A Q for Libertarian on Libertaria

Great Debates
121

You’ve been deceived. Apparently, they’ve told you that once your vote is cast, they suspend voting and throw all the other ballots away.

If you climb out of your box, you can imagine something other than the three-thousand-year-old notion of a nation-state. Libertaria makes no claims to define your land as its own with “borders”.

I’m glad to see that your previous effort was anomalous.

That is one of the best encapsulations of Austrain economics I have ever seen.

You don’t need background, Ayn. Common sense interpretaion of sound principle is all you need. A man who cannot recall the quadratic equation need only to know how to complete the square.

Kindly summarize the issue for me. Is this the giant squid where the most hateful and contemptuous man who ever lived owns all the water on earth?

It is brutally difficult to explain what is obvious. It is like proving that A is A. Let’s take anything you perceive as a right, say speech or something. Now, where will you exercise your right?

In this we have no quibble. If we were not lesser men, we would take hold of this and build an understanding.

You’ve confused libertarianism with anarchy. Rights accrue from property. A man who owns nothing but his own body has a right to live. Nomadic people are people, too. Might does not make right. The end does not justify the means. To use a gun for the purpose of coercion is an ethical abomination.

Actually, you’ve made my point. Nomadic people do not claim ownership of the land they traverse. They therefore claim no rights with respect to it. But anyone who toils the land will understand ownership of it intimately.

You will show that it is false whenever you show where you may speak as a right irrespective of the wishes of whoever (including agents of government) owns the land upon which you stand to speak. And if you must go to land owned by no one to speak, then you’ve painted yourself into a corner.

122

Libertarian: In Libertaria, the solution to the discontent of an individual with her government is to elect not to renew her consent contract and stay right where she is.

But “God help those not in the group” applies here too. Once she no longer has a contract with Libertaria’s government, the government and citizens of Libertaria no longer have any contractual obligation to respect her rights; if any of the Libertarians around her decide they want to take her property and she can’t fight them off, well, too bad for her. (She might, of course, contract with a competing government to protect her, but I think that in practice, the most effective governments will be found in association with geographical concentrations of citizens, as they are now. Governments are not going to have much incentive for, or much success in, defending the rights of isolated citizens scattered throughout groups of citizens of other governments from those groups’ depredations.) Once again, when it comes down to actual practice, the effective rights of citizens of Libertaria don’t seem to be an improvement on those in Majoritaria.

(Similarly, I think you’re a little bit off in characterizing the “principle” of Majoritaria as “political expediency”, in contrast to the “principle” of “noncoercion” for Libertaria. A closer parallel to a principle of “noncoercion” would be something like a principle of “the public good”: both are ideals of human societies that supporters consider embodied in their respective political philosophies. “Political expediency”, on the other hand, is not a principle but a pragmatic strategy. It’s true that in actual practice, the principle of “the public good” all too often degenerates into mere political expediency. But in actual practice, of course, Libertaria’s principle of noncoercion would all too often degenerate into pragmatic strategies too: “self-interest”, perhaps, or “unfettered exploitation”. Once again, you may not describe Libertaria in idealistic terms while describing Majoritaria in cynical ones—it’s not a fair comparison.)

123

Of course not but land is the one essential property without which no other property matters. What matter if I own an old junker if I have nowhere to either drive or park it? What matter if I have written the greatest book of all time if I can’t access a press to print it or a store to sell it? Land is also an excellent example to use because it is so tangible. Many of these same arguments can and have been made using other type of property such as discussed earlier in this thread the issue of the broadcast spectrum.

I see so I can prevent him from driving his land over my car.

But that would include unrestricted land rights. The difference between guaranteeing unrestricted land rights and unrestricted rights to use your mop as you see fit is everybody has to set their sorry behind down somewhere! The ones who own the land and therefore exert power of location over the unlanded would have extreme power no one should wield in utopia.

And if you are convinced that all are equal in a society with built in inequality then what makes you think anyone could ever convince you otherwise?

I am perfectly willing to be wrong. I have yet to see any indication that I am. You are Libertarians. That is fine by me. I am a Pragmatist. You are creating a false utopia out of false wishes that an unequal society will somehow breed equality.

If Libertaria were forming today and they were passing out property and you got the mop and I got the million acres are you telling me you would be satisfied?

That is assuming that the only reason humans interact is to complete financial transactions. I know that is not true for me.

