

you would think that by this point in the discussion i would realize that i have been spelling corecion improperly.

In a libertarian society, no one will coerce you to spell correctly.

[Walton_Firm]

@John Mace

The thing is, if you wanted to set up a socialist system inside libertopia, you’d be perfectly free to do so. All you would need to do is contract with like-minded individuals. You could take in “charity cases” if you wanted, and you could impose “taxes” on each other in any way you’d like. What you would not be able to do is FORCE someone to join your coopertive. If that type of system was more benefitial, then people would flock to it and it would eventually become the norm.

And if such a cooperative became large and popular enough, eventually it would become impractical, maybe even impossible, for most people to stay out of it. People would be born, live, and die on land owned by the cooperative. Because all of the land around you, and all of the shops and services available, would be owned by people who had accepted the rules of the cooperative, accepting those rules yourself would be mandatory for all practical purposes.

If you complained about having to pay too much taxes or about there being too many rules, you would be told “hey, you’re free to move away if you don’t like it!” Except that all other land would also be owned by similar cooperatives, so the only way to escape would be to move deep into the wilderness and live as a hermit.

And inside such a cooperative, because everybody had “voluntarily” accepted its rules, anything would be possible. Any imaginable decision-making procedure, from dictatorship to democracy or anything in-between. A 60% income tax. A system of laws so complex that no single person could understand them all, micromanaging every detail of a citizen’s life. Mandatory military service. All those things would be legal, on the grounds that you had accepted the cooperative’s rules by choosing to remain within its boundaries.

Theoretically, there would be nothing wrong with such a system of cooperatives, covering almost all of the planet’s surface between them. Of course, it would also be pretty much indistinguishable from what we have today.

So, what are libertarians complaining about?

[Dunderman]

@John Mace

Then you should never live in libertopia, and the libertopians would never prevent you from leaving, nor from forming cooperative ventures with other like minded individuals to ensure your long-term welfare. Keep in mind that you could contract with others to pay dues into a fund to ensure the welfare of all members in the fund. You could allow members to join without paying, too. In fact, you could call such a scheme “insurance” or “religious charity”.

So, in keeping with the light-hearted tone here, lack of compassion for idiots is a trait of libertarianism?

@Liberal

I’m saying that I prefer it myself, and I am willing to allow you the right to give your consent to whatever government you believe is most likely to effect your safety and happiness. I ask nothing more than that from you.

This is exactly the kind of stuff you should be writing all the time. You just got me a whole lot closer to understanding libertarians.

The kind of society that I believe would be maximally good for the maximum amount of people would, under a libertarian system where everyone is free to form “societies”, for lack of a better word, run into severe problems. It would attract the handicapped, the sickly, the mentally ill, the just plain lazy, the anti-social and so forth from all the other societies, and it would simply not have the resources to care for them all, and so be forced to adopt an isolationist policy, in direct violation of my personal ethics. Therefore I can never support a libertarian society; it contradicts what I find to be morally right. But, at least I’m beginning to understand why you guys support it.

[Dunderman]

Oh, and what Martin Wolf said.

[John_Mace]

@Martin Wolf

And if such a cooperative became large and popular enough, eventually it would become impractical, maybe even impossible, for most people to stay out of it. People would be born, live, and die on land owned by the cooperative. Because all of the land around you, and all of the shops and services available, would be owned by people who had accepted the rules of the cooperative, accepting those rules yourself would be mandatory for all practical purposes.

<snip>

Theoretically, there would be nothing wrong with such a system of cooperatives, covering almost all of the planet’s surface between them. Of course, it would also be pretty much indistinguishable from what we have today.

So, what are libertarians complaining about?

I can’t disagree with anything in that post, except that there is a difference between something being “impractical” and something being “illegal”. For pure libertarians, that difference is extremely significant.

FYI, I’m posting here what I think the “pure” libertarian position is, although I don’t consider myself to be “pure”. I’m a small “l” libertarian in the tradition of Milton Friedman, not a Libertarian party member.

[Walton_Firm]

@John Mace

I can’t disagree with anything in that post, except that there is a difference between something being “impractical” and something being “illegal”. For pure libertarians, that difference is extremely significant.

