Spiritus
Well, let’s put it this way. Objectivists don’t want me being either Libertarian or Christian, and Christians don’t want me being Objectivist.
Luckily, Libertarians allow me to be anything I please.
But your point is well taken. I should have said, as I did before in so many words, that worshippers of Ayn Rand oppose libertarianism on principle. (Namely, the Noncoercion Axiom.)
And all that without a single typo! Well done, Spiritus!
Arnold
No issue is any more difficult than any other. I interpret them all through the same filter.
May I plead the fifth? 
When you say “not part of the Libertarian government”, do you mean in the sense that they are a Libertarian citizen, but not an arbiter or enforcer, or do you mean in the sense that they are not a citizen of Libertaria? If the former, your arbiter will resolve the dispute. If the latter, whatever agency you assigned when you contracted with your neighbor will resolve the dispute.
But in any case, if you are coerced (and you are a citizen of Libertaria), then your government will defend you or retaliate on your behalf according to the findings of arbitration.
I’m afraid you’ve been misinformed. Microsoft opened its source code more than a decade ago, via what we call the Application Programmer’s Interface. It was a marketing strategy, based on the assumption that people would be more likely to write programs for an operating system whose interface was exposed.
It worked.
Then demand them, commission them, or write them yourself.
That is the opinion of one sour judge, whose hatred of Microsoft is so obvious, in my opinion, as to be laughable. There are other viewpoints on that suit, many of which you can read at Free-Market, some of them by actual attorneys!
Well, it maintains arbitration and enforcement, but there is only one law. The monarch is is the chief enforcer, and may act solely upon the orders of arbiters who are popularly elected.
There are no laws passed. There is no legislation of any kind.
There is only one law, and it does not change.
Nothing.
Suppression of coercion is the only ethical issue before a Libertarian government.
It doesn’t. It doesn’t make decisions about any issue except whether force or fraud has been initiated against one of its citizens.
But it could work any one of a bazillion different ways.
But that’s the nature of hypotheticals, sir. I would never base my decision on the answer to one. If we’re all just supposin’, what’s the use in that? The only utility for hypotheticals is to determine the underlying principle of an argument. But I have given you those principles already. In spades. Therefore, you can answer your own hypotheticals as easily as I can answer them for you.
(Apologies to those who already have heard this a hundred times…)
What is practical depends entirely on what you are practicing. If you are practicing tyranny, then libertarian principles are manifestly impractical. But if you are practicing voluntary human relations in a context of nonaggression, then libertarian principles are the only practical ones there are.
Hypothetically speaking, of course.
Now, let me illustrate to you the tactic that I find to be an annoying waste of time and energy:
But the project is a federal one, and you would have had to have kept up daily with notices posted by the federal government, and would have had to make a trip to Washington (you live in Hawaii) at your own expense. And dang it, when you got there, there wasn’t time for you to speak, so you had to make your objections in triplicate, and the file was lost, and the only person who ever read it was the guy who misplaced it. So you went straight to Senator Fatcat’s office, only to find he wasn’t there. He was out playing golf with Mister Tycoon.
Yeah, see how it goes? First, there were two roads. Now, there is none. [sigh…] Does the guy who built the new Disneyland expect people to fly there in jetpacks?
How can these things possibly be answered, because with every response, you will simply change the scenario. I will answer this one, and then challenge you to exercise your own great intellegence to answer your newly modified one based on the principles I have given you.
If the road you prefer is closed at the end of term, then use another road.
(I know. I know. There aren’t any more roads. All the entrepreneurs have died. There is a shortage of asphalt. A mean man who has hated you since childhood owns all the property surrounding yours. And all of your neighbors are content to stay home and never venture out.)
I expected to answer questions on metaphysics, eptistemology, and ethics, not what possible manifestations might arise out of the Universal Set of hypothetical events.
Mixed metaphor. The market there is not free.
Don’t forget Executive Orders. And the newest method, litigation.
No. Libertaria may not take your property on suspicion of a crime.
Well, I see that it’s no longer in the archive. But for many similar type things see John Stossel’s Archives. You can also see some lively discussion there on such issues.
Presently, there are no private schools.
