.
Yes, I know. Sovereign power is greater and more encompassing since it includes economic power (within a particular nation). All the more reason to seperate them more, in my mind.
Have you missed the last two hundred years of history? You realize why police officers carry guns, don’t you? Why the mob does?
Its this kind of doublethink that makes me fear 1984 even more than usual.
As a fit thrower, I must object to your assertion, sir. It’s neither the notion of Peaceful Honest People being free to pursue their own happiness (etc.) without government restriction nor the notion that governments exist to secure the rights of PHP’s to which I object.***** I find fault in the notion that a literal application of the non-coercion principle (whether starting from scratch or converting an existing state) would result in more freedom for PHP’s than does a US style constitutional republic. I believe the protection afforded to PHP’s by constitutional guarantees and governmental intervention is much more likely to safeguard those freedoms than the concepts of non-coercion and governance through arbitration. I also believe that the interests of our present and future society are as important as (but not more than) the interests of each individual, and must be safeguarded every bit as jealously as we protect individual rights. (This last opinion may be off-topic slightly, but I include it as one of my fundamental objections to libertarian philosophy.)
BTW, Here’s a more recent (March, 2001) memorandum from the Inspector General to the , with criticisms and assessments of FEMA’s “management and performance challenges.” Illustrates the improvement capabilities and inherent accountability of federal programs.
*****[sub]Since I can’t speak for ALL opponents of libertarianism (there’s so many of us, speaking from so many different political philosophies), I’ll restrict myself to personal observations here.[/sub]
Oh, good lord, what a bunch of wacko assertions. Given the assertion to citation ratio of the post, it hardly merits response. But for the sake of those who might not have seen this repeated reminder, libertarianism is a political philosophy and capitalism is an economic philosophy. Comparing libertarianism to Robber Barons who partnered with government to run roughshod over people’s rights is either ignorant or disingenuous.
Companies who do that are committing fraud. Fraud is a crime in Libertaria. (By the way, check Goodle to see whether defective products are made and sold today.)
Cheating workers out of their labor is a crime in Libertaria.
Manufacturing news is a crime (fraud) in Libertaria. However, publishers may control the editorial content of their newspapers.
What utilities were there in the 1880s?
Either preventing a worker from working elsewhere or starting his own business is a crime in Libertaria.
You think the millions who trekked westward in their wagons were rich? 
My own ancestors, the Cherokee, travelled from Georgia to Oklahoma on foot — by order of the government.
You mean like the 35% of homeless in America who are mentally ill?
Obviously, you’re mistaken.
Profit and contract are not laws in Libertaria. The law is, “Every citizen shall be guaranteed freedom from initiated force and fraud.” I don’t think you should make fun of poor people who can’t afford cars any more due to their artificially inflated prices caused, in large measure, by frivolous government regulation.
Maiming workers is a crime in Libertaria. It is endemic of the weakness of a system that it must regulate safety. In response, I ask you to read (and track down) the articles at Cato on just how unsafe OSHA has made many workplaces.
Tell that to the one in ten Black American men behind bars in prison.
My only solace is that most of the people here are pretty smart, and can see what a stupendously wild assertion that is.
Xeno, I have great respect for your judgment and character. I won’t begrudge you your druthers. Neither would Libertaria. If you did not give it consent to govern you, it wouldn’t. Since you’re not entirely opposed to libertarianism per se, I have an interesting thought experiment for you, if you’re game. Presume you have been commissioned to change one, and only one, thing about the U.S. law or government that would conform it to the Noncoercion Principle. What would it be? And one final question, do you believe that libertarianism would be more practical among an enlightened and educated populace?
Well, you always force me to think about things, don’t you?
Let me mull over the “one thing” question before I answer it. (Although I suppose, if the “thing” I’m allowed to change can be a general theme or concept of American government, I would do well to focus my thinking on either improving checks and balances or limiting expansion of powers.)
I do believe that libertarianism would be more practical among an enlightened and educated populace, IF by “enlightened” you mean that the peaceful honest people are truly peaceful and honest (i.e. not in any way inclined to initiate force or to defraud others). Of course, given such a populace, most other philosophies of government would be more practical as well.
