Lib, we’ve previously discussed (in different threads) libertarian/liberal history. I understand that libertarianism is classic liberalism. -I just think we’ve made some progress in our thinking since then… (Seriously, “progressive” in the sense Teddy Roosevelt meant it.)
I’d seen the Crockett story before; it’s a very persuasively presented opinion. However, I consider the modern activism of the US government in disaster relief entirely appropriate. Some of the reasoning along the way has undoubtedly been flawed ("…[we] have got lots of money and it is not coming out of the pockets of the poor people [from Alabama]…" [page 50 here]), but the underlying principle expressed, that we as a nation must be foremost in humanitarian efforts, is sound.
Also sound, I believe, are the fiscal concerns underlying both disaster relief and disaster mitigation. I won’t pretend a great understanding of economics, but one of the ways economies are bolstered after natural disasters is by governmentally assisted reconstruction, particularly those efforts which help businesses prepare for and recover from such calamities.
…Still mulling over the “one thing” question. The “non-coercion principle” requirement is making it difficult. Things I’m considering:[ul][]disbanding the DEA or making it part of the Criminal Investigative Division of the FBI[]repealing asset forfeiture laws (and no, you didn’t influence me on this, Lib)[]instituting preference voting in national elections[]dissolving the Electoral College and allowing citizens of US territories to vote in national elections[/ul](If you’re looking for “one thing” more specifically aligned with non-coercion, let me know. I’m sorta concentrating on improvements to the process of central government rather than deconstruction.)
It isn’t. My defense of libertarianism is grounded in ethics. It seems to me that since man’s primary and original property is himself, he is ethically entitled to own himself, but not to own others.
I respond to points (about airports and such) that are couched in terms of markets with counterpoints about markets lest I be accused of evasion. Libertarians (residents of Libertaria) mostly choose free-market economics, but some prefer communism. They are free to do that even in the system you’re, um, not defending.
In Libertaria, an arbiter may be charged with coercion like anyone else if it is suspected that he misrepresents his disinterest in a case. There is no law against legislating for special interests, and in fact such legislation has a grand and glorious tradition of precedent, not that you’re defending the status quo or anything.
It did? Wow, that’s great! I’m going to let Wal-Mart know about that, not that you’re defending zoning laws or anything.
What little power a libertarian government has is checked directly by its people, since it cannot govern them without their consent. The perceived checks you raise as analogous are checks between the Fox, the Wolf, and the Hyena, not that you’re defending the status quo or anything.
I think you’ve confused Libertaria with what you’re, um, not defending.
You also don’t tell me not to shove the can up my ass because it will rupture my colon. Meanwhile, your competitor has already warned me and the rest of Libertaria about the flammability of your product with a popular and splashy new ad campaign. Now, in the U.S. you might still be in business, thanks to the generous congressional subsidies you receive, not that you’re defending those.
No new law here, merely the interpretation that maiming people is coercive. Of course, in the context you’re not defending, the employer could harm the worker ninety ways from Sunday so long as OSHA standards are observed. That’s why companies hire expensive OSHA consultants and pass the costs on to you.
You haven’t, but you forgot to kill me. I, too, am a filthy rich industrialist who sees an incredible opportunity. I and a few friends open a factory that competes with yours, offering higher wages and top-notch working conditions. Suddenly, you find yourself having to explain to your investors why your factory isn’t running. Unlike the context you’re not defending, nothing stops me from opening a factory PDQ.
Yeah, they could do that too. For one thing, their wages aren’t garnisheed to pay for the lifestyles of their rich and famous governors, not that you would defend involuntary taxation.
I wish you would come to Libertaria. You’re a free-market entrepreneur’s dream. Word about you has spread, thanks to your inability to gauge the intelligence of ordinary people. Your joke of a business venture has fanned the fires of competition practically everywhere. As the wealthy owner of a consumer advocate agency, I will be able to use the fodder you have given me for months! Unluckily for you, there will be no special legislation to entitle you stop me, not that you would defend that.
You’re the one not defending U.S History. You deal with it.
Of course they can’t afford a car. What kind of giant squid scenario worth its weight in salt would have people affording cars? But you forgot to kill me again. I need workers for my two new factories, and so I transport them at my expense. I also assist each and every one of them in bringing charges of coercion against you for not letting them take their possessions with them. I haven’t decided yet how I will use your factories after you forfeit them. Maybe I’ll just sell them to some of your former employees. I’m thankful you don’t have a limited liability corporation to hide behind, not that you would defend such a thing.
