Libertarian says: «Hardly. What I am saying is that, so long as the carnies have eminent domain over you, you are left with no choice but to deal with them. Scoundrels and polticians (people who seek to control other people) exist everywhere, infesting every discipline — business, politics, religion, science, the arts — you name it. But at least, if the decision were left up to you, you could freely and willingly select whatever services you want from whomever you please.»
And so can I also do with a freely elected government. If I find some laws unfair, I am free to try to change them. If I find some politicians to be venal and corrupt, I am free to vote against them and have them removed. You might say, “what if the majority does not agree with you?” To that I may reply, “what if I deem that the private institutions offering services are corrupt?” To take a practical example, there are two private businesses offering fire protection in my vicinity. What if I judge that both are corrupt? How do I have a choice?
Libertarian: «Which do you believe would be more motivated to reputability, an oligarchical power that believes it is the very source of your rights, or a business who is competing with other businesses (under the stewardship of private consumer agencies) for the patronage of free people?»
Which do you believe would be more motivated to reputability, a group of individuals that need to respond to public oversight and that have been chosen by the free voters, or a business whose main purpose is making a financial profit and whose owner’s main motivation is self-interest? I admire your faith in the benevolence of business owners, but I think your confidence may be somewhat misplaced.
Libertarian (re: education) «But at least you could select the stranger whom you would trust, based on whatever criteria you establish as important.»
This is the same argument again. If I disagree with the way the school is taught, I can bring it up with the school board and/or PTA meetings. If it’s an issue decided by the state, I can start a movement to have the educational curriculum changed. etc… What if the criteria that I judge as being important are not served by the private companies offering education? Effectively, my choice is being removed. A private business will be offering the services that satisfy a segment of the population large enough to justify the expense. If the market is too small, the service will not be offered. Instead of being at the mercy of governmental decisions, I am at the mercy of the marketing division of company X.
To get back to the issue of child abuse (which you rendered more dramatic by speaking of the “death of a child”), I will return to your reponse above. «Speaking frankly as a Christian, however, I would take it upon myself to rescue the baby from you.» What you view as child abuse, I view as obeying the biblical precept “Spare the rod and spoil the child.” Your attempt to “rescue” the child from me, I view as an attempt to initiate force and since by your attempt to initiate force you forfeit your life (an expression I believed you use in a different thread) I magnanimously decide to punish you only with a severe beating. What happens then? (Please remember that, in my hypothetical situation, I have in no way contracted for services with you yourself or your government.)
Actually, I’m not against that notion at all; I generally leave peaceful and honest people alone to pursue their own happiness in their own way. (And as an Official Card-Carrying Member™ of the ACLU, I’m also active in helping protect them from various government buttinskis.) I merely don’t agree with your assumption that “natural rights” prohibit a society from adopting any shared goals besides leaving one another alone.
What do you consider support? If not logic, will you accept an anecdotal support? I have yet to meet a conservative who does not strongly disagree with the libertarian views on drugs, gambling, gay marriage, burning the rah-rah rag, and prostitution.
If you have met one, kindly name him or her.
It is a petitio principii because Objectivism is not a type of libertarianism.
Then Huben is hiding his premises after all.
If Huben’s conclusion is not that he dislikes libertarianism, then he wasted an awful lot of time and space. You might suggest that he retitle his page Critique of Everything Under the Sun.
A claim I never made. A school of thought, represented by a Nobel laureate economist, whose work is credited by a great many economists and other thinkers with bringing down socialism the world over is hardly “fringe”.
I was not defending the Austrian School (which would have been an appeal to authority); rather, I was attacking Huben’s ridiculous (unsupported) assertion.
Another false premise.
Libertarians have no aversion to regulation. On the contrary, we advocate strong regulation against coercion. The linked documents might focus on government usurpation of land (what you call “protecting the environment”), but you should blame Huben, not me, for his own fallacies.
There are no rights but property rights. Do you not own your own life?
Here, you are employing the same poetical device that Huben does, calling the notion that your life comes from God or nature a “rather odd belief”. What’s so odd about it?
The implication of libertarianism’s ethic, noncoercion, is that peaceful honest people will be free to pursue their own hapiness in their own way.
My question stands, though your intercession on Kimstu’s behalf was quite noble, in my opinion.
And your question has now been answered (see above simulpost). But yes, xenophon, I appreciate your taking a hit for me! (And I also think your Anabasis is a really cool book. :))
Your choices are as endless as your imagination and wit.
With your government, which claims emiment domain over you, can you participate in starting another one if you don’t like the one forced upon you? Certainly, you could devise a simple test, though I advise against it.
As is your conclusion.
I hold no confidence in business owners, per se, but I am confident that they are concerned about their bottom line, which, in a noncoercive free-market will depend entirely on their appeal to consumers.
And by the way, the men pulling the levers behind the curtain were selected, not by “the free voters”, but by a plurality of those who voted. I’m sure you wouldn’t want accidentally to present majoritarianism as an example of universal consent.
For example, to turn your hypotheticals back at you, what if the majority decided that gang rape is okay?