Wrong.

Private ownership of land can be tempered. All I am saying is that without any controls, from a source external to the owner of at least equal power, the land owner, not might, but MUST become the person from whom the rights for the unlanded come. The land owner can simply decide not to tolerate the presence of a particular person and exile them. In your imaginary system that is fine because benevolent land owner B will welcome this person with open arms. But in a real society social injustice is rarely cured by counting on the innate good will of the powerful.

And in Libertaria the Government owns all the land. The only difference is the form of government. In the here and now the government is called The United States of America. In Libertaria the government is called Bob or whatever the dominant landowner’s name is. In Libertaria, at least in this corner of Libertaria, Bob calls all the shots because if he doesn’t like the way you look at him he can have you carted to the border and chucked out. It is up to land owner Stan in the next kingdom to decide if he likes your face or not.

Most would prefer anything to a monarchy which is what would exist on the holdings of any landowner in Libertaria.

No the point is that all property was not created equal. I can do without an old junker or a mop. I cannot do without land.

But you are ignoring HOW it will effect people. The owners of the land will be the default lords. Not the owners of the property MIGHT be the lords. They WILL be the lords.

It most certainly does not! All it requires is one person with enough land. That person then becomes the Ruler of that land. If you own a lot in the city and you can allow bigotry, refuse right-of-way, decide who can enter and exit your property, etc. then you can also own New England and decide these thing for anyone stuck living on your land. This is not a recipe for enlightened living it is a recipe for a pocket dictator across every property line.

And what is more useful to the unlanded than somewhere to lay their weary bones at the end of the day?

But land has universal worth and therefore the owner of the land has more power than the owner of the mulch. You make my point exactly.

And again I must add land to your list. water, shelter and food are extras. If you own no land and you can’t afford the rent then your choice is to go tread water indefinitely. Though I guess you could trespass and then somebody could give you a nice comfy bed in jail.

124

arl: *The other half of the story is in the removal of such restrictions after they have become entrenched in law and case law. In such cases, it seems, the market is more efficient at changing than a beauracracy. Once Ford has decided to stop making Escorts (god willing) consider it done. Once we decide to start legalizing marijuana, get ready for stagnation. Would you agree with the polarization in speedy action here? *

Again, I’m not quite sure I understand. Do you mean that laws take a longer time to go into effect than corporate decisions? It doesn’t seem to me that that’s the case; once the law’s been passed and signed, there it is, and enforcement begins. Or that laws take longer to be made than corporate decisions? That seems true, and for the very same reason I mentioned before: the more people involved in a process, the longer and more complicated a task it is to get something done.

*“volunteer public service is simply low on most people’s list of things to do today.”

I agree, largely because an organization currently is in place to make volunteering largely a matter of patting one’s self on the back; an ego-booster, if you will. Were there no such organization in place I don’t have a doubt in my mind that volunteering and community activity would become much larger. *

How would that work, though, if people still had all the personal demands on their time and effort that we do today? Is there really enough individual leisure and money available to create the voluntary-activism equivalent of today’s regulatory bureaucracies?

*In neither scenario does a government actually exist; it only exists in that we tell ourselves it exists (the possible exceptions being theocracies, monarchies, etc). […]

In this way, I feel, government is an illusion. It is no more real than the market, as well. […]

We recognize property. The market activates and values property. The government acts as an arbiter of property rights. At every level we have built an illusory house of cards, and it only stands because we are holding it up. *

Okay, I think I get it…But then, if government is fundamentally an illusion, Libertarian must be wrong about its owning property and bestowing rights: it can’t do those things if it doesn’t exist! So in fact, we own the property (subject to our shared restrictions on absolute ownership), some of it individually and some in common, and we specify and defend rights, just as the Constitution says. Sounds fine to me.

Now, why, if both the market and the government are an illusion, would I choose the market over the government?

Personally, I don’t see the need to choose between them; I think societies tend to work best when both the market and the government are active (even if only in a fundamentally illusory fashion), since they generally correct each other’s tendencies toward tyranny. (Sometimes, unfortunately, they actually conspire towards tyranny, which is why we also need the third leg of the tripod, (the illusion of) citizen/labor activism, to counteract them both.)

125

Kimstu, welcome back. Long time no see. If precedent is any indicator, that might be the last pleasantries we exchange. :wink: I hope not.