That’s what I love about hypotheticals. Unlike the real world, which you’re not defending, if you can “just suppose” then so can I! And dang it, you forgot about Lib’s Rail Service. You really need to wake up and see that you aren’t the only entrepreneur alive.
Hey, you’re the one not defending the status quo. You read up on the development of libertarianism since Aristotle and Lao-Tsu.
Um, the law of good business practices, I guess. See, if you drive all your consumers into poverty, it is an economic mistake because there is nothing to subsidize your business as in the status quo you’re not defending.
I suppose the government you’re not defending could have marched us to Oklahoma by way of Canada. I guess we should count our blessings.
Well, there’s no reason we couldn’t channel that safety net through private charity, rather than through a labyrinth of government offices that you’re not defending.
Okay, you’re wrong practically everywhere. Now will you stop not defending the status quo?
I believe that the system you’re not defending is dealt a double whammy here. Not only can you pull off your giant squid scenario so long as people in your town have a cumulative IQ of fifty, but legislation can be drafted so that you can build your hazardous waste dump on their condemned property. Of course, in Libertaria, you aren’t the only entrepreneur in town. The rest of us are gunning for you, baby.
Well, my bus just drives up and picks them all up. Good help is a good find in a free-market. (Note that you’re couching your giant squids in market terms, using familiar market metaphors from the system you’re not defending.)
Wow, you must own the whole earth! Thank goodness you’re not in the market you’re not defending, or you’d get hit with a DOJ antitrust suit! In Libertaria, people may take whatever risks they want so long as they have fulfilled whatever contractual obligations they have.
Just the law of common sense, I guess. Not that you would defend a system devoid of common sense.
I don’t want to waste my 4,000th post on something as trivial as yet another set of links to why private roads are cheaper and more efficient than public roads. What I would like to do instead is go off-topic a bit (okay, a lot) assuming that Glitch would give me license to do so.
I want to tell Chicago Reader how grateful I am that they provide this site, and I want to remind readers and posters that it is not our so-called right of free speech that we exercise here, but rather the right to post that is extended to us by the site’s owner. I love the administrators and moderators here (even Czar, the artist formerly known as Slythe) for their professionalism and enormous patience. I love also the community, which I joined freely and of my own volition, and the posters who post here (even the ones who disagree with me in debates).
I am not a very educated man; at least, I don’t have much formal education. I dropped out of college my first semester and am self-taught in most disciplines. I read a lot, ask a lot of questions, and try to teach others. (I taught formal logic for two years to computer programmers.) I am a firm believer that “the best way to learn is to teach”. Presently, I am teaching myself to read music. (I’m near the end of Book III in a three book set.) I have books on everything from linguistics to logic, from chemistry to calculus, from theology to chess. And of course, lots of books on libertarianism! (Must stay at least a bit on topic ;))
But I don’t believe that I have learned more from any one source than I have from here. Whether it’s Cecil and the staff sharing knowledge on a dizzying array of issues, or urban myths dispelled in General Questions, or new ways of looking at old ideas in Great Debates — this place is as good as it gets on the Internet. More than just mere knowledge, though, I have learned things here about values and character. I learned that atheists like Gaudere and Glitch can be and are good moral people and that they can treat people of faith with respect and not contempt or pity. Likewise, I learned that there are Christians like Tris and Poly who do not condemn me for my heresy.
He’ll likely never see this, but I’m going to say it anyway. Cecil Adams, thank you! Thank you for fighting ignorance whether you find it in a bible thumper or a hand-stabbing atheist. Thank you for shining the light on harbingers of ignorance, scattering them like cockroaches wherever they rear their ugly heads. Truth is knowledge in the context of understanding. You provide not just mere knowledge, but truth. Truth matters. As Jesus said, “You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
I’m reminded of that scene in Seinfeld where Kramer and Jerry’s dad went partners in selling raincoats. They both wanted to renegotiate their split, but after arguing about it for a while they agreed to a compromise–the same deal they had already made!
The more Lib’s critics raise secific objections, the he moderates his position. Yes, there will be laws against this and that. No, private entities won’t control absolutely everything. Yes, taxes will be collected in some form.
Your next-to-last post, Lib, seems to indicate you’ve abandoned your apparent vision for radically transforming the US into absolute Libertaria. Instead, you now appear to advocate a gradual process of point-by-point assessment and reform, which is the very essence of moderation.