The following federal laws apply to “private schools”. Nothing is to prevent the expanded scope of new ones:
Age Discrimination Act of 1975, 42 U.S.C.A. 6101 et seq., with implementing regulations at 34 CFR Part 110;
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI), 42 U.S.C.A. 2000d et seq., with implementing regulations at 34 CFR Parts 100 and 101;
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX), 20 U.S.C.A. 1681 et seq., with implementing regulations at 34 CFR Part 106;
Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C.A. 12131 et seq., with implementing regulations at 28 CFR Part 35;
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504), 29 U.S.C.A. 794, with implementing regulations at 34 CFR Part 104;
and
Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (Part B of IDEA), 20 U.S.C.A. 1411 et seq., with implementing regulations at 34 CFR Part 300.
The Libertarian solution is different because you write your own guidelines. You want a school for blue-eyed Cherokee Indians with three toes? Fine. Start one.
No. If you will check back, you will find something like, “But speaking as a Christian…”. The Christian ethic is love. (For the baby in this case.)
Fabian Socialist?
At any rate, all of you are contracted with the apartment’s owner. Unless you’re squatting, of course.
Libertarianism is not a form of government.
It is a political philosophy.
Any form of government (monarchy, democracy, republic, dictatorship, communist collective) may operate in a libertarian context so long as it suppresses coercion.
Libertarian: *At last, an epistemological debate. Thank you. *
No no, thank you.
L: Odd that you appeal to an actual human construct, society, as the source of rights […]
? I don’t quite see what’s odd about it—I never claimed that society wasn’t a human construct. Rights are thus a human construct meaningful only in relation to another human construct.
L: *Since I have already defined rights in libertarian terms, I would appreciate it if you would define rights in left liberal terms. *
That’s kind of a stumper—I don’t think there actually is a single “left liberal philosophy of rights” as there seems to be for Libertarians, or if there is I don’t know it. But I can certainly tell you how I, one reasonable approximation to a left liberal, would define rights.
First, we have to establish whether we’re talking about what the set of rights is or what makes that set of rights valid, i.e., what bestows those rights. As I said, what bestows rights on individuals within a society is that society’s commitment to acknowledge and uphold those rights. As for what rights I think should be so acknowledged…well, I’m definitely in favor of the ones set forth in the Constitution as currently amended, although I wish we could get a clearer consensus on the Second Amendment and I would also like to see the Equal Rights Amendment added to them. I’d favor extending them to include the rights specified in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, although for some reason I’d rather adopt the UN rights as part of membership in a broader society (the UN) than change the Constitution to include them.
L: *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. […] Just don’t think that rights, as you define them, hold universally. *
Why…then everything’s cool! We’re totally in agreement! (Now that I didn’t expect. :)) I too am solidly behind the proposition that rights are legitimately defined differently by different societies (although of course that does not preclude societies’ trying to influence one another’s conception of rights). What I thought you were arguing was that Libertarian rights (e.g. ownership of the body, freedom from all compulsion) were somehow special because they were bestowed by God or nature, as intrinsic to all human existence as breathing or urinating, and that therefore any non-Libertarian society that ever infringed any of those rights was automatically, foundationally, illegitimate.
My mistake, I guess—sorry.
L: 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.
Why sure, in a Libertarian society that would go without saying (though it’s probably not a bad idea to put a sign up anyway :)). But if you live in a society that acknowledges a different set of individual rights, you can’t expect it necessarily to recognize your “right” to own your body or be free from all compulsion or enjoy other Libertarian ideals, and you can’t claim that that automatically invalidates its laws or its government as they relate to you.
Kimstu
You used to pop people’s balloons at birthday parties, didn’t you? 
I’m afraid you and I have come to an agreement, with one possible exception. I’ll leave that for you to say.
Libertarianism recognizes a universal right of consent (born from the unique consciousness given to you by God or nature); that is, you are free to choose whatever society you like, whatever government you like, whatever friends and neighbors you like. But neither you nor anyone else is “free” to override the consent of another person who is peaceful and honest.
There is precedent in your left liberal history (you came from us) for that notion, found here in the precursor document to the Constiution, the Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”
Does left liberalism still hold to this principle?
lol.
Right back atya, Lib. See, I knew thi conversation needed a sprinkle of humor.