When the landowner elects to withhold her consent, yes she will no longer enjoy the protection of the Libertarian government, though she may consent to some other government or else secure her own rights. (Government itself is a private concern, libertarianly speaking. There is no mystical supernatural quality about it.) But there is no logical implication that her neighbors ought suddenly to loot and pillage her home. For one thing, she might have friends among them who would defend her, and for another, she might have contracts among the many citizens of Libertaria for services that they could no longer offer to her corpse.

A valid point. I will reconsider my position on that matter.

126

Pity ARL mentioned me and attracted my attention, I was doing my best to avoid this thread. The above statement adequately indicates why.

One could rather easily find the same sort of thinking from communists (that’s the little c. kind, not the big C kind, per se) in re critiques of their religion cum ideology cum delusion.

Frankly, I don’t know why anyone bothers arguing this with him, given the intellectual state indicated above.

However, I do wish to note to ARL that beyond necessities, any number of goods which give rise to market failure are going to prove to be terribly challending to a “libertarian” society and that further goods with positive externalities for mass distribution, e.g. education, will also. What would be the result? Well either the evolution of a society where you would be miserable as compromises to the purity of the system were made or a progressive creation of a propteried elite.

Whatever, frankly I don’t find utopias interesting.

Oh yes, I might add, if you didn’t vote, that’s your problem. Your choice after all. Perfection in a system is not be found in this world.

Kimstu, I shall try to make a reply to the free trade debate, I hope that will provide distraction from this arid exercise in futility.

127

One might reasonably think that a man doing his best to avoid a thread might not catch the mention of his name in it.

128

No doubt by the time I get this one up a few more shall slip by me, but what is there to do?

Degrance
I do not own property in the sense of land. I have never owned property in the sense of land. Members of my family have never owned proprety in the sense of land. We rent it. From the people who do own it. At a somewhat artificially high price in some cases, but there you have it.

Unless you are an aborigine, right?

And the tempering force, naturally, must be able to excersize an arbitrary amount of power over the landowners, up to and including seizing it when you don’t agree with the ideology of the tempering force. Really, I fail to see your point.

I am not sure I am promoting some platform of equality. My point is to recognize inequality as man’s right to be unequal, and to use that inequality to his or her advantage based on a principle of noncoercion.

Are you telling me they hand out property in libertaria?

Remember you are debating with two different Libertarians here, if I could even be classified as a Libertarian(actually, the Libertarian Party’s little political quiz puts me as a centrist, which always gives me a laugh). I am a right Libertarian and I think Lib is a lefty. I believe humans in such a society would choose to compete rather than cooperate (statistically speaking) while I think Lib feels that people would statistically cooperate rather than compete. I suppose, though, since our ideologies are very similar that that doesn’t matter much.

Kimstu

Nah. It is the repealing of laws that takes longer. That is, it is quicker to make a mistake legislatively and harder to correct it. The market is slower to make a mistake and quicker to correct it(here I take for granted that both parties will recognize a mistake and correct it, neither of which are guaranteed). (assuming a mistake is made, which is inevitable for anyone I think)

Huh? You realize the nation’s largest employer would be out of business, so to speak. Here’s your 30% back from taxes. There’s a heapin’ helpin’ of workers who would love to serve the public good, currently out of a job. :shrug: The labor pool has not changed. The amount of labor required to perform the tasks required has not changed.

Ack! The government is the illusion; the governors are real! Their decisions affect their property, which they defined and we agree to listen to them, or at least listen to them because they are the only ones talking.

“We” don’t own anything. :wink:

So, eventually we can hope to achieve a state where everything not forbidden is compulsory? That’s what I am reading from this. Do you see a way out of that?

Collounsbury
I’d reply, but that would drag you into the conversation :wink:

129

(NOTE: This overly long explication may be skipped without significantly affecting the debate. I’ve attempted to answer a question posed rather casually a while ago by Libertarian. While it is germaine to the general topic of libertarianism, it is not directly related to the OP and is tangential to the main debate, which has now wandered into various far fields.)

OK. This post is in response to Lib’s question: “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?”