Why are you willing to take on The State’s two-trillion dollar government, which can seize your property at its whim, while you fear or are unwilling to take on a private company in a context where you are protected from their coercion?
No, you are at the mercy of your own desire.
So far, you want to make decisions on your child’s education, but you don’t want to do it yourself, but you want a bureaucracy to do it for you the way you say, and if they won’t, you need merely show up at the Department of Education in Washington to change it all.
Use a mere fraction of that “ganas” in a free-market, and you will have everything your heart desires.
Well, since we’re just supposin’, can we suppose that I can whip your ass?
Why not simply let those who are willing to share your goals share them with you, while leaving others free to pursue their own? Consider the hypothetical I gave Arnold (as you are both fond of hypotheticals). What if society determines that gang rape is okay? What is the recourse to victims of it?
Why not indeed? I generally do. I just don’t think that it is necessarily wrong for a society as a whole to adopt some shared goals, and I don’t consider the government of such a society automatically illegitimate.
The same as the recourse for victims of any other Bad Stuff (clitoridectomy, war, religious persecution, hunger) not explicitly forbidden by their societies: i.e., none. The fact that you and I agree that gang rape is a Bad Thing does not prove that there are “natural rights” that prohibit all societies from disagreeing with us about what is okay.
Libertarian:Your choices are as endless as your imagination and wit.
Do you meant that (to take the example above) I could imagine another fire protection company exists, or that I could wittily comment on how the lack of adequate fire service is actually a boon?
Libertarian: With your government, which claims emiment domain over you, can you participate in starting another one if you don’t like the one forced upon you? Certainly, you could devise a simple test, though I advise against it.
Yes I can, e.g. by forming a political party and/or joining a political party more in accordance with my views, and encouraging people to join my party and help pass legislation that we deem is more equitable.
I disagree with your belief that a citizen is powerless in our society. One off the cuff example is Cesar Chavez in California, who managed (after a long struggle) to help pass laws to benefit the conditions of farm workers, and started with little or no power or influence. Or look at Jodi Williams’ success in starting her international campaign to ban landmines.
Libertarian: I hold no confidence in business owners, per se, but I am confident that they are concerned about their bottom line, which, in a noncoercive free-market will depend entirely on their appeal to consumers.
Same objection as you propose to me. A business owner will attempt to appeal to the majority of consumers. The businesses that do will grow and eventually swallow their competitors (e.g. Microsoft.) The “marginal” consumers will find no services.
Libertarian: *And by the way, the men pulling the levers behind the curtain were selected, not by “the free voters”, but by a plurality of those who voted. I’m sure you wouldn’t want accidentally to present majoritarianism as an example of universal consent.
For example, to turn your hypotheticals back at you, what if the majority decided that gang rape is okay?*
What if the entity with which you have subscribed for protection services decides that gang rape is okay? Who decides the policy of that entity? Is it by a majority vote, or does every decision need to be adopted unanimously?
In a similar vein, does any project need to occur with unanimous consent? If so, how can any public works that influence more than three people ever be accomplished?
Libertarian: Why are you willing to take on The State’s two-trillion dollar government, which can seize your property at its whim, while you fear or are unwilling to take on a private company in a context where you are protected from their coercion?
Protected by whom?
The government can not seize property “at its whim”, it seizes property in accordance to laws determined by a majority of the voters. I do not fear to take on a private company, but I think I have just as much chance taking on my city, state or federal government as I have if I attempted to take on a company such as General Electric, Microsoft or AT&T.
Libertarian: So far, you want to make decisions on your child’s education, but you don’t want to do it yourself, but you want a bureaucracy to do it for you the way you say, and if they won’t, you need merely show up at the Department of Education in Washington to change it all.
A tongue-in-cheek but semi-accurate description. The converse:
In a Libertarian society, I would have to decide on a complete course of education for my child, and then find a company that fits my exact criteria, and if such a company did not exist then I would have to start one myself, and if my company was not successful then I would have to convince someone else to start one. If I can’t find a company to match my exact criteria, then I will have to rely on someone else’s decisions, and/or show up at their business offices to ask them to change their system to meet my needs.
Libertarian: Well, since we’re just supposin’, can we suppose that I can whip your ass?
I am interpreting this comment to mean that in the hypothetical case I presented above (which is not, in my opinion, such a stretch of the imagination), there is no effective recourse except vigilante justice. I do not consider that to be a satisfactory solution.
That looks like a good question for Ask the Sarcastic Guy.
How delightfully naive. If you join the Libertarian one and start in Georgia, you will need 80,000 petition signatures to get on the ballot there. And if you want to debate the Republicrats, you’ll need 15% in whatever polls they specify. Best of luck.
I am confident that you will be successful, after your long struggle, so long as you manage to gather sufficient political clout to make your cause expedient to the lever pullers.
Nonsense. You don’t like Windows? Go here. It’s a bargain.
Gang rape is a coercion.
I presume it decides its own policy, unless it is eminently domained by some other entity.
What the heck are you talking about?
Huh?
You consented to be governed when you contracted with your government. Or else you didn’t when you didn’t. What this “unanimous” business?