BTW, I meant no ridicule in pulling that one sentence out of context. It simply made me chuckle when I read it so I thought I would share the joy.
BTW 2, I don’t really wish to dive headlong into this debate (I think you and I have danced this tune before) but I had to respond to your Microsoft comment. APIs are not a release of the OS source code. APIs are hooks into the OS soure, but they do not come close to representing the whole picture. There are open source operating systems on teh market, but WINDOWS ain’t one of 'em.
Minor point of fact, by as a dedicated Unix hack I have a contractual obligation to slap down the GUI beast whenever possible.
ChiefWahoo
As an Objectivist, I strongly protest your self-characterization as an Objectivist.
While your protest is duly noted, you will understand that your being an Objectivist confers upon you no mystical authority over me.
If you have merely taken what you like out of the philosophy and abandoned the fundamentals, you have no cause in calling yourself an Objectivist.
What I have done is the opposite. I have retained the fundamentals while discarding the ornamentals.
OK,Lib,
In what way did I imply that in being an Objectivist I have mystical power over you?
You are a self-titled Objectivist Christian.
Objectivism:Your life is the ultimate value.
Christianity:“Greater love has no man than this,that he lay down his life for his friends.”
Objectivism: Reason is your tool for knowledge.
Christianity:Knowledge is acquired through faith,prophecy,and revelation.
Objectivism:The goal of all proper action is to remain alive.
Christianity: The goal of all proper action is to die and recieve your eternal reward.
Acoording to Christianity, He was born of a Virgin. Do you believe this? What about Jesus’ turning water into wine? That would be a violation of identity.Or is He omnipotent? Impossible, by the axioms set forth in Objectivism.
True Objectivism can not be reconciled with true Christianity. If you claim to be both, you are neither. Apparently you are saying that you are a Christian who acts in his own self-interest. YOU ARE A LIVING PARADOX!
Libertarian: *You used to pop people’s balloons at birthday parties, didn’t you? *
Nope, I was the little girl cowering in the corner with her hands over her ears when that started. Balloon popping…ooh, bad craziness.
L: There is precedent in your left liberal history (you came from us)
Thank heavens, something we can disagree about again! I don’t agree that libertarianism and classical liberalism are the same thing, though I think it’s reasonable to say that both modern liberalism and libertarianism are ultimately descended from classical liberalism. To my thinking, there are enough major differences between classical-liberal (as in this example) and libertarian thinking to show that some serious speciation has happened in the intervening time.
L: *for that notion, found here in the precursor document to the Constiution, the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…"
Does left liberalism still hold to this principle?*
Well, I’ve already disclaimed the role of spokesperson for left-liberalism in general, but again, I can answer for myself. Do governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed? Sure. That’s why the people who make our laws have to be popularly elected representatives, and why the US maintains (unlike China and Cuba, say) the free emigration policy that Cecil explained to us. A government may not justly obligate a person to continue under its governance without his or her consent.
Does that principle imply that a government may not justly do anything without first obtaining the explicit and particular consent of every one of the governed? Heck, no.
Libertarian wrote:
And only this June 16th, 4 days before Wally passed away, too.
I have an old humor book he wrote called The McWilliams II Word Processor (the “word processor” was a pencil, get it?), and a copy of Ain’t Nobody’s Business If You Do that I still refer to from time to time. I even have an e-mail from him I first read a couple of years ago, still sitting in my Inbox (I said I was going to vote Yes on California’s medical marijuana referendum, and he replied, “As an AIDS/cancer patient, I thank you.”).
I never met him, or even chatted with him online, but damn, I’m gonna miss that guy. 
Do all libertarians believe that rights are established by a diety or nature as opposed to agreed upon by societies?
What do you see as the benefits of a monarchy vs a democracy?
I am interested in your answers to this question assuming a libertarain context in both and in neither.
Libertarian: When you say “not part of the Libertarian government”, do you mean in the sense that they are a Libertarian citizen, but not an arbiter or enforcer, or do you mean in the sense that they are not a citizen of Libertaria? If the former, your arbiter will resolve the dispute. If the latter, whatever agency you assigned when you contracted with your neighbor will resolve the dispute.