Well, forget for the moment that there is no tax on the income of the labor that builds the roads, no tax on the equipment, no tax on the raw materials that are used in the road or that comprise the components of the equipment, no tax on the components of the equipment, no sales tax, no use tax, no fees for permits to conduct business, no inventory tax, no gasoline tax, and no capital gains tax.
So forget that $1.00 taxed ten times at 10% is $2.59. There are a lot more ways than tolls to implement private roads. They can, for example, be implemented similarly to the way private ambulances are now, where hospitals pay for the service. Likewise, the businesses that the roads lead to can finance them. Or road owners could bill users monthly like a utility. Or developers could build them as incentive to buy homes in their developments. And there are many many more ways.
See these (and other) articles and papers from the Cato Institute:
They will control exactly whatever they own, nothing more, nothing less.
No they won’t. Can you discern the difference between (1) entering Wal-Mart, selecting your merchandise, paying on your way out and (2) being met at the door to Wal-Mart by armed thugs who take whatever they want to out of your pocket and give you whatever they want to, if anything, in return?
What an amphiboly! I’ve never advocated any radical transformation of the US; in fact, I’ve consistently pleaded against such a notion.
Have you stopped beating your wife? Lordy, the fight goes on, I guess…
As always I respect your views though they differ from mine. The root of why federal disaster relief schemes drive up the costs and reduce the effectiveness of disaster relief is the zero sum nature of robbing Peter to pay Paul. For the moment, I would appreciate your defence of me against people who accuse me of compromising my principles, particularly since I consider it a matter of ethics. Since you’ve known me, how much would you say my position on libertarianism has changed?
You proposed a model where all power comes from the ownership of land. I gave a description of what life is like when a few people own all the land and therefore have all of the power.
Your response was, “Nu-uh!”
I gave numerous examples based on historical models of societies that have most closely approached Libertarian ideals and shown how the power possessed by a few land owners can be used to disenfranchise those who have no ability to own land and therefore no ability to participate in your utopia.
Your response was, “Will Not!”
I guess I was hoping for a little more enlightenment than that.
So how do you propose to keep all of the land out of the hands of a few greedy individuals who happen to have the right knack for amassing land in your system? Or are the friendly, superpowered “Other Entrepreneurs” you keep summoning out of some undefined Elsewhere going to come riding to the rescue and carry all of the disenfranchised off and give them good jobs and safe products because these “Other Entrepreneurs” are really nice guys who don’t care about the bottom line.
Thanks for bringing this back to a more civil tone. I’ve been following the discussions in Puddlegum’s thread and find myself in agreement with you there. There is no reason we can’t come to an understanding even if we disagree with each other. To start, I’ll accomodate your phraseology though I don’t consider it quite precise. You say that I “proposed a model where all power comes from the ownership of land”. (More precise would be that rights are an attribute of property, property being more than just land, but let’s use your words.) What I am saying here is that in every model, power comes from land (or rights are an attribute of property). The only difference between the status quo and the model I offer is that in the status quo, the land is owned by government (government prescribes rights), and in the model I offer, the land is owned by private citizens who have acquired it peacefully and honestly (God or nature prescribes rights).
Yes, you have offered your analogies, your scenarios, and your evidence, but you have not yet shown why agents of government are necessarily benevolent while private citizens are necessarily malevolent. You can list examples of abuses of power by powerful men throughout the ages, but you could also make as large a list of abuses of power by governors since government began. It is dangerous that people — especially free people! — lose their vigilance and begin to assume that their agents of government are definitively benign.
Yes, I know that, theoretically, the people are in charge in the sense that they can vote in Tweedle-Dee to replace Tweedle-Dum, but once Tweedle-Dee has scribbled his laws, it is very hard for Tweedle-Dum to unscribble them, and in fact, Tweedle-Dum tends to compound upon those laws that he finds in his lap upon taking office. There is a great apathy in the American electorate, as shown by statistics offered (not by me) on the first page of this thread. Therefore, even given that the majority is benevolent, you could very easily find yourself governed by the Christian Right. And believe me, you ain’t even seen scribbling until those guys go to it.