But “impractical, not illegal” is exactly what we have today, in most of the world, isn’t it? If I want to leave my country, the Dutch government will not do anything to stop me, and then I will be free from the implicit social contract I currently have with the People’s Collective of The Netherlands. The only catch is that if I want to move onto a piece of land owned by another country, I need to accept that country’s social contract and abide by its rules. And there are very few places left which are not claimed by one country or another. But I am free to try and find one.

If I really want to, I can probably find myself a little Pacific island or something which is not being claimed by any country, and go live there free from coercion from any government whose rules I have not voluntarily accepted. Of course I would have to live like a cavemen, because as soon as I want any of the luxuries of civilisation I would need money, which means I would need to allow one or more of the Collectives a certain amount of influence over my life. But hey, nobody ever promised me this freedom thing was going to be easy, did they?

The one thing i can not do, however, is go out and join a Heinleinian society of pure libertarians, where the non-coercion principle is the only rule and the government sticks to enforcing voluntary contracts. The reason I cannot do that is not because anybody is preventing me, but because no such society exists. Because, among all the different Collectives in which people around the world have chosen to organize themselves, not a single group of people has ever decided to organize themselves in that way. And by now it’s too late to do anything about that, because all of the viable land has already been divvied up between various huge Collectives, and they all demand acceptance of their social contract as one of the conditions for membership.

Them’s the breaks on this libertarian planet of ours. Isn’t voluntary cooperation among equals a wonderful thing?

[Metacom]

@longhair75

friend metacom, i find it interesting that you equate personal freedom with the freedom from taxation. it seems that you are asking to receive the benefits of our society, but are unwilling to pay for those benefits.

in libertaria, one would only pay for those benefits that you receive willingly?

lh

John Mace answered the rest of this.

But, for the record, I don’t equate personal freedom with freedom from taxation. I was trying to explain Libertarianism. I’m a socialist-as-in-“Social Democrat,” which is on the other end of the idealogical spectrum…

[treis]

@John Mace

Yep, that’s the idea. The only benefit that a libertarian asks of his society is to be free from coercion by other citizens. What you see as a benefit, beyond freedom from coercion, a libertarian sees as an undesirable constraint.

The thing is, if you wanted to set up a socialist system inside libertopia, you’d be perfectly free to do so. All you would need to do is contract with like-minded individuals. You could take in “charity cases” if you wanted, and you could impose “taxes” on each other in any way you’d like. What you would not be able to do is FORCE someone to join your coopertive. If that type of system was more benefitial, then people would flock to it and it would eventually become the norm.

Does Libertaria have soverignty over its territory?

For example lets say Joe doesn’t subscribe (belong, pay the fee, whatever) to the government of Libertaria. Joe is accused of stealing a cow by Frank who subscribes to the government of Libertaria. Will the government of Libertaria investigate the theft? Lets say that there is sufficient proof for a warrant (or the equivilent in Libertaria’s judicial system) and the government of Libertaria goes to search Joe’s house. If when they ring the bell at the gate (Joe’s house is inside a wall) Joe tells them that they have 30 seconds to vacate his property or he will use force to remove them. Will Libertaria coerce Joe a non-member into allowing his house to be searched? If after 30 seconds Joe blows one of the guys heads off will he be charged with an additional crime?

Lets replace Joe with a commune of 1000 people who is accused of stealing property, polluting a river damaging Frank’s property and the murder of a member of Libertaria. The same situation occurs except this time Joe’s commune fires an artillary round in the midst of the Libertarian forces on his property. Will the government of Libertaria go to war?

If these are answered in the affirmative what right does Libertaria have to coerce a non member?

For the above situations the level of evidence is at a level that under the American Judicial system a warrant will be issued but it is not enough to convict someone of a crime.

[Paladud]

@treis

<snip>If these are answered in the affirmative what right does Libertaria have to coerce a non member?

If the force applied is responsive and not out of proportion with the initial force, it’s simply not coercion.