Does this mean that when a neighbour moves into the aparment/townhouse/condo next to me, he has to sign a contract with me first? If I buy a property between two other properties, I have to sign contracts with both people? Even (or especially) if I am not part of their government?
Libertarian: But in any case, if you are coerced (and you are a citizen of Libertaria), then your government will defend you or retaliate on your behalf according to the findings of arbitration.
In my example, I meant “not a citizen of Libertaria.” I’m not sure how an arbiter can decide for me (the non-citizen) since I probably will have different arbiters than the citizen of Libertaria. Therefore the government of Libertaria will be exerting its authority upon citizens of other governments. Authority that I may well view as being immoral and illegal since your definition of non-coercion may very well be different than mine. You had stated “Libertaria does not engage in diplomacy”, but this sounds like diplomatic negotiations with the other citizen’s government may be required.
Libertarian: I’m afraid you’ve been misinformed. Microsoft opened its source code more than a decade ago, via what we call the Application Programmer’s Interface. It was a marketing strategy, based on the assumption that people would be more likely to write programs for an operating system whose interface was exposed.
As Spiritus Mundi has pointed out, this is not what you said before (“published the source code”), but it’s just a technicality that may not be obvious to someone not well-versed in the field of computer science. In any event, it’s not an important point.
Libertarian (in re the Microsoft source code): Then demand them, commission them, or write them yourself.
I am not demanding the Microsoft source code, I am demanding that Microsoft cease its unfair business practices.
Libertarian (in re the Microsoft antitrust suit):
That is the opinion of one sour judge, whose hatred of Microsoft is so obvious, in my opinion, as to be laughable. There are other viewpoints on that suit, many of which you can read at Free-Market, some of them by actual attorneys!
I can just as well point you to many opinions that view the judgment as being justified. Many of them from actual people in the computer science industry, who understand the technical issues involved, and many from attorneys. You are free, of course, to disagree with the judge. Nonetheless his judgment stands (for now, I realize of course that a company like Microsoft, with such a large budget, can appeal any unfavourable decision to death. And I don’t begrudge Microsoft the right to appeal.)
Libertarian: Well, it maintains arbitration and enforcement, but there is only one law. The monarch is is the chief enforcer, and may act solely upon the orders of arbiters who are popularly elected.
Populary elected? Is this a unanimous vote? Does every arbiter need to be approved by every citizen? If not, then this is the majority imposing their will upon the minority. If every arbiter does need to be approved by every citizen, then it would be almost impossible to find arbiters.
By the way, how are the enforcers chosen?
Libertarian: There are no laws passed. There is no legislation of any kind.
There is only one law, and it does not change.
Suppression of coercion is the only ethical issue before a Libertarian government.
This is naive in the extreme. Even with the attempt at preciseness in the language of our complex legal system issues are not always cut and dry. If every arbiter is issued only one law (suppression of coercion), then it seems obvious that any two arbiters will have different interpretation of the law when forced to apply it. (As a relevant example, look at the different interpretations of any verse in the Bible.) There will be no consistency in the application of justice. If an arbiter has an incorrect interpretation (in my view) of the single law in Libertaria, is a popular vote needed to remove her? Or does this have to be a unanimous decision by all citizens?
Please note also that arbiters and enforcers will have authority over people the same way that Senator Fatcat has now. To use your example, if an arbiter finds against me and I want to ask her for redress, I may very well find that arbiter Fatcat has gone to lunch with businesswoman Moneybags. The potential for injustice is there just as well as in our current government.
Libertarian (in re new scientific developments): It doesn’t. It doesn’t make decisions about any issue except whether force or fraud has been initiated against one of its citizens.
But a new scientific development may very well influence the way force or fraud is defined, or determined by an arbiter. Let us take the example of DNA testing. Is an arbiter required to abide by the results of DNA testing in, for example, the case of rape? Or does an arbiter have the choice to go with their “gut feeling” and ignore DNA testing because she doesn’t “believe” in it?
Libertarian (in re 'how does a libertarian government work): But it could work any one of a bazillion different ways.
What I mean by my questions in this thread “Ask the Libertarian…” is ‘how does YOUR Libertarian government work.’
Libertarian: But I have given you those principles already. In spades. Therefore, you can answer your own hypotheticals as easily as I can answer them for you.