As I’m sure I’ve said in more than one thread such as this, I believe libertarian philosophy is a useful model which legislators and governors should strive to emulate whenever prevailing conditions allow. I consider libertarianism to be a vital opposition philosophy (and simply good citizenship), in that it continually demands limits on size, scope and powers of government. I hope to see modern liberalism reapproach some of the ideals of libertarianism; I think liberal politicians tend more and more to place at once too much credence on the notion that every problem needs a collective solution, yet too little faith that collective society can solve these problems.
But I don’t believe pure libertarianism is a good practical model. The idea of allowing for collective social needs is a huge problem for libertarian philosophy, as is the necessity to prevent abuses of economic power, a problem that IMO can’t be overcome by reliance on consumers to follow their consciences or on market forces to ameliorate abusive practices.
Lib, despite the fact that I’m discussing the above point, I don’t share Degrance’s POV. 
Let me use it to give another illustration of where I’m concerned with Liberteria policies (I understand and generally agree with the philosophy, my concerns are it’s effects in practice).
A car company, due to a production line foul up makes a batch of cars that are 15% more likely to have the steering fail catastrophically.
In Majoritaria, there are government regulations that prohibit the sale of those cars. I’m fine with that.
In Libertaria, a smart businessman ADVERTISES that the cars are 15% more likely to have catastrophic steering failures, but will sell them at cost. He’s committed no fraud, as he’s been upfront about the flaws. He’s certainly initiated no violence (if you consider the 15% as initiating violence, drop it to 5%) and no coercion is involved. . . There are idiots in Majoritaria, Libertaria and Commutaria and all points between so these cars will be bought and sold. It would not be in the manufacturer’s long term self interest to sell the cars, but there are many people who don’t think of the long term, both in Libetaria and Majoritaria. People will get inujured or killed as a result. While the injured victims or families of the victims of the car buyers could argue that violence was initiated by the people who knowingly drove in defective cars, you still have a lot of injured people that wouldn’t have been injured in Majoritaria.
While I won’t always put “safety” or “the public good” first, I won’t always put “individual freedom” first in all cases either. It seems to me that with three exceptions (coercion/fraud/initated violence) Libertaria always puts “individual freedom” first and I see
Could you comment on the above scenario?
Fenris
Xeno:
You might be surprised to learn that an alternate term for libertarianism is classical liberalism. I’ve heard people call me a knuckle-dragging conservative despite the fact that I support the repeal of all laws of prohibition, all laws against sodomy and adult consentual sex, and the abolition of corporate welfare. See, originally, it was the conservatives (like Edmund Burke) who supported the idea of using government money for things like disaster relief because it was “the Christian thing to do”. But liberals (like Davey Crocket) argued that Congress had no power to appropriate money that it held in trust from the people.
Please see Not Yours To Give. It’s a heart warming story, and I think you’ll enjoy it.
As to striving toward libertarian principles, that is exactly what the liberal founders (like Thomas Jefferson) did. Read these familiar words from the U.S. Declaration of Independence with libertarianism in mind:
“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.”
Fenris:
No problem. I wouldn’t ever mistake your position for one that equated noncoercion with robber barons! (That comparison just floors me!) I’ll answer your question first, so as not to be evasive, and then I’ll come back to your defense of Majoritaria.
Yes, it could happen in Libertaria that the 15% defective car be sold so long as it were sold honestly and without coercion. Here’s a couple of takes I have on it. (1) If I were a road owner, I wouldn’t allow the cars on my road for the sake of my own livelihood. (2) If I were an auto mechanic, I would develop an entrepreneural package, perhaps offering to fix the cars at a cut-rate price tied to some other promotion. (3) If I were a competitor, I would jump all over it, placing as many ads as I could as quickly as I could. (4) If I were a person who fiddles with cars, I might buy one and fix it myself. (5) If I were a consumer advocate, I would do a study of the car and feature it in an upcoming edition of my publication. (6) If I were a car dealership, I would offer to fix the cars at low or no cost in exchange for an extended warranty purchase. (7) If I were the CEO of the manufacturer, I would fire a couple of vice-presidents!