As shown, a libertarian government bases its laws on a single principle, noncoercion. That’s why in Libertaria, medical marijuana would be legal. Majoritarianism also bases its laws on a single principle, political expedience, a principle that is ready made for legislation. People who think government has led men toward enlightenment have reversed the causality. It is, in fact, the people who have led government toward enlightenment. It was people who smuggled slaves out of Georgia. It was people who took up the cause of women’s suffrage. And it was people who took up the cause of ending official bigotry. All politicians did was accede to political expedience. Those whose constituency demanded segregation stuck to segregationist platforms until their constituency changed.
The giant squid scenarios are fine. They keep me thinking. But they don’t prove anything. They don’t really even make a valid point. You speak of my friendly, superpowered Other Entrepreneurs I keep summoning out of some undefined Elsewhere. They come from the exact same place your hateful, egomaniacal Industrialists come from, a place called Let’s Suppose. If government moved to suppress the Robber Barons, you can be sure that it did so because doing so became politically expedient. The people are the ones who forced government to act at a time when government was less removed from them. The more obfuscation there is between a people and its government, the more the people will lose their power over it.
I think there is precious little that can be done at this point to restore the vigilance of the governed. The avalanche has begun. All I’m saying here is that the same people who can move a government to do good things can (and will) do the good things themselves if government will simply guarantee them freedom from the coercion and fraud of the bad people. That’s all. I don’t expect you to agree with me necessarily, but I would appreciate it if you didn’t treat me like Puddlegum.
Lib, you gave a lot of us the impression that you were advocating the creation of a system throughout the US that would abolish all taxes, all government regulations, revert all public property to private ownership, and rely on market forces to solve all problems. Later you admitted that this is just a “philosophy” and a “notion” and that you weren’t really advocating a system (isn’t libertarianism a philosophy which advocates a system?).
All you would do at first is:
[quote]
(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
[quote]
This is a far cry from no taxes/no government, which would be radical which you say you aren’t. What you would do next depends doesn’t it? You seem to acknowledge that a complete Libertaria could never be implemented, but that there be some movement in that direction. That makes you moderate. And there will still be taxes and public streets.
Using the same term to describe different acts doesn’t make them the same. There would have to be a complex legal code to clarify what constitutes coercion or fraud. And there would still need to be a whole system for enforcement, which would cost tax money and use public property. Who pays for prisions, the victims?
P.S. Were you referring to me as “Cecil’s alter ego”? If it was meant as a compliment, I don’t deseve it. Or are you saying I think I’m Cecil’s alter ego.?
Well, now it’s time I came to Lib’s defense. We disagree on some major areas mostly due to the fact that I believe there are honest-to-god market failures (the airwaves being one, a point which was never adequately addressed).
HOWEVER, if we are now considering the larger question of whether we need government to protect us from greedy businessmen, or from each other, I am firmly on the side of Libertarianism.
The primary mistake opponents of Libertarianism make is that they believe that the absence of government means the absense of regulation. It doesn’t. In fact, the market is a much more powerful regulatory force than is government.
One of the fundamental principles of the market is that if there is a need for something, someone will fulfill that need. So if there is a need for consumer protection, the market is the best thing to do it. And it does this extremely well today.
Look - governments are very good at promoting themselves. And they get almost unlimited media coverage. So a lot of what you hear is hype, or an over-promotion of a ‘fix’ that really only addresses a tiny fraction of people. Also, because government decisions are very visible and usually effect concentrated groups of people, we get an exaggerated view of just how important government is in protecting us.
For example, if a government agency discovers a flaw in a device that might have killed a dozen people, it will be front page news. But at the same time, thousands of companies are making hundreds of thousands of small decisions about the quality of THEIR products, which affect many, many more people. But because business is distributed throughout society and government is centralized and visible, we get a distorted view of how much good government really does.
So back to private markets - if there is a need for safe products, for standards, and for worker and consumer protection in general, how will the market address that? Well, it already has. Look at any electrical device in your home. It almost certainly has a UL sticker on it. UL is Underwriter’s Laboratories, an agency of insurance companies. UL approved appliances are generally necessary to keep your insurance from being voided in case of fire, and the UL standards are much higher than government minimums.
Two powerful regulating factors in a free market are insurance companies and Tort law. Insurance companies have a very powerful interest in making sure that products have standards, that they are safe, and that they are used responsibly. If Ford makes unsafe cars, insurance companies will respond by charging higher premiums for Ford purchasers. This punishes Ford, and they lose market share. Therefore, they have a vested interest in pleasing the insurance companies.
This is also a powerful force to protect us against hidden defects. Insurance companies do extensive product testing and reporting.