I’ve spent a few days thinking about my answer, because the question neatly presents the ethical delimma of applying libertarian philosophy to our existing social and political structures. Since our system of government does not recognize non-coercion (the avoidance of “initiated force”) as its guiding principle, attempting to change only one aspect of the system in accordance with that principle could, through unintended consequences, lead to more widespread coercions of peaceful, honest people. In order to best control or limit these unintended consequences, one must take care to evaluate all known causative links between the process, structure or restriction one is modifying, instituting or removing and conditions within the societal context in which the process, structure or restriction exists. Even if this is done perfectly, unforeseen harm could occur to peaceful honest people due to the complex interrelations of a large society.*****

So I decided that, being as I’m absolutely sure I won’t adequately explore ALL of the possible ramifications of any change I make, and I only have one shot in this hypothetical situation, I should endeavor either to perform the greatest good with my one thing or cause the least harm. And since this is merely a hypothetical, I elected to be ambitious with my one shot power and go for the greatest good scenario.

Any “greatest good” action should either rectify a great wrong or deliver a great benefit to society. I asked myself, therefore, what aspects of our government are the most coercive of peaceful honest people. Which elements of the judicial, legislative or executive branches of our government tend to cause the most restrictions of rights, the most misuse of tax revenues or public assets, the most interference with business, the most abuses of public trust? (Remember, we’re still within the context of present day USA, not Libertaria.)

Consideration # 1: Drug Wars. Although it was certainly tempting to go after a particular chunk of the DoJ, I felt the “war on drugs”, although an unmitigated and expensive failure in terms of its affect on the drug trade in this country, arguably reflects a prevailing desire within society to do something about the problems of addiction and abuse. Drug laws may be badly written, and they are certainly in violation of the non-coercion principle, but they are part of the more basic problem I want to tackle.

Consideration # 2: Asset forfeiture. Likewise, I was tempted to go with the same modification of asset forfeiture laws that Lib suggested earlier in the thread. These, I think, certainly violate both the non-coercion principle and the spirit of the US Constitution. However, I again see these laws as symptomatic of a basic problem.

Consideration # 3: Campaign finance reform. Unfortunately, any reforms I think would actually be effective here would also violate the principle. Damn.

Consideration # 4: The legislative process. Ah, now we get to the root of many problems. This is where our government decides how to spend our money on pork projects, how to legislate our morality, and how to please the rich and powerful. This is where appointed officials are confirmed, where the great questions of society are misapprehended and where sweeping [in]actions are decided by committee. If there is a major culprit in the mass coercion of Americans, this is the branch of the government in which to look. Sure, the Executive branch has impressive powers to inflict damage unilaterally, but the Legislative branch has the volume and staying power. Here’s where the “great wrong” is that my one thing should try and address!

I was so certain of my dissatisfaction with the legislators themselves that I immediately started thinking of ways to improve the competencies and integrity of the people elected into the HoR and Senate. However, I kept leading myself back to Consideration # 3, and running into the non-coercion roadblock. I also began to consider that the average level of competence (as gauged by education and knowledge of government and law) and commitment (awarded purely by benefit of the doubt) of Representatives and Senators is already far greater than average within the populace. Where, then (I asked myself) is the cause of poor legislation? The first two considerations after all show how good people with good intentions and the best information available can pass horribly inefficient or downright abusive laws.

I decided one cause could be poor focus, or extremely limited focus on the intended consequences of the proposed legislation with poor attention payed to the unintended consequences. I thought another cause could be failure to align the intentions of the legislation with a specific overall strategy. A third cause, I felt, could be a far too prevalent necessity to compromise between opposing ideologies. This left me with the task of finding a way to limit the effects of poor focus, poor strategic alignment and ideological nullification.

Congress already has access to expert testimony, already has the power to commission studies, and is already organized into multi-partisan committees. I became convinced that organizational changes and expanded investigative abilities aren’t going to help here. In desperation, I began to shift my attention away from the process and towards the finished product. Here are two examples of recently passed laws, to illustrate the structure and language used. Please notice that, language had been used in the text of each law to justify the need for the law and the underlying reasoning involved in support of the law. Far less effort is taken to describe the mechanism by which the law intends to produce the desired effect(s), and no process is suggested by which the efficacy of the law may be measured. I decided to change that.
My “One Thing” Proposal