Oh, I see. Well, one way would be to run roughshod over the rights of minorities, claiming that you have special privileges accorded only to agents of government.
Or else, you eliminate so-called “public works”, I suppose.
By your government, if it is libertarian. Aren’t you asking me about libertarian type stuff?
"Can I challenge the government’s right to acquire my property?
"Even though the vast majority of government agencies possess the power of eminent domain, on occasion, a successful challenge to the government’s right to take a particular property for a particular project can be made. You should be cautioned, however, that such challenges are the exception, not the rule, and usually result only in a delay, rather than outright prevention of the government’s right to take.
“Typical challenges to the right to take are for failure of the government to follow the proper procedural steps towards eminent domain (see “Eminent Domain Procedures” link on left side of this page). If the government fails to follow the proper procedures, a right to take challenge is sometimes possible. Again, however, it must be remembered that the circumstances allowing a successful challenge to the right to take are rare. Each case must be evaluated on its own facts and experienced eminent domain counsel should be consulted. Seeking compensation for the taking, rather than challenging the government’s right to take, will be the property owner’s usual remedy.”
[emphasis mine]
And we won’t even mention asset forfeiture, unless you bring it up again.
In a society where government politicians and business politicians make sweetheart deals, you’re right. But please explain why the same guardians of goodness whom you proudly proclaim to be elected by the majority of voters won’t help you against GE and AT&T? (They will help you against Microsoft because Bill Gates was remiss in paying his er, um, dues.)
Yes, if the dam won’t hold and the river won’t wait and the boat won’t float and the oar won’t row, then you’ll have to swim. But in Libertaria, you do not “have” to do any of the things you listed. You may do as many or as few of them as you like.
Well, you should interpret it to mean that hypotheticals are just that: hypothetical. Meaningless. If you can dish them out, you need to be able to take them.
I told you what I would do if I saw you abusing a baby. So, you modified the hypothetical to present yourself as, not only an abuser, but a badass. I merely presented myself as a badder ass yet, quite in the spirit of hypothetical argument.
The vigilante justice applies because you have determined yourself to be an anarchist in your hypothetical. Don’t blame me for that.
I had posted: Do you meant that (to take the example above) I could imagine another fire protection company exists, or that I could wittily comment on how the lack of adequate fire service is actually a boon?
To which Libertarian replied: That looks like a good question for Ask the Sarcastic Guy.
I’ll agree that my remark was sarcastic. But I still don’t see a good answer to my question. You claim that one can easily choose amongst a wide variety of services to find one that suits my needs. I don’t see how you can assume that such choices will always be available and affordable to everyone. If fire services are available but priced out of range of the poorer segments of the population, then effectively they have no choice in the matter.
Libertarian: How delightfully naive. If you join the Libertarian one and start in Georgia, you will need 80,000 petition signatures to get on the ballot there. And if you want to debate the Republicrats, you’ll need 15% in whatever polls they specify. Best of luck.
I never said starting a political party would be easy. I still think it would be easier than trying to convince the Teeming Millions that a Libertarian society could be effective. And I did happen to mention several examples of people that were able to produce meaningful change in their lifetimes.
In the Libertarian society, would there be more than one political party?
Would a neighbour to a citizen of Libertaria be able to join another political party or contract with another government? Would then these people be living side by side? Which would mean that interaction between those people would need to involve diplomats?
Libertarian: Nonsense. You don’t like Windows? Go here. It’s a bargain.
I think you are being disingenous here. To be compatible with most systems one needs to use Windows. Have you noticed that much of the software needed, for example, to view web pages is only available for Windows (and to a lesser extent Macintosh?)
(On an ironic aside: I notice when I said above “just start another political party”, you mentioned that this was fraught with incredible difficulties, but when I said “Windows is a monopoly”, you argued that it would be easy to circumvent the Microsoft market dominance. A good example of how our preconceived notions are affecting our arguments. And I mean this for myself as well as you.)
Re: the “gang rape” issue.
I think there is some misunderstanding as to what I was trying to say with my example above, and a lack of comprehension on my part of the internal workings of the Libertarian government.
I am a citizen of the Libertarian government. Who is in charge of punishing cases of gang rape? Is it my responsibility to contact separately with protection services to help protect myself against these occurrences? Or is it the government’s responsibility?
Libertarian: You consented to be governed when you contracted with your government. Or else you didn’t when you didn’t. What this “unanimous” business?
Can the government ever change the rules it uses to govern the citizens? Or are the laws frozen at the time the first citizen signs a contract with the government? What happens when new ethical issues arise, for example issues that are raised by new scientific developments? Do I need to contract with another government to decide on those issues?
Libertarian: Or else, you eliminate so-called “public works”, I suppose.
By that, do you mean no roads? No dams? No research to determine the human DNA sequence? Or do you mean those services are available only for people who have had the foresight to invest in the right companies? For example, a road is needed in front of my house. You are the neighbour across the street. I decide to contract with company A to build a road. You dislike the policies of company A and decide to contract with company B. Therefore two roads will be built? This seems wasteful to me.
Libertarian: Voters make laws?