Then there are consumer agencies, magazines like Consumer Reports, private watchdogs and ombudsmen, and the like. Many of these traditional market roles have been marginalized by the encroachment of government, but if government were scaled back they would help fill the gap.
Then there is Tort law. This is an extremely powerful regulating force. Build a product with a hidden defect, and the resulting lawsuits will cost you far more than fixing the defect in the first place.
In fact, I would argue that the market is MUCH better at protecting people than is the government. For one thing, it’s a lot easier to buy a politician than it is to recover a damaged reputation. How many shoddy products are on the market because someone made a back-room deal with a regulator? And because the government supposedly regulates that product, the free-market alternatives no longer exist.
Look at industries that are heavily regulated, vs industries that have almost no regulation, and you’ll usually find that the industry with lower regulation has higher quality products and often safer ones, too.
When government regulation doesn’t exist, people are not lulled into a false sense of security. Today, people assume that something MUST be safe, or the goverment wouldn’t allow it to be sold. That diminishes the marketability of safety improvements. But if people were honestly worried about the intrinsic safety of their products, then companies would find it much more profitable to compete with their rivals in matters of safety, and advertise them. That gives consumers information, and also holds the companies responsible for living up to their claims or face lawsuits for fraud.
What about workers? Same thing. First of all, the right to unionize still exists in Libertaria. The only difference is that the ‘closed shop’ would no longer exist. People would not be forced by law to join unions in order to practice certain trades. But the power of collective bargaining would still exist.
But the larger point is that the law of supply and demand applies to workers as well. If a company provides an unsafe workplace, it will find that it has to pay workers more in order to get them to work there. So the company has a vested interest in pleasing its workers. If the company fires people capriciously, it will find that worker loyalty erodes, and their investment in training and experience will flow away faster than it would if they had more responsible firing practices.
You may think that these are trivial effects, but they make up the VAST majority of worker-employee relations. Very few workers are ever on the ‘margins’, making minimum wage, working on the threshold of legal safety, etc. Most workers get FAR more from their employers than the mandated minimum requirements, because the market forces their employers into it.
Are there exceptions? Yes. And that’s where Lib and I part ways. I don’t see an effective market solution to issues of technical monopoly, or market breakdowns due to externalities or diffuse effects.
But that makes up an extremely small percentage of interventions in the market that government currently undertakes. It should be scaled back tremendously.
I realize it’s inconvenient to go back and read old posts, so I’ll sum up all of my posts for you on libertarianism spanning the past year-and-a-half. I haven’t changed my mind about any of it because I haven’t seen a reason to. You’ve taken a couple of posts out of a couple of thousand and extrapolated an inference that isn’t correct. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you don’t want to be ignorant.
[ul]
[li] Libertarianism is opposition to the initiation of force and fraud.[/li][li] It is a political philosophy whose ethic is noncoercion.[/li][li] Opal has never participated in one of these threads.[/li][li] Libertarianism is synonymous with volunteerism.[/li][li] It is not a political system like monarchy or democracy; rather, it is a political context like liberalism or authoritarianism.[/li][li] Any political system — monarchy, democracy, democratic republic, whatever — can be libertarian so long as all are volunteers.[/li][li] I like libertarianism because of its ethical basis.[/li][li] By suppressing coercion, it provides a context of peace and honesty so that peaceful honest people can pursue their own happiness in their own way.[/li][li] Libertaria is a hypothetical construct created to deal with hypothetical scenarios.[/li][li] The legitimacy of government is derived from the consent of the governed.[/li][li] The purpose of government is to secure the rights of its people.[/li][li] Revolution is pointless and counter-productive, merely replacing one statism with another.[/li][li] I’ve quoted this I don’t know how many times: “Every revolution evaporates, and leaves behind the slime of a new bureaucracy.” — Franz Kafka[/li][li] To have a chance to succeed, libertarianism must be implemented from scratch in a new country that is starting up.[/li][li] Implementing libertarianism overnight in a nation-state like the United States is dangerous and ill-advised due to the incapacity of people to think for themselves after generations of risk mitigation on their behalf.[/li][li] By natural law, rights are an attribute of property, since the person who makes decisions with respect to property is the person who owns it de facto, and the person who says who can do what with it.[/li][li] All property is owned by someone, whether private individuals or agents of government.[/li][li] Eminent domain underwrites government ownership of property and forces a people to derive their rights from those property owners.[/li][li] The ethic of majoritarianism is political expedience.[/li][/ul]
Oh, and Sqweels, about the tax thing. Libertaria is financed by contractual fee. If you consent to be governed by Libertaria, you pay for the representation the same way you would pay for representation by a consultant or attorney or any other voluntary contractual transaction. What makes it not a tax is that you are not forced against your will to be governed. Remember, a government derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed. See the U.S. Declaration of Independence quoted above. (Hint: search in your browser for “declaration of independence”.)