@Liberal

A person who coerces waives his rights in the process, because the initiation of force or deception has legitimized the use of responsive force. Therefore, in addition to restoring the victims monetarily and otherwise (possibly counseling, or what have you), coercers may forfeit their liberty altogether if they are unable to restore their victims. If, for example, the coercer stabs a man in the eye, making restoration of his sight impossilbe, then the coercer has waived all his rights, since no amount of responsive force will ever succeed in restoring the victim. In other words, he may be removed from society, stripped of his liberty, and forced to work, some or all of his earnings going to compensate the blind man for the rest of his (the blind man’s) life. Or, in a case in which your property is massively polluted, such that it cannot be repaired, you are entitled to take whatever assets from the polluter that are necessary to restore you to an equivalent status that you held before the coercion, even if it means that you become the new owner of the company.

Lib, for whom would he be forced to work? Would the presence of such forced labor create a distinct advantage for his/her employer (government or private) in the market?

Alternatively, what if said coercer murders an entire family, leaving no known relatives alive? There is no one to pay restitution to. The evidence against said coercer is about as close to absolute as possible - he’s guilty as hell. What is the appropriate punishment?

[treis]

@Paladud

If the force applied is responsive and not out of proportion with the initial force, it’s simply not coercion.

Isn’t Libertaria the one initiating the force? We do not know whether or not Joe has done anything to Kevin at all. They are the ones coming (presumably armed) onto Joe’s property. Does Joe not have the right to defend his property?

Who determines whether the responsive force (if it were a responsive force) to be out of proportion? Joe does not subscribe to Libertaria so its laws have no effect on his property. Isn’t Joe the only one who can determine what level of response is appropiate on his property?

[John_Mace]

@Martin Wolf

But “impractical, not illegal” is exactly what we have today, in most of the world, isn’t it?

No. I can’t set up libertopia in the US without breaking countless laws.

If libertopia existed in the US (or any country) you could set up SocialDemocratopia without breaking any laws whatsover.

[Hellestal]

@John Mace

No. I can’t set up libertopia in the US without breaking countless laws.

If libertopia existed in the US (or any country) you could set up SocialDemocratopia without breaking any laws whatsover.

Unless SocialDemocratopia ended up owning everything in Libertaria. Then all citizens, according to your rules of Libertaria, would have to abide by the SocialDemocratia’s laws. It’s SocialDemocratia’s land, and so to live on it, you have to abide by its rules.

I think this is what Wolf is trying to get across. Our present system is practically indistinguishable from a SocialDemocratopia that has monopolized Libertaria’s land. You can’t return to your form of Libertaria without buying back the land, and SocialDemocratia (and the US) ain’t sellin’.

[Hellestal]

@Stricker van Gogh

Unless SocialDemocratopia ended up owning everything in Libertaria. Then all citizens, according to your rules of Libertaria, would have to abide by the SocialDemocratia’s laws. It’s SocialDemocratia’s land, and so to live on it, you have to abide by its rules.

I think this is what Wolf is trying to get across. Our present system is practically indistinguishable from a SocialDemocratopia that has monopolized Libertaria’s land. You can’t return to your form of Libertaria without buying back the land, and SocialDemocratia (and the US) ain’t sellin’.

This response could be made clearer.

You say that people in Libertaria are legally free to form SocialDemocratia. This is true enough, if other people agree to it. I can’t form SocialDemocratia on my lonesome.

Supposing that SocialDemocratia ends up engulfing all of Libertaria, you seem to be saying that they would not be legally able to form Libertaria again. And the answer is, sure they are! All they have to do is follow the rules of SocialDemocratia, which still follow the groundrules of Libertaria, and get SocialDemocratia to agree to sell them the land. If SocialDemocratia doesn’t agree, then no, it’s not legal, but that’s not different than the illegality of me forming SocialDemocratia by forcing others to go along. It takes two to make a deal in Libertaria, and if you can’t get SocialDemocratia’s approval for use of its land, then you’re not following the rules of Libertaria.

So, no, it’s not illegal, per se. Just very, very unlikely.

[Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow]

@Liberal

Children are rights bearing entities, and are the involuntary product of their parents’ praxes. As such, their birth is a coercion. The coercion is mitigated by the parents accepting responsibility as unary consenting parties to a contract of responsibility, since the children are incapable of giving meaningful consent. It is no different ethically than if they had adopted the child. The parents are bound to a contractual obligation, and Libertaria will enforce it. Therefore, the government must force the parents to raise the children competently and without abuse, using whatever force is necessary to accomplish the task. If it becomes untenable (say the parents fold their arms, close their eyes, and cover their ears, pretending they don’t know the enforcers are there), then the parents’ custodial privileges must be removed. But their responsibility remains. Whatever income they receive, that portion which arbitration determines to be necessary is given over to the childrens’ new caregivers, whether it be family, friends, neighbors, interested parties, or private or community charity. If the abuse you mention was coercive, then the parents have waived their liberty, and I’ll cover that principle next.

But this requires the parents to have already consented to Libertaria’s government. If they haven’t, or if they withdraw their consent, Libertaria has no right to impose its rules on them.

You might say that Libertaria is enforcing the rights of the child. But that raises the question: how does the child become a contracting party to Libertaria? You’ve said in the past that consent to government must be explicit. How can a child manifest that consent?

And if Libertaria is simply presuming the consent of the child in question – well, isn’t that Libertaria imposing itself on someone?

@Liberal

A person who coerces waives his rights in the process, because the initiation of force or deception has legitimized the use of responsive force. Therefore, in addition to restoring the victims monetarily and otherwise (possibly counseling, or what have you), coercers may forfeit their liberty altogether if they are unable to restore their victims. If, for example, the coercer stabs a man in the eye, making restoration of his sight impossilbe, then the coercer has waived all his rights, since no amount of responsive force will ever succeed in restoring the victim. In other words, he may be removed from society, stripped of his liberty, and forced to work, some or all of his earnings going to compensate the blind man for the rest of his (the blind man’s) life.

Hooray for debtor’s prison. Good to know libertariamism mixes wholly untested radical ideas with concepts that have been deemed unfit for civilized society for centuries now.

BTW, for readers of this thread, this post contains a bunch of links to other libertarianism discussions on the boards. Useful for background if you’re interested.

[Walton_Firm]

@Stricker van Gogh

I think this is what Wolf is trying to get across.

Yes, exactly.

[SentientMeat]

@John Mace

The thing is, if you wanted to set up a socialist system inside libertopia, you’d be perfectly free to do so. All you would need to do is contract with like-minded individuals.

Perhaps we could all have, say, a vote? And if a majority voted for some kind of collective which required some contribution to remain within that geographical area, the “libertarians” could choose to live elsewhere?

Like, say, Somalia?

[Excalibre]

@Martin Wolf

And if such a cooperative became large and popular enough, eventually it would become impractical, maybe even impossible, for most people to stay out of it. People would be born, live, and die on land owned by the cooperative. Because all of the land around you, and all of the shops and services available, would be owned by people who had accepted the rules of the cooperative, accepting those rules yourself would be mandatory for all practical purposes.

If you complained about having to pay too much taxes or about there being too many rules, you would be told “hey, you’re free to move away if you don’t like it!” Except that all other land would also be owned by similar cooperatives, so the only way to escape would be to move deep into the wilderness and live as a hermit.

And inside such a cooperative, because everybody had “voluntarily” accepted its rules, anything would be possible. Any imaginable decision-making procedure, from dictatorship to democracy or anything in-between. A 60% income tax. A system of laws so complex that no single person could understand them all, micromanaging every detail of a citizen’s life. Mandatory military service. All those things would be legal, on the grounds that you had accepted the cooperative’s rules by choosing to remain within its boundaries.

Theoretically, there would be nothing wrong with such a system of cooperatives, covering almost all of the planet’s surface between them. Of course, it would also be pretty much indistinguishable from what we have today.

So, what are libertarians complaining about?

You seem to be joking, but this has been at the core of my basic philosophical problem with libertarianism for a long time (the practical and moral problems being separate.) We have moved, through history, from having no government to having the governments we have. When there was no government, gangs of criminals possessed the powers of a government and lacked the mandate to use them wisely. Strong governments have developed because this level of strength is what is necessary to prevent thugocracy, which was the norm in the world until recently and still is the norm in many places.

Libertopia has no thugocracy, but it also seems to lack a government strong enough to stop it. It seems to depend on the belief that governments are inherently evil and always misuse their power, but that people outside of government are inherently peaceful.