Well, in California they can (referendum process.) But you’re correct, I meant legislators elected by the voters.
Libertarian: And we won’t even mention asset forfeiture, unless you bring it up again.
Wouldn’t the same thing happen in a Libertarian government if I failed to fulfill a contractual oblication?
As far as eminent domain procedures, I had said the government doesn’t seize property on “a whim.” I fail to characterize a government public project as a whim.
Libertarian: In a society where government politicians and business politicians make sweetheart deals, you’re right. But please explain why the same guardians of goodness whom you proudly proclaim to be elected by the majority of voters won’t help you against GE and AT&T?
Because there has not been a determination that GE or AT&T are a corporation that engages in monopolistic practices egregious enough to merit intervention. However, if you are willing to argue that those companies are engaging in such activities, I am willing to listen.
Libertarian: Yes, if the dam won’t hold and the river won’t wait and the boat won’t float and the oar won’t row, then you’ll have to swim. But in Libertaria, you do not “have” to do any of the things you listed. You may do as many or as few of them as you like.
I will rephrase my statement. You were saying “in a Libertarian society you can choose the form of education for your child that you prefer.” The phrasing shoud be “you ch choose the form of education for your child that businesses in your area are willing to offer.”
As far as the child abuse example: Let me rephrase it. I am a member of your Libertarian government. I decide to physically discipline my child. Am I free to do so? Who decides when the physical discipline becomes child abuse?
Will your Libertarian government allow anarchists to live in its midst? Those anarchists would then be exempt from the laws of Libertaria? Or do you, as a citizen of Libertaria, have the right to impose your moral code on me? I am guessing, from your response above, that the answer to that would be yes. Does then the freedom of Libertaria extend only to those who have contracted with its government, and not to its neighbours?
Baloney. Apparently, Lib, you’re either hoping that no one else actually checks Kimstu’s link, or you only cursorily checked it yourself. The page to which the comment you quoted is an introduction is entitled “Criticisms of Objectivism (or Ayn Rand)” and provides many links to these critiques. It is presented because objectivism features frequently in many libertarian arguments. The author hopes that an understanding of the basic tenets of objectivism, its history and that of its primary communicator (Rand), and the flaws inherent in the philosophy will enable his readers to more effectively engage libertarians in debate.
To take Huben’s introduction completely out of context and present it as if his comments on Rand were intended to stand on their own as an indictment of libertarianism is a dirty rhetorical trick.
The distinction between “liberalism” and “libertarianism” is that, in the former, one believes that civil liberties should be maintained through governmental process, whereas, in the latter, as you say: The Libertarian ethic is noncoercion.
The link you provided was to a definition for “converse accident.” This in no way supports your assertion that “the opposite of the above” is true (meaning that conservatives are harsher critics of libertarianism than liberals). The fact that you are now trying to support that argument with anecdotal evidence does not make what I said untrue. You criticized Huben and then made an equally unsupported assertion. Deal with it.
Obviously Huben’s site is dedicated to arming those who must argue with libertarians. He has structured his site to focus on major subjects. For each of these subjects, he provides an introductory sentence, which is frequently a statement of opinion relevant to the specific category. Do you expect every statement Huben makes, regardless of context, to support his overall conclusion? Is that a standard to which you’re willing to apply the comments you’ve made in this thread? Please say yes!
You weren’t defending the Austrian School? Then why attempt to refute the statement regarding “fringe academic view”? In any case, the link you provided hardly serves as a refutation of that characterization, nor does your current hyperbolic declaration that the school has brought down socialism “the world over.” (More anecdotal evidence.)
Please understand, I am not myself espousing an opinion one way or the other (I don’t feel competent to evaluate any economic schools of thought). I’m merely pointing out your logical inconsistencies, as a response to your completely erroneous dissection of Huben’s comments.
Lib, that’s a weak argument. Did you actually read any of the links? Do you honestly think the phrase “strong regulation against coercion” in the context of environmental protection is anything but oxymoronic claptrap? If you want to argue about property rights, do so in a property rights discussion.
Speaking of which:
How dare you put such ridiculous words in my mouth! I certainly wouldn’t throw a metaphysical assumption about the source of life into a discussion of real property rights! The notion that the holding of property derives from state-recognition of rights to the property is hardly a “poetical device,” unlike your attempt to equate “owning” one’s life with owning a deed.
Wrong. The raw implication of “noncoercion” is that all people (the brutal scum as well as the saintly) will be free to pursue happiness in their own way. Your question to Kimstu was a deliberately loaded question. My condemnation of this nasty little technique was not to defend Kimstu (she does quite well for herself), but to express my own distaste for your rhetoric.
I’m sorry, Lib; that’s not exactly what I intended to say. Your rhetoric is usually much more respectful of the person to whom you’re speaking. I should’ve said “distaste for that kind of rhetoric.”
(Note: I am reverting, for the time being, to my old style of quoting in order to decide how I wish to do it.)
Arnold
False premise and weak paraphrase.
I never said anything would be easy. In fact, the record will show that I have said in these forums many times that life in a libertarian society, where you and you alone are responsible for your well being and happiness, might likely involve struggle and hard work. That depends, as so many things do, on your circumstances, your constitution, and your character.