Lib: To answer your question about the martial arts, it depends on what you mean by “defend yourself, but do not initiate force”. If you mean that you shouldn’t start a fight, then yes I agree with you. The most important and safest element of the force spectrum is avoidance. However, if you literally mean you should never initiate force, as in strike first, then I have to disagree. Once you know that things are going to end violently it is in your best interests to attack first and keep attacking until the opponent is down. This is the beauty of scenario based training is that it allows you to learn when to start using force, and when not to where most schools teach self defense from the he throws this, you block, you counterattack.
Just a quick note here, upon review of the thread after an evening away. (Braves game.) (We won.)
Libertarian has been entirely consistent through the course of this thread, and through the last year, in his presentation of libertarian thought. He has sometimes been a bit obscure, and sometimes resorts to pithy one-liners which require a few pages of clarifying argument afterward ( ), but he has not, to my knowledge, ever waffled on his commitment to the philosophy. Any misrepresentations that have occured have been due to the effort required to break down preconceptions and prejudgements (I’ve had to shed a few of mine along the way thanks to Lib).
Wherever I have jumped in to debate the subject, it’s not because of any prevarication on Lib’s part; it’s because I wish to defend American federalism against one of its most eloquent detractors. Lib sees our current system as immoral and tyrannical; I perceive pure libertarianism as dangerously naive. We both argue for the benefit of lurkers more than out of any likelihood of convincing opponents. If I occasionally become too impassioned, it’s when I think Lib has said something that makes him look uncool. Knowing as I do that he is very cool, this bugs me, and I end up in his face to find out what’s up. Invariably, when engaged in civil debate, Lib rises to and above the level of his opponents, and attracts strong supporters such as Sam Stone. This makes for a lively and informative discourse, and has led, in my case, to a much greater understanding of political theories, ethics, logic and <shudder> economics.
Although I still passionately disagree with Libertarian on many things, I greatly benefit from his contributions to this message board.
And that’s all I have to say about that.
(BTW Lib, I’ve decided on my “one thing.” I have to catch up on work I left behind yesterday, but I’ll be posting again this afternoon or evening.)
But with a government there are at least avenues in place where non-violent change is possible. In the system you propose land would tend to aggregate to a few people. That is true even if everybody started out with one acre each. Eventually all of the land would be owned by a few.
Lets move away from thinking about an unlimited area and confine it to something the size of the British Isles, an area that happens to offer another excellent example of a quasi Libertarian society. We have to go even further back but at one point these islands were inhabited by pretty much co-equal people who clubbed together to form a weak alliance based on mutual security and trade. A great deal like what you are suggesting. Well through marriage alliances and just straight trade the land was slowly combined into large holdings. The result was one of the most extreme examples of a two class society you could come up with. We call it feudalism.
The point being that I see no mechanism where by your utopia would not devolve in the same way. You are at the very outset creating two classes of people the landed (or propertied) and the unlanded. It is inevitable that the landed are going to have the power and the unlanded are not.
You have also not shown that there would be any permeability in the classes. Once all of the land is owned who would be willing to sell (or give) what would amount to “part of his power” to someone with no power?
You see the problem?
For the record I am vastly in favor of the elimination of laws prosecuting victimless crime. That does not mean that I want to swap the state legislature for a landed proprietor which I see as inevitable under your system.
Not entirely true but I will grant the premise. But how would your society differ. If having a free or cheep labor force (slavery/serfdom) is in the best interests of the landed then what motivation would they have to change? They certainly would never have to worry about being voted out of office.
And before you say that a cheep labor force would not be allowed let me point out that serfs were often free men and women. Serfdom was simply the best they could aspire to because of the societal/economic realities that existed. When there isn’t anything better in the next county then leaving isn’t an option.