I want a constitutional amendment requiring that all laws passed by Congress meet the following criteria:[ul][li]They must clearly state the intended consequences, and show how these are aligned with the objectives stated in the US Constitution, Section 8[]They must describe in detail the expected mechanism by which the intended consequences will be produced[]They must provide a means of consequential measurement[]If the law is a proactive or ameliorative measure (intended to produce a positive effect or effects), two year, five year and ten year targets must be specified[]If the law is a preventive measure (intended to reduce or prevent undesireable conditions), two year, five year and ten year assessment goals must be provided[/ul]In addition, the amendment will require that all new laws passed subsequent to the date of the amendment be subject to automatic repeal on their two year, five year and ten year anniversaries unless it can be shown that the targeted objectives of the law have been realized to a significant degree, as measured by the method written into the law. Also, every law must be subject to Congressional review at a minimum period of twenty years. This will require a Senate review committee which will look at existing laws on a 20 yr rotation and make recommendations for repeal or amendment based on their effectiveness.[/li]
This amendment should at minimum provide for the automatic repeal of “feel good” laws that are essentially meaningless, and for the repeal of ineffective or counterproductive laws. It should discourage the drafting of superfluous or poorly conceived legislation. It should encourage a major effort to reduce the raw number of federal laws. And it should work to minimize unintended consequences simply by requiring better debate and examination of the applicability of proposed legislation.
So Lib, I hope you find my answer helpful to this debate. I realize your question was loaded in some manner, and that you wanted a quicker response, but I’ve learned to be very careful in my responses to you!

xeno

[/quote]
*****If this debate continues I want to expand on the applicability problem; I see similar problems even within a societal context of pure libertarianism — which is, of course, the specific bone of contention between we statists and Lib…

130

You can’t be serious. You really think most people give more thought to buying a car than having a child? sure, there are some out there so irresponsible, but they are a small minority.

Or it could be because they realized the free market was inadequate to these tasks and thought it better to have the government provide and subsidize these things than allow children to be raised in poverty.

As long as The State’s values and curriculum are factually true, what’s the harm in that?

Define “crazy.”

The State forces companies to hire people? When did that happen? I must not have gotten the memo. I’ll be sure to tell that to the homeless guys I meet every day.

You got neither.

You once said a child could understand the Libertarian philosophy it was so simple. That’s what’s wrong with it. It’s too simple to apply to the real world. It works only in a fantasy world where there no one is greedy and everyone is charitable to a fault, where no one wishes harm on another.

[/quote]
**FAA (and other regulatory agencies):

While there are no regulatory agencies per se, there is strict “regulation” of coercion.**
[/QUOTE]
In Libertaria, is there no air-traffic control? The mind reels.

131

Xeno:

One word — brilliant. That post is your magnum opus, my friend. An exemplary lesson on how to analyze. I think your suggestion is an excellent one, much better than mine. It is a remarkably promising way to abate the coercion and fraud that is so often hidden behind bewildering legislation. Thank you.

As to this…

…via basically the same reasoning I used, you’ve discovered why I concluded that Libertaria should eliminate it altogether.

132

Oddly, rampant irresponsibility is quite generally cited as an argument against libertarianism. Perhaps people don’t need The Nanny so much after all, eh?

Well, are people giving less thought to how they will provide for their children than for their cars or not? Cannot family, friends, neighbors, houses of worship, private and community charity care for this “small minority”?

None, certainly. After all, in God we trust, right? :wink:

A press release from the Libertarian Party. You can search the federal register yourself:

The EEOC is a veritable cornucopia of weird laws. Here’s another:

I suppose addition and subtraction, understood by children everywhere, is too simple to apply to the real world. If we thought people were not greedy and would never harm, we would just advocate anarchy instead of a government to suppress their coercion.

133

I fail to see what this has to do with education…
Contrary to what you may think about my question, it was sincere. Mabey I shouldn’t have expected a teacher like you to fight ignorance, but instead should have guessed you would dismiss my question as being “too stupid to answer” or some such elitist reason.

134

Amedeus:

I regret the impression I left you with. I apologize. What I was saying is that, in Libertaria, parents are responsible for the education of their children.

135

Would it be all home-schooling or would all schools be private schools or would there be a mix? (In home-schooling, how does a parent teach a child something the parent knows nothing about? And what about the socialization kids get in schools?)

What if both parents work AND they still cannot afford private schools?

136

Here’s one of the places I part with libertarians. I’m perfectly happy to use force and coersion to get parents to send kids to school. I dislike the current method of delivery via government near-monopoly of the school systems, but I’m not willing to let a parent mortgage his/her child’s future.