What I am saying with respect to fire services and the like is that, in Libertaria, your choices are not limited by an entity that claims to dispense your rights to you.
Saying that the poor have no choice shows a remarkable disrespect for the poor. (I should know, having been poor for many years.) We are not retarded. It is not our poverty that keeps us from bettering ourselves; it is our lack of political clout. Have you been to Appalachia lately?
Given a noncoercive free-market, there is no coercion to keep a poor man from becoming a rich one, if that is what would make him happy. Heck, even in our Fabianist market, it happens every day. But here, you must build political clout along with your wealth, lest you find yourself hauled before the Department of Justice (sic) and stripped of your rights.
And I acknowledged those.
Yes. No. Maybe.
In the monarchical society that I would seek out, there wouldn’t be any. In the infinite variety of other systems that remain, there might be none, some, or many.
Libertarian government does not conduct diplomacy.
Have you noticed that Microsoft gave out its operating system source code for free, so that developers like me could write those programs? You can view web pages in Linux.
It is easy to circumvent Microsoft “market dominance”, which dominance is established by its appeal to consumers. You simply make another choice. But if you want to run on a third party ticket, you have no other choice but to dedicate your whole life to campaigns in the several states against a system that is designed for the express purpose of keeping you out.
If the government fails to protect you from any coercion, it stands in breach.
You may contract with whomever you wish. Did you not understand when I told you that your consent is sacred? Of course a contract between two consenting parties may not be unilaterally changed.
Well, your neighbor might not see it as wasteful.
One reason (some) people enjoy the hypotheticals is because they are so easy. You can say, “Let there be light!”, and lo, there is light.
Do you not realize that, if I were to hypothecize in that manner, I could present your Fabianist society as the most horrible context in man’s history?
For example, what if Senator Fatcat and Mister Tycoon make a deal to close the road in front of your home and replace it with a limited access freeway? You decide you don’t want the road closed, and so you fire off a letter to Senator Fatcat, whose secretary responds, thanking you for your concern. But you press on, eventually threatening to infringe upon Senator Fatcat’s ties to his business politician partners. Suddenly, you find yourself on the evening news, presented as a quack who is impeding progess; a former pot smoker in college who had a drunken trist with a man at a rest area when you drove a truck. Not true? No matter. Now, you will be fighting for your reputation instead of your road, long after the freeway is finished.
It is easier to dream up a particular scenario out of infinite possiblities, and then present that as a refutation, than it is to do actual research and learn for yourself.
Since you like easy, here. All you have to do is click this link: Roads Without the State to see one possible solution set to roads. If you will bother to do even a cursory search at Free-Market you can find hundreds more, both online and in books that you can buy.
Those referenda are worthless, as witnessed by Janet Waco sending in her jackbooted thugs to disenforce the California referendum on medical marijuana. Now, Peter McWilliams (and countless others) is dead, having choked to death on his vomit. He requested (and was declined) marijuana for his nausea.
But if you fail to fulfill a contractual obligation to which you freely and willfully consented, what do you expect?
A public project certainly can be a whim. Don’t you watch John Stossel’s “Give me a break”? Wouldn’t you call a dam in a dry lake bed a whim?
Red herring.
Or that you are willing to make happen.
It is astounding that you put up Chavez, who fought a cause for strangers, as an example of what one man can do, while at the same you express an unwillingness to invest any but the most token time to your own son’s education.
Form an ownership group. Find others who share you concerns about education. Start a damn school yourself, hiring whomever you wish, and teaching whatever you want. It is like when someone said he wished there were a discussion about ways to change our society, when all he need do is start a thread.
When you contracted with Libertaria, you gave consent to its arbitration.
What midst?
You are so used to thinking in terms of traditional natioin-states, which draw borders across people property, and then defends those borders with guns. The anarchist may live on his own property, but not on yours. Libertaria does not own your land, nor does it claim eminent domain over it.
Freedom is the absence of coercion, whether you secure that freedom for yourself, or hire a government to do it for you. Of course Libertaria discharges only its contracts with those who have contracted freely and willingly. If you contracted with Mr. Smith for a service, would you be justified in dragging in Mr. Jones, who was not a party to your contract?
Xeno
My point (again) is that critiques of Objectivism are irrelevant with respect to critiques of Libertarianism.
So, if I were to put out a web page titled “Critiques of Existentialism”, and then link you to another page called “Critiques of Marxism”, you would think it a dirty rhetorical trick if someone pointed out that I was offering a change of subject?
You are referring to modern “left liberalism”, which is morphing into “centrism” even as we speak, whose ethic is “the common good”.
“The opposite of the above” clearly meant that a converse accident is the opposite of a dicto simpliciter. The link I gave you supports this, though it is common knowledge.
If you are going to arm people to argue against libertarianism, then why would you present them with guns that shoot Objectivists and Austrians? Yes, Objectivists are against libertarianism on principle, but Huben does not present it that way; rather, he presents it the opposite way, that Objectivism is a type of Libertarianism, and that Objectivism’s founder (who, by false implication, is a Libertarian) is truculent, and that his links will lead you to libertarians arguing against themselves.