But they do make a valid point. You are defining a two class system and the upper class with the power will make the rules. Your “one law” will only apply to the options that the disenfranchised have left after they are not able to own land because it is all already owned by those in charge. The giant squid is made up of a whole bunch of upper-class, comfortable, powerful people who want to maintain the statis quo. You don’t need conspiracy, you don’t need a hive mind, all you need is human nature and an unregulated two class society will tend towards having a wider and wider gap between the upper and lower classes with nothing in between. Because the people with the power will want it that way and people with power tend to exert it.
Yes, but who will force “those in charge” to change in your system? The people? How? Bloodshed?
Is your mind closed?
Then don’t worry about being treated like Puddlegum.
My initial reaction was based on the apparent absurdity of the proposition. Which to my mind was as follows.
Proposed:
A two class system where every one is equal.
Economic good sense = humanitarian good sense
Because competition can exist it will always exist and will solve all inequities.
Some people will act out of selflessness to aide others but no one will act out of selfishness to take advantage of others.
Private ownership is open to fewer abuses than public ownership.
I am sorry but all of these seem to be a basic part of your utopia and I don’t see any of them as being self evident. Indeed I see them as being false and demonstrably so.
Two things about that: (1) it proves that we libertarians are not The Borg and (2) I take libertarianism on its ethical merits alone, that is, it is irrelevant to me whether a market breaks down or not. Libertarianism does not break down in accordance with any market. The only reason I’ve never argued for the side of Libertaria with a communist economy is because it never came up. But libertarianism can accomodate any arbitrary market or government structure so long as all are volunteers.
[/quote]
Glitch:
There is no ethical difference between the threat to use force and the use of force itself. If a man says to you, “Give me your money or your life,” then he is a mugger. You don’t have to wait for him to draw a weapon.
[/quote]
Xeno:
It’s interesting that you say you’ve learned about ethics from me. I’ve thought of the relationship quite a bit the other way 'round. I’ve always looked to you as sort of my ethical guidepost. Many times, I’ve gotten carried away, and poof here comes a Xeno post reminding me of what’s important. It’s one of the things I appreciate most about you. It is a far greater man, like you, who knows how to practice good behavior than a man, like me, who merely knows its theory. But I’m working on it. I would wager I’m a bit more calm than in my early days. Tris calls it passion. I think Tris is being kind. I should mitigate my passion with greater empathy.
[/quote]
Degrance:
My mind is never closed. Each day, I face head-on real-life tests of my three-fold life philosophy. I have gone on a long journey from being a Marxist Existentialist Atheist to being a Libertarian Objectivist Christian. That didn’t happen by way of a closed mind. Nor would I hesitate to change again for any compelling reason. I don’t want to be right. I just want to be happy.
Libertarianism is a philosophy that has been in development for centuries, and much of its development was looking at history and seeing what went wrong where. Comparing libertarianism to feudalism is like comparing democracy to anarchy. A key factor that led to feudalistic societies was the rampant use of initiated force. The roots of feudalism began in the Iron Age which was the earth’s most violent period since the Neolithic. Property was gathered, not through free trade, but through the massive use of ubiquitous iron weaponry. (Recognizable) government began earlier, during the Copper and Bronze ages, when the new agriculturalist societies needed to have their fields protected from robbers and vandals because the value of their fields was greatly increased by their toil of them. Thus, earliest land ownership was a “sweat equity”. These Copper and Bronze ages were relatively peaceful times. Governors protected agricultural fields in exchange for a share in the harvests. They had practically zero incentive to interfere in the affairs of the toilers since that could cause the harvests to dry up. Thus, a symbiotic and cooperative relation evolved between landowners and government. What happened during the Iron Age was that the robbers became the governors.
In looking at all this (and more — this tiny forum can contain only so much), libertarian scholars through the ages noticed a single common thread that presented itself as obvious in every case: until force was initiated, there was peace. Later, scholars added fraud as a form of force, since no one is ever a willing victim of fraud. Initiated force and fraud were defined as “coercion”. Thus, the Noncoercion Principle was born. Some argue that it was the intent of some founders (particularly Jefferson et al), inspired by the writings of John Locke and other classical liberals, to set up the new United States as a libertarian (or classical liberal) model. Even a cursory reading of the Declaration of Indepence will support the theory. Alas, that notion was ended when compromise began. While Jefferson was in Paris, the Constituion was drafted. (Yes, I know that he had some limited input, but that tangential discussion would take too much room.) Wording was made loose enough to accomodate practically everyone, and the ninth and tenth ammendments were add to mollify the remaining holdouts.