And even our current, very, very flawed system is far better for society as a whole than no system or a voluntary system where some kids, due to parental stupidity or parental shortsightedness don’t get any education. (I assume non-coersion doesn’t apply to kids…if it does, I’ve got major disagreements with the philosophy)

Can our coercive “Send your kids to a possibly badly flawed, imperfect school or go to jail” system be improved? Certainly (more parental choice comes immediatly to mind). Is it better than the libertarian “Well, if you want to send your kids to school, and you can either afford to or can find a free/charity school, you’re welcome to do so, but if you don’t want to send your kids to school, that’s fine too.” (I’m not trying to misrepresent your position here, Lib, so correct me if I’ve misstated it)

Some facets of child welfare shouldn’t left to the parent’s judgement. The decision to not give your kid an education is one.

Fenris

137

Guys, with all due respect, at some point you have to make a decision about this thing. Do they or do they not put more thought into buying a car than having a child? Because, see, how you will educate that child is a huge part of what you should be considering. How is it that you won’t get a car if you can’t afford it, but with children, it’s make them first, figure out how to care for and educate them later? It’s because you have little or no reason to worry about it (their care and education will be heavily subsidized) and lots of incentive to do it (you’ll get cumulative tax breaks).

And again, is there or is there not a tiny minority of people who are irresponsible? Remember that in Libertaria, you are held accountable for your actions. The parent-child relationship in Libertaria is called a unary contract. Children are not the property of their parents; rather, they are rights bearing entities who merely lack the capability for giving meaningful consent. The children did not ask to be born. The parents are solely responsible for their children, and thus are held accountable for actions of the children as well. Parents who fail to educate their children are at about the same risk as people who vandalize their neighbor’s property because, until the children are adjudged to be adults, the parents carry the burden of those childrens’ ethics.

So you can see that, in Libertaria, having children is a very sober responsibility that is not taken at all lightly. Children there are not throw-away by-products of careless flings taken with no thought of consequences. Failure to care for your child there is breach (misrepresentation of your intent), a most serious crime.

Education itself is a very broad term. Simply because a child spends his day in a facility called a school does not mean he is being educated. Education is much more than that. Whether a child is home-schooled or schooled in an away-facility, education doesn’t happen until the child herself cooperates and is motivated. Being bused to a facility to give your parents blessed relief from dealing with you for a spell does not an education make.

I don’t buy the notion that someone else can decide for you how best to educate your children. What mystical entity imbues them with more insight about your children than you have yourself? Sure, there are experts who could advise you about this or that with respect to your child’s education, but you, and you alone, are best qualified to decide which experts to seek out for advice and which advice given is most applicable to your own needs. You might or might not like the idea of an education that includes a teaching of Christian ethics. I submit that Jerry Falwell ought not to decide this for you. Neither are you qualified to tell me how to have my own child educated, just as I am not qualified to tell you how to educate yours.

Consider in Libertaria a homosexual couple who decide to adopt a child after giving prodigious consideration to the weighty responsibilities they are taking on. They have already thought about their child’s education, and have decided that they will send him to a co-op private school that has passed their due diligence. Who are you to say that they must send their child to a school where he will be tormented by his peers as he spends most of his day fending off insults and aggression, desparately seeking out safe places here and there where administrators might protect him from the abuses of other kids?

138

Whew! Stay away from the dope for a few days and you miss the world.

Anyway, a few points from reading the last few pages:[list=1][li]Limited Liability[/li]
I find it disturbing that Libertaria will not include limited liability corporations. Arguably the introduction of such was one of the biggest drivers in investment in economic history. It allows mass dilution of ownership in the form of shares and allows individuals to confidently buy small parts of companies without worrying that poor management decisions will leave them bankrupt.

Without limited liability, new companies would find it very hard to garner capital support. This would, to my mind, be a big loss.

[li]Private Charity[/li]
Simply, if you’re that sure that people won’t mind contributing private charity to ensure the continuation of the same provisions government now provides in the form of welfare, why be hung up on the method of collection? If people would contribute anyway, then the tax is de facto not coercion. If, however, they wouldn’t contribute anyway then you are in effect saying that there wouldn’t be enough money for the guaranteed continuation of what many of us perceive as vital services. I find this untenable.

[li]Regulation[/li]
ARL (how you been, btw? Haven’t interacted much recently), principly, was supporting the view that private or voluntary regulation is more effective than legislative. I believe Sam Stone brought this up first.