Now, back to Majoritaria and its laws. I am of the firm opinion that criminals do not obey laws. If they did, they wouldn’t be criminals. In my opinion (I understand yours might differ) the economic incentive against gaining a reputation — in a free-market, mind you! — as a callous mass murderer in Libertaria would be more compelling than the actuarial risk calculated by my legal department as to the cost of (wink) “accidentally” releasing the cars for sale in Majoritaria.
Lib, thanks for the response. The market forces you list certainly would provide a major incentive against the Deathmobile[sup]tm[/sup] being released. I admit to not having considered a number of them and you’ve certainly given me food for thought. Good point about the “accidental” release…
One additional question though: Were, through gross stupidity (basic assumption: no political system can eliminate stupidity), the cars were released in Libertaria as in my scenerio, what course of action do the innocent victims have? Can they consider the driver who (presumably knowingly) bought the Deathmobile[sup]tm[/sup] as an instigator of violence? What about the company who released the Deathmobile[sup]tm[/sup]? Can they be sued?
In Majoritaria, the person who knowingly took a defective car on the road could be sued for negligence. Negligence doesn’t seem to fall under coersion, fraud or instigation of violence as such. How is negligence dealt with in Libertaria’s system (I presume it is)?
Fenris
Fenris:
The flip-side of liberty is responsibility. If a man’s actions are dictated by The State, then ethically, he cannot be held accountable for actions over which he has no control. But if his actions are willingly and freely chosen, then he must stand to account for them. It follows then, that in a society where all actions are willingly and freely chosen, the question of liability for damage falls squarely on the proximate risk decision. If, despite all economic disincentive, the manufacturer freely and willingly chooses to market the Deathmobile and does so peacefully and honestly, then the person who buys the Deathmobile without coercion and of his own volition is the person responsible to be sure he harms no one with it. It is no different if he decides to smoke a joint and then decides to drive his Normalmobile. If he begins his proximate decision chain by freely exercising his volition, then he is responsible for what happens.
It is important to understand the great difference in context between two societies, one of which underwrites nearly all of your risk with everything from disaster relief to social security, and the other which leaves to you the responsibility to mitigate your own decisions. In Majoritaria, for example, there is no disincentive to build an amusement park on the shoreline because if Hurricane Hugo hits, money taken from your neighbors will rebuild your park. In Libertaria, on the other hand, you must assume the risk associated with your park being blown away. This sort of difference in context manifests down through life’s most basic experiences. In Libertaria, it becomes necessary to teach ethics beginning at a very young age. A five-year-old can be introduced to the Noncoercion Principle with a simple maxim like, “You may always defend yourself, but you may never start a fight.” Therefore, even what children learn in school can be vastly different contextually from what they are taught in Majoritaria. In other words, social responsibility in Libertaria is greater simply because liberty itself is greater.
You didn’t ask about all that, but I thought a bit of underlying theory and context might be helpful toward a more thorough understanding. For a glimpse at a rather oddly constructed libertarian society among people who are mostly poor (somewhat equivalent to the poor in Appalachia), click on my homepage icon and read Sarah’s Gold.
This is a fascinating thread. I wish I could have been more involved in it but sometimes such is life. I wish to thank Lib for answering my original question.
I don’t usually like these threads because I often end up being gang raped by people who think Robber Barons represent nonaggression. But when I saw the name “Glitch” that decided it. There isn’t much I wouldn’t endure to help you, my friend. As it happens, I am pretty much delighted at the discourse in this thread. Intelligent people, for the most part, are debating civilly.
By the way, from what little understanding I have of the martial arts, they seem quite libertarian in nature: defend yourself, but don’t initiate force. Is that correct?
In a similar vein, I see Jesus as the consumate libertarian. He never called upon government to make a law, but rather called upon men to change their hearts. He never initiated force. But when His temple was invaded, He swept out the trespassers and vandals.
Lib - I, for one, did not realise that you were arguing from the perspective of a brand new country. You’re right - that does change things somewhat. I still think that a few generations down the line, once the forces of free trade have lead to supercorporations you’ll have a problem. I still think that there will be conflicts of interest that cannot be resolved in a non-coersive manner and that some systems work better under a global no-choice umbrella. But I’ve no problem with postulating theoretical brand-new utopias. I’ve tried a few myself.