The reason the liberals compromised was that it was clearly understood that the Constitution was a document intended to restrain government, not the people. Since that time, things have turned so upside down that even Justice Ginsberg once spoke of “the rights given to us by the Constitution”. {{{ shudder }}} In those early days, it was assumed that rights were given to us by God or nature.
So here we are. Woulda coulda shoulda, and all that. Meanwhile, a libertarian society remains to be seen since the Bronze Age. Too late here, but maybe one day somewhere, there can be a government that enforces peace and honesty and does no more than that. Even if your analogy to feudalism were accurate (which I do not concede), that is no reason to abandon a principle that recognizes the sovereignty of an individual’s consent. The Roman Republic also failed. I don’t think you would advocate that Jefferson et al ought to have avoided trying to improve upon it.
okay, i read those road privatization links, but still have these problems
so with a private road system, i can sue the road owner as well as other car owners on the road if i feel that i am delayed. won’t this clog Libertaria’s court system with nuisance lawsuits? How are we to judge the worth of time lost?
also, that website just goes on about how roads are congested, and says building new roads are futile, then goes on and on about how if private roads are built, it is a good thing, only we will pay after the fact instead of before. That seems like someone staying addicted to coke, but justifying it by switching dealers. we could slow down congestion by limiting urban sprawl, relocating buisiness to downtown areas through incentives, and creating a subway system and and elevated car system, as well as other affordable public transportation. but since that doesn’t involve a business telling people what to do, i guess that is not a good idea.
It also give examples of early 19th century toll-roads, and various people paying money to the companies so the roads will go near their property. (btw, that was interesting, i did not know that.) So in order to get a road by my house, i have to bribe the road company, a la the contenental railroad of the late 1800’s, and then pay for its constuction? How is that different that the multiple taxing you described? also, if i pay for a road that goes by my house, but fall a little behind on my payments, will some guy come allong and build a fence at the end of my driveway?
Now say i want to build my own road, i need raw materials. of course, how will i get raw materials to build my road, if they guy controlling the road knows what i need them for, and doesn’t allow the raw materials to be shipped on his road to my property? (or he may let them ship, with a heavy tax–I mean fee!) and then i will have to pay for hook ups to other roads (after all, who wants to drive the distance of less than a block to nowhere?)
also, how is airspace divied up in Libertaria? do i own everything above and below my property to the earth’s core? i can see owning the air, but what about outer space? would satilites have to pay a tax if they orbit over my property? What about a guy on the moon if the moon orbits over my property? He’s technically trespassing.
my feeling on the whole private roads issue (apart from the whole big government burocracy thing) is people resent paying money for something they may never use. this is the same mentality that causes after school programs to get shut down from lack of funding, then people wonder why the kids are running wild from lack of things to do, never realizing that they affected this, and are actually helping in the creation of more crime by their inaction. guess what, this is a small world, what you do affects others, come out of your shell. isolationism died when japan bombed pearl harbor.
Hey dude you know what i feel your pane. but guess what you all ready can’t bring your supplies any where near my house because the owner of the road won’t let you bring more than 2 axels. the owner of the road where i live has nuclear whepons so you best not rile him up.
also you couldn’t sue the road owner in libertaria for congestion because their is no toart law. coercion is a crime not a incovienence. well anywho. you gotta understnad about taxes. see start at the begining with you raw materials. work out the fractile equations. look how mark up on taxes are compounded not just ten but thousinds of times. do the math or have someone hep you.
as far as kids running wild with no place to go why ain’t that the parents fault?
As a group. This statement is based on the very majoritarianism you oppose. It assumes that the democratic process will have rendered the group’s consent with one voice. Government governs territory and everyone/everything in it, not individuals. If you remain within the jurisdiction, you have consented to be governed. If you are having a dispute with your neighbor, it’s not as if he can be goverened and you won’t be. A particular government agency has jurisdicion which encompasses the area of contention and applies the law as it intervenes. There is no substitute for this. If you are stronger than you neighbor, that doesn’t mean you should get your way.
If you don’t want to be goverened, you can go float in the ocean somewhere, but laws exist (largely) to prevent you from causing problems for others. The potential for this is omnipresent, so government must be omnipresent.
(Seriously, “progressive” in the sense Teddy Roosevelt meant it.)
), but he has not, to my knowledge, ever waffled on his commitment to the philosophy. Any misrepresentations that have occured have been due to the effort required to break down preconceptions and prejudgements (I’ve had to shed a few of mine along the way thanks to Lib).