I’d just say that knowing now as much as I know about the life and general insurance markets, it is a lot more complicated than that. There are arguments that go both ways (in fact one of my first ever posts was rather a long essay on such!) But I’ll sum up as follows:

Voluntary regulation tends to be (although is not always) more efficient than legislative. However to be effective voluntary regulation only works if there is an underlying threat of legislation should companies fail to comply. It is this fear, principly, that keeps the press code working in the UK and (also in the UK) keeps life assurance companies working by the principal of “policyholder reasonable expectation”*

[li]Rights defined by property[/li]
The trouble I have here, Lib can be expressed by Paul Muad’dib’s argument in Dune: he that has the power to destroy something is he who controls it.

To put it another way, you still have to postulate a Libertarian government in order to secure the rights of the populace. Rights without the authority to secure them are meaningless.

property <==> rights, so you say. But who guarantees the link? Who stops me from invading your house and declaring it my sovereign property (assuming I have a bigger army than you)? Your Libertaria government/police force. But what happens if they decide not to protect your rights and let me just take over? Your rights are then worth naught. So in the end you are reliant on your government’s suffrance as much as you are in majoritaria.

This is all fine if you just want to declare that Libertaria is utopia and your philosophy is “no coercion”. But you go further than this - you claim that property <==> rights is a universal. You also claim that this is true in Libertaria without resorting to the philosophy of “biggest gun wins”. I say that if you want to assert this you need to prove that link can exist without “biggest gun”.

Because by your very own argument and by the way you define property, I say that the government still owns your property in Libertaria every bit as much as in Majoritaria.

In answer to Frank Herbert, the government have the power to destroy your ownership of your property. Therefore they control your property.[/list=1]

There. I wanted to waffle more about each point but I’ll see if anybody runs with any of them first.

pan

[/quote]
[sub]*actually there is also a whole load of case law in PRE too. The truth, as tracer points out in his sig, is always more complicated than that. But you get the idea.[/sub]

139

Oops. Overlooked this:

The mind reels over the leap from no FAA to no air-traffic control. It’s like saying that before the Department of Education there were no schools.

Kabbes:

Limited Liability

Libertarianism is not concerned with markets or ends, but only means. You may not abrigate your responsibilities by occulting yourself.

Private Charity

Charity is, by definition, voluntary. Would you consider it charity if I mugged you and gave a portion of the loot to the Salvation Army?

Regulation

Nowhere is coercion more heavily regulated than in Libertaria. In fact, it is prohibited summarily.

Rights Defined By Property

If the government of Libertaria fails to secure my rights, then it stands in breach, and therefore is not libertarian. That is like asking what would happen in the United States if authorities ignored election results and coronated whomever they pleased as President. It would simply mean that the democratic republic isn’t.

The libertarian definition of rights is ethically based. Usurpation of rights, whether by guns or fraud, is unethical. The libertarian term for seizing the property of peaceful honest people against their will is called “theft”. A thief is not the legitimate owner of the property he holds. Neither is a con man. Guns are not the only way to aggress against people.

140

Do you have children?

If everyone waited until they could afford children there would never be another child born (except maybe to Bill Gates or Madonna). Children are an investment in the future not a large ticket purchase. If you are arguing that the only thing, or even the most important thing, you should take into account when considering children is how you are going to pay for them then you have lost me indeed.

And if you hold this idea yourself and you don’t have children yet then please refrain from ever having them. At least before you change your philosophy. You defining children solely in terms of finance is at least as alarming as any abuses you can list in our current system of government.

Pardon me but HOGWASH!!! There is no particular trick to educating a child. Teach the kid to read and encourage curiosity and then turn 'em loose. Wa La! educated child. The trick isn’t educating one child the trick is educating EVERY child. Or is Libertaria going to be made up of two classes of people based on more than just land ownership? The education haves and have nots.

Do you really think that people have that much choice about buying a car? I don’t know where you live but in this neck of the woods unless you live right in a major city then a car is not a luxury. Either you have a car or you don’t participate in the labor market.

I couldn’t “afford” my daughter. No one is subsidizing my child. One of her parents stays at home with her and we plan to homeschool. I now see it is obvious that you have no children if you think that cranking them out is going to result in a net savings due to tax breaks (Huh?!?! do you really think that?!?)