Heck, I already gave you that. The discussion boards at Free-Market are chock full of libertarians arguing with each other.
The simple proof, given by Hayek in The Fatal Conceit, that socialist governments are incapable of setting prices is what brought down socialism.
You are using what you consider to be my “logical inconsistencies” (though you have, for whatever reason, scrupulously avoided assailing LaRochelle’s logic) as a diversion tactic to hide the inconsistencies throughout Huben’s pages.
It is Tu Quoque.
Do you honestly think phrases like “oxymoronic claptrap” are anything but inflammatory rhetorical devices?
If you own land which no one may pollute — not just according to an arbitrary minimal standard established by the EPA, which is headquartered in one of the most environmentally sick buildings in the country, but according to your own standards — is that not environmental protection? Or is environmental protection limited to land seized by the lever pullers?
By “real property”, do you mean land? That is your own erroneous assumption. I meant all property, which originally was your life, and then whatever you acquired peacefully and honestly in the course of your life. It is your life, your brain, your wits, your initiative, your volition (note all the genitives, implying possession or ownership) that you used in those acquisitions. Thus, the property given to you by God or nature is the source of all your property. Likewise, the rights associated with your life are associated with all that you have ascquired in your life.
Explain then how the “brutal scum” will usurp your rights even as you are protected from their initiated force and fraud. Criminals (i.e., those who coerce) have no rights, having waived their own by abridging those of others.
You will need a comprehension above that of Huben to effectively argue against libertarianism. At the very least, go to the source, see arguments both for and against, and then formulate your own opinions. C. S. Lewis once advised, “Do not read books about the books until you have read the books.”
To both of you, I apologize for my tone, born of a frustration with false premises, weak paraphrases, tu quoque ad hominems, and endless hypotheticals. Especially the hypotheticals, because you want to be the only side who may engage in them.
You present them like reifications, as though they are counter-example refutations. Yet you refuse to let me participate in them. You want to lay out so-and-so possibility (A), but when I come back with (B) — equally hypothetical — you scream that I did not answer (A) satisfactorily. You want me to trace a trail with you down the infinite branches of your hypotheticals, never straying (I can’t be a badder ass than you; now you are an anarchist, now you are a libertarian; there are two (and only two) fire services, and the poor can afford neither), until you reach the end, where you can proclaim, “There! You see? Libertarianism can’t work!”.
Dammit, if you can suppose, then so can I. Imagine someone who gives a shit about the plight of the poor. You, for example. Is it so hard to imagine that you might, oh, I don’t know, HELP THEM OUT? Or is it just that you give only a hypothetical shit?
Lib I almost went and started a 'Pit thread in response to your last post. Right now, I’m way to angry to try and respond appropriately in GD. I’m NOT going to the 'Pit with this, however, because I want to respond more dispassionately to your arrogance and hypocrisy.
Many of us have shown you the flaws in your logic. Instead of examining your own statements in light of others’ arguments, you assume your own mastery of logic is unassailable, and condescendingly suppose you need to teach us the language of debate!
Many have given you quite reasonable hypotheticals which you’ve done your best to avoid by throwing less reasonable hypotheticals back at them. When they try and interpret your hypothetical into some sort of real answer, you say “No, that was just a hypothetical…”
And your last comment, that only libertarians seriously care about the downtrodden is despicable, and reminds me of the rabid “Christian” missionaries that frequently post here to condemn us all to hell.
To Be Continued when I feel less like flaming you.
I’m sorry for my tone, which is why I apologized. I’ll follow your good lead, and try to recompose myself. I’ll response as dispassionately as I know how.
Were I to unload that statement, I might present it more like this: “Two of us have shown you what we believe to be flaws in your logic.”
And I honestly think that’s generous, since you alone seem concerned with my (but not LaRochelle’s) rebuttals to Huben.
I could easily fall into a tu quoque here ("So do you! Nyah, nyah, nyah!), but in the spirit of your example, I’ll refrain.
Simply because I stick to my guns and believe that I am right does not imply that I gave no consideration to arguments from others. I considered them. I disagree. Must we hate each other on account of this?
Again, there is primarily one (in this thread), not many, who tosses out hypotheticals.
As I explained in some detail, I have no problem with hypotheticals so long as you let me play, too. But it is absurd to expect to raise an uncontested hypothetical as a point of refutation, which amounts to nothing more than a reification (as though your hypothetical were real).
If you are going to debate by raising hypotheticals, you could save a lot of time by taking it whole hog, thus: “Suppose a man owned all the water on earth, and suppose further that he is sociopathic scoundrel who loves nothing more in life than to revel in the misery and suffering of others. How would a libertarian government handle this?”
Not likely that a man could own all the water on earth? Well, what’s to stop him if he acquires it peacefully and honestly? The likelihood of a hypothetical is a subjective judgement call. Why is it more likely that Arnold will succeed in killing his baby than it is that I will rescue it?
I don’t even know what you’re talking about in that regard. If they want real answers, they should ask real questions. If they propose hypotheticals, they should expect counter-hypotheticals.