I get the distinct impression, however, that you’d also like to see the current US become far more libertarian than it is. How would you achieve that without widespread calamity? Is it, in your view, even possible?
pan
“Gang raped” is totally unwarranted, IMHO. I’m sure there a message boards out there for true believers of Libertarianism out there where vague assurances are welcome, but this isn’t one of them, as you certainly should know by now.
You proposed a radical change in government. Others raised specific objections, citing examples of problems that might come up. I, for example, pointed out where there might be a problem with corporations buying up most of the land, coercing smaller companies into toeing the line, and setting the minimum wage to a substandard level. Others have raised questions about rights of way being restricted etc.
The most we can seem to get out of you are that we can always build our own airport(freeway, school system, newspaper ad nauseum), and that Libertaria outlaws “fraud”, which seems to have some catchall definition I can’t seem to find in my Websters.
If the system is not economic then why is your defense of it entirely couched in terms of market pressure?
And what is the difference between a 1890s Robber Baron with a Senator in his pocket and a Libertarian Robber Baron with a judge in his pocket? Or are you going to have a second law that removes greed and dishonesty from the human psyche as well. And you know what? The US solved the problem of Robber Barons with new laws. What mechanism would Libertaria use? Market pressures? The point is that whatever economic system it employs the system will be wide open to abuse because there are no checks on power.
If I am not misrepresenting my product it is not fraud. If I fail to disclose information that does not relate to its primary function then the only law that applies is buyer beware.
Fraud is representing something as other than it is. This paint is wonderful and covers walls in one coat. That is the only claim I make and it is true. However I don’t tell you not to use it within 20 ft. of an open flame because it will blow up. Where is the fraud? BTW I stay in business because this only happens a few times per year and after the fire its pretty hard to prove it was my paint that caused it.
Oh new laws now? Where did they come from?
Back to this non-economic society of yours. I am a filthy rich industrialist and I and a few friends decide to buy all of the manufacturing in a small city. My first move is to cut wages by 5%. To get profitable you know. I may lose a few workers but I can get by and I might get some of the unemployed or underemployed to pick up the slack. Then I do the same thing every 6 months until I’m undercutting my competitions labor prices by 30% or so. Every time I cut wages I lose a few workers but ties in the community and poverty make it hard for people to move and I still pay better than unskilled jobs in town. Where have I broken your laws?
Ah, I know, the workers are going to club together and build a factory to compete with mine.
So unless I own a news outlet I can have no confidence that the news I am getting is accurate. OK, along with all of the factories I will also be buying the newspaper and TV channels. I will then edit the general economic news to under report prosperity elsewhere and trumpet negative economic news as front page/lead stories. Again what laws have I broken? I am just exercising editorial control.
This is the 1880s we are talking about not the 1680s. How about gas? How about water? How about sewer? How about public transport?
Hey my workers can move whenever they want. Of course they either need to leave their possessions here and walk out or use my train for which I set the ticket prices (they can’t afford a car).
And they can start their own business to, using my freight service to import all of their raw materials at my rates and paying rent in one of my buildings. He can still make enough to feed his family. I just get most of the profits.
It’s called a company town. Read up on it.
Again what law have I broken?
But they didn’t have to pay passage over my land. You forget that under your system there is no such thing as right-of-way.
If you think I’m here to defend every action of the US government you are wrong. And there are subsistence programs for all of these people provided by the government. In Libertaria there would be no safety net.
Not until you tell me where I am wrong.
Economic force? How do you measure that? If I charge a wage that people are willing to earn and in my contract with them I tell them it is hazardous work and that my operation will kill 2% of the work force per year and I still get people to sign up is that OK? If 2% why not 20%? What if I am the only game in town and they either sign up or pick the garbage dump? Is it force then? What if their house is sitting on my land and I tell them that their house staying there is contingent on them working in my operation? Still OK?
They always have the option of picking up what they can carry and walking 20 miles to the next town where they can start all over with nothing in somebody elses company town or just keep walking. So it isn’t really force.