I’m not a potted plant here, Xeno. Expect that if you assail me, I will defend myself.
That comment, “that only libertarians seriously care about the downtrodden”, is nowhere to be found in anything I posted.
The point was not that you don’t care, but that you ought to put up or shut up. You can’t have your cake and eat it, too. You can’t, on the one hand, say that nobody will care about the plight of the poor, and so the poor won’t have fire protection, while on the other hand saying that a majority of the people do care, and that’s why our government helps the poor out.
Now, I hope I succeeded in maintaining a civil tone. No insults, gratuities, or condescensions toward you were intended.
Libertarian: *Thus, the property given to you by God or nature is the source of all your property. Likewise, the rights associated with your life are associated with all that you have ascquired in your life. *
I just want to point out that this is a big ol’ arbitrary assumption. The fact that you are alive is indeed one of the facts of nature; but the notion that you “own your” life is a purely social construct. God or nature (or chance) did indeed cause your existence, but could perfectly well have ended it immediately thereafter or at any subsequent time, and will most assuredly end it at some point in the future.* So you have no kind of “right” to existence (or anything else) with regard to God or nature or chance. No irritated bear or deadly bacterium—or any other act of God or force of nature or chance event that you happen to encounter—is going to deal with you on the premise that you have a right to your life, your body, or your possessions.
Rights and ownership of any kind are a construct of the human imagination and have meaning only within human societies. Only societies can bestow or defend individual rights, and different societies define those rights in very different ways. You can certainly choose a set of individual rights that you think would be best for society to recognize, and you appear to have chosen such a set based on the notion of ownership and the initial premise that you own your life and your body. Fine, whatever, but that doesn’t imply that your chosen set of rights is a priori more valid than any other.
(Our society, by the way, seems to disagree with the premise that your life is entirely “your property,” despite our use of possessive genitives for it. (That argument from grammatical usage is pretty shaky anyway: we speak of “our” English language too, but who owns that, pray tell?) Surely if you really “own” something, you should be free to destroy it or to seek someone’s help in destroying it, yet many laws criminalize suicide and/or assisted suicide. Again, you may well prefer to define a set of rights that does recognize your life as entirely your property, but that doesn’t mean that no society is allowed to define rights differently from you.)
Libertarian: Libertarian government does not conduct diplomacy.
Just an observation: I am not sure if you are doing this on purpose, but it seems that in order to avoid any difficult issues you try to answer a question as narrowly as possible, avoiding the real intent of the question. Have you been reading books on how to answer a prosecuting attorney’s questions when on the witness stand?
To rephrase my question: If you have a dispute with your neighbour, and your neighbour is not part of the Libertarian government, who resolves those disputes?
Libertarian: Have you noticed that Microsoft gave out its operating system source code for free, so that developers like me could write those programs? You can view web pages in Linux.
What I’ve read is that Microsoft’s offer to open up its source code was a consequence of the company trying to settle its antitrust battle with the Justice Department. Without a coercive government the source code would almost certainly never have been made public. Yes, you can view web pages in Linux, but many browser plug-ins are not available for Linux.
Libertarian: It is easy to circumvent Microsoft “market dominance”, which dominance is established by its appeal to consumers.
I urge you to familiarize yourself with the antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft. Its market dominance was in large part established by anti-competitive practices.
Libertarain: If the government fails to protect you from any coercion, it stands in breach.
Does this mean that the government hires and maintans a police force, judges, a law system, prisons? Does the monarch (in your Libertaria) choose the judges?
Libertarian: You may contract with whomever you wish. Did you not understand when I told you that your consent is sacred? Of course a contract between two consenting parties may not be unilaterally changed.
That does not fully answer the question. Perhaps I need to put the relevant questions in bold? How are laws passed? Are the laws frozen at the time the first citizen signs a contract with the government? What happens when new ethical issues arise, for example issues that are raised by new scientific developments? How does the Libertarian government decide on those issues?
Libertarian: One reason (some) people enjoy the hypotheticals is because they are so easy. You can say, “Let there be light!”, and lo, there is light.
Do you not realize that, if I were to hypothecize in that manner, I could present your Fabianist society as the most horrible context in man’s history?
The reason I am presenting hypotheticals is to find out how a Libertarian government would work in practice. Your answers to most questions are of the order “It will all be fine and everybody will be happy.” Those sunny predictions would not satisfy many people in the “real world.” If I did not have to consider practical issues, I can make any government system sound like paradise on earth.
Libertarian: For example, what if Senator Fatcat and Mister Tycoon make a deal to close the road in front of your home and replace it with a limited access freeway?
Then my property value would be diminished. The public project would have been discussed in citizen’s meetings at city hall before it was implemented, and I could have made my objects known then. In case of a real loss of home value, the government may compensate me for the loss.
I will point out that a similar situation is just as likely in Libertaria. e.g. I have contracted with private company X to use the road adjacent to my property. When my contract reaches its term, private company X informs me that they have decided to destroy the road and build a new Disneyland. I am equally powerless to prevent them. So Libertaria would offer no help a similar scenario.
Libertarian: It is easier to dream up a particular scenario out of infinite possiblities, and then present that as a refutation, than it is to do actual research and learn for yourself.
I’m sorry, I thought you were offering to answer questions. If you no longer wish to do so please let me know and I will cease and desist.
Libertarian: Since you like easy, here. All you have to do is click this link: Roads Without the State to see one possible solution set to roads.
Thank you for the link. I have read the document and see that the proposed solution there is a set of toll roads to replace the highway system. I’m not convinced that a private company would be more efficient than a government in building toll roads. In Southern California (where I live) there are several toll roads that have been built that are losing money. If the company that builds them decides to abandon the project, then some natural habitats will have been destroyed for no good purpose. The free-market solution is proving to be a failure in this case.
Libertarain: Those referenda are worthless (example of oppressive federal government here.)
I suppose this should be another discussion, I only presented referenda as one method that voters can use in this society to pass laws. Of course state laws are subject to constitutional issues, federal jurisdiction, etc…
Libertarian (in re asset forfeiture): But if you fail to fulfill a contractual obligation to which you freely and willfully consented, what do you expect?
Exactly. All I’m pointing out is that asset forfeiture will happen in a Libertarian government as well as our current system of government. You made it sound like asset forfeiture was strictly a feature of what you like to call the “Fabian Socialist Government.”
Libertarian: A public project certainly can be a whim. Don’t you watch John Stossel’s “Give me a break”? Wouldn’t you call a dam in a dry lake bed a whim?
Sorry, not familiar with the case.
Libertarian (in re GE and AT&T): Red herring.
Sorry, you raised the issue in the first place. I am willing to concede that you were bringing up a red herring.
Libertarian: Form an ownership group. Find others who share you concerns about education. Start a damn school yourself, hiring whomever you wish, and teaching whatever you want.
You mean starting a private school. I can do that with the government I have now. I don’t see how the Libertarian solution is any different.
Libertarian: The anarchist may live on his own property, but not on yours. Libertaria does not own your land, nor does it claim eminent domain over it.
Freedom is the absence of coercion, whether you secure that freedom for yourself, or hire a government to do it for you. Of course Libertaria discharges only its contracts with those who have contracted freely and willingly. If you contracted with Mr. Smith for a service, would you be justified in dragging in Mr. Jones, who was not a party to your contract?
Before you were stating that if your anarchist neighbour were to act in contravention to your government’s moral code (in my example: harsh physical discipline of a child), you would feel justified in imposing your moral code upon them. Do you now retract that statement?
My expression “in its midst” might have confused you. I meant that in the real physical sense, e.g. I live in apartment 2B, and I’m a Fabian Socialist, but apartments 2A and 2C are inhabited by citizens of Libertaria.
Libertarian (in re hypothetical cases): You present them like reifications, as though they are counter-example refutations. Yet you refuse to let me participate in them. You want to lay out so-and-so possibility (A), but when I come back with (B) — equally hypothetical — you scream that I did not answer (A) satisfactorily.
I have duly noted your dislike in engaging in practical issues affecting Libertaria. In those practical issues lie the very reasons that Libertarianism in my view is not an effective form a government. As I said before, any government can look good on paper.
At last, an epistemological debate. Thank you. (Please stop posting so infrequently.)
It would indeed be an arbitrary assumption were it decontextualized the way you have presented it. Truly, that which gave you your life, if unprecluded, can take it away.
We are, however, holding a discussion in the context of politics. That is, we are discussing your life and your rights as they relate to other people, not bears or bacteria.
Odd that you appeal to an actual human construct, society, as the source of rights, while claiming (incorrectly) that I am appealing to what you call the human construct of ownership. (An attribute is not necessarily a construct.) Since I have already defined rights in libertarian terms, I would appreciate it if you would define rights in left liberal terms. Otherwise, we are two ships passing in the night. Clearly, your comments on society, rights, and ownership are nonsense in the context of of a libertarian metaphysic.
Nowhere have I presented the libertarian notion as “valid” in such a way that it trumps your own notion. In fact, I have gone to great pains (more than once) to assure you that, libertarianly speaking, you may define rights any way you please. If you want the Clintons or the Bushes or the bears or the butterflies to give you your rights, then more power to you.
What I am giving here (note the title of the thread) is how libertarian societies view rights. This gives you a heads up, for example, if you walk onto the sidewalk of a woman governed by Libertaria, expecting that her property is public and available to you. She will not necessarily engage you in a discussion on the epistemology of rights. She might just eject you.
Just don’t think that rights, as you define them, hold universally.
[sigh…]
Define them however you please. Join Oppressivaria, where everybody has waived his rights. Join Clintonaria, where rights are dispensated according to the measure of your contributions to political campaigns. Join whatever the heck you like.
All I have tried to communicate to you is that libertairanism does not recognize in you (or in anyone) the “right” to make other people join what you join, believe what you believe, or otherwise bully peaceful honest people, and that the government of Libertaria will use whatever force necessary to stop you from doing that with respect to its citizens.
And I did happen to mention several examples of people that were able to produce meaningful change in their lifetimes.