Not if they signed my contract saying they were willing to take their chances working in my operation. Or would you outlaw all dangerous professions where risk is part of the job? And if I can still make explosives even though some workers will eventually be killed. Then surely I can extend that to coal mines and foundries and factories.
Again still no law broken.
Again I am not here to defend the current system merely to point out the flaws in the one you are proposing.
I personally don’t think it is possible, except possibly for one thing. Congress stops making laws and starts getting rid of them instead. Bit by bit, day by day, law after useless controlling statist law would have to be eroded away, while laws that would ensure freedom from coercion (mental and physical) would be rewritten or modified to allow for a greater clarity.
Society would change, very definitely. Again, think of my microwave example, “How did they make their popcorn?” Or an ancient American Indian (coincidentally I’m Cherokee too) like the Aztecs, “How did you get on from year to year without human sacrifices?” Well, I guess we really can’t answer that Aztec yet, can we?
Lib, not to speak for you, there, but I got a question for you anyway. How big would the federal government’s laws be, bookwise, do you think? Also, would there still be states as we know them? I think no on the latter, but the former I don’t really think about much.
However if “the manufacturer” builds a school using lead based paint, asbestos for insulation and heats it with improperly vented coal furnace then everything is just ducky. There is no law banning the use of these systems. They fulfill their intended function admirably. They are cheap and plentiful. Hey the guy is a hero he brought the building in under budget. He doesn’t even have to tell the people who commissioned the building about the materials he used unless they ask. Even if he does tell them and they don’t like it all they can do is swallow the loss and start again (writing a better contract this time). He is not to blame. The buyers should have made sure they knew what they were getting.
Um, personal responsibility, yea.
Kabbes:
Maybe you’d better sit down for this: there are no corporations in Libertaria, at least not as limited liability rights-bearing entities. The owner(s) of a Libertarian company is/are responsible for its operations. Again, the liberty of entrepreneurship is accompanied by the responsibility of ethical operations.
Your point about corruption over time is well-taken. There is nothing that can circumvent that other than the vigilance of the people. That’s one reason Libertaria has only one law. When millions of directives, written in language that requires the equivalent of a Ph. D. to decipher, stand between a people and their government, the machinery of abuse is too well oiled for my taste.
As to making the current U.S. more libertarian than it is, I am a big fan of Franz Kafka’s assertion that “Every revolution evaporates and leaves behind the slime of a new bureaucracy.” It would have to be a very slow peaceful process because too many people take most of their nourishment from the government teat and revolutions don’t work. As Xeno ponders his answer to my question, I don’t want to interfere with his thought processes, but the first steps I would take go right to the heart of the beast. (1) Change asset forfeiture law so that property may not be taken from people based on the suspicion of a crime, but rather based only on the conviction of it; (2) eliminate federal eminent domain (leave state and local for now); and (3) auction all property owned by the federal government (estimated to be worth somewhere around two trillion dollars — nobody knows for sure because of extremely weak accounting practices) and use the proceeds against the national debt.
(I’m going to refresh before posting the other responses for two reasons: (1) I can’t keep up with the post frequency in this many-to-one thread, and (2) I must pad my posts because I am very near 4000!))
okay, so now a private road builder has to pay for construction, toll booth construction, toll booth operators, law enforcement (get those toll breakers and speeders, if there is a speed limit), car inspectors, maintenance, repairs, and cleanup.
roads are gonna cost about a million Libert-bucks to drive on each day. maybe this will work after transporters are invented and we dont have to pay to get from A to B.
By the way, I’ve been meaning to deal with this, too, but it’s hard to keep up:
Bigots have already learned that the way to circumvent laws of commons is to form private clubs. Welcome to Pat Robertson’s Private Flying Club. Please pay your cover charge at the door and sign our bylaws.
No, Czar, as I’ve made plain, I did not. I proposed a context in which a new government, not yet formed, might operate.
Wow! Talk about a thriving economy! Just think if you could do that now without having to wade through a bureaucracy denser than a neutron star and pay taxes to innumerable shake-down artists who scribble what your rights are!
In Libertaria, fraud is coercion by misrepresentation or deception.
About the same size as a book called Unabridged List of Even Primes.
Tyranny is not mitigated by its proximity.