OK, please note that I answered one of my own hypotheticals above (concerning the judicial system), and found that the answer is that the Libertarian government will lead to lack of consistency in enforcing the law, the tyranny of the majority upon the minority, and the risk of abuse of authority.
Libertarian: (Apologies to those who already have heard this a hundred times…)
I’m sorry that this may seem to you like rehashing the same subject over and over, but if you think that you are repeating yourself, then perhaps the time has come to cease discussing this issue? I am not advocating any course of action for you, but if you grow weary of these discussions I will not blame you.
Libertarian: What is practical depends entirely on what you are practicing. If you are practicing tyranny, then libertarian principles are manifestly impractical. But if you are practicing voluntary human relations in a context of nonaggression, then libertarian principles are the only practical ones there are.
This sounds like wordplay to me. What I say “practical issues”, I use the word practical in the sense “of, relating to, or manifested in practice or action : not theoretical or ideal”. In theory, almost any political philosophy can be made to sound acceptable.
Libertarian (in re how my dispute with the government would be resolved:) Hypothetically speaking, of course. (then proceeds to illustrate that my method for resolving the governmental abuse of power could very well fail)
Yes, if the people we appoint to positions of authority over us are corrupt, then injustices may very well occur. (See my discussion of the Libertarian arbiters above)
Libertarian (in re my road example): If the road you prefer is closed at the end of term, then use another road.
I suppose I could use this response to the example you had given, where senator Fatcat has stolen my road. I was only pointing out that the Libertarian citizen is dependent on other entities for his well-being in the same way I am dependent on my government.
Libertarian: I expected to answer questions on metaphysics, eptistemology, and ethics, not what possible manifestations might arise out of the Universal Set of hypothetical events.
I’m sorry to disappoint you. I personally am more interested in the practical applications of your philosophy of government. As I said above, if you wish me to cease questioning you, just give me the word and I will go away.
Libertarian (in re toll roads): Mixed metaphor. The market there is not free.
The USA has one of the least regulated markets in the Western Industrialized world. Since you are arguing for unregulated capitalism, I will point out that socialist laws arose due to the perceived injustices caused by unrestricted capitalism.
Libertarian (in re assert forfeiture): No. Libertaria may not take your property on suspicion of a crime.
I don’t understand then, what happens to me if I am in breach of contract? If my property is not taken, then what is my punishment?
Libertarian (in re private schools): Presently, there are no private schools. (lists example of federal laws that govern private schools.)
Concerning the issue of education, you had said previously The standard for the parent, in this regard, is even greater than the standard for government, since government may refuse to contract with you (and you with it), but the parent is already under a contract with the child, which he must not breach. I took that to mean that there are certain educational standards that a parent is expected to fulfill. This is in part why we have regulations covering our schools. Other reasons being for the safety of the students, to ensure equal access to most students, etc…
Libertarian: The Libertarian solution is different because you write your own guidelines. You want a school for blue-eyed Cherokee Indians with three toes? Fine. Start one.
The freedom for businesses to discriminate based on arbitrary or even ridiculous criteria is, in my view, one of the least attractive aspects of Libertaria.
Libertarian (in re Libertaria imposing its moral code upon a non-citizen neighbour): No. If you will check back, you will find something like, “But speaking as a Christian…”. The Christian ethic is love. (For the baby in this case.)
I suppose you mean by this that the enforcers of Libertaria would not support you in your attempt to impose your moral code upon me? This would then become vigilante justice. Another unpalatable idea in my view.
Libertarian: Fabian Socialist?
I apologize for using a term unfamiliar to you. You can find a definition here. Perhaps you prefer the term Fabianist. In any event, I had no reason to pick that in my example, any government type other than the monarchist Libertaria would have served for the purposes of discussion.
Libertarian: At any rate, all of you are contracted with the apartment’s owner.
Who could belong to yet another government. See my discussion above about resolving differences of opinion amongst people of different governments.
Libertarian: Libertarianism is not a form of government. It is a political philosophy.
I apologize for my lack of precision. In the future I will say “monarchy that follows the guidelines of the Libertarian political philosophy.” I choose monarchy because you had stated that would be your preferred form of government, and since I am asking you how your government would work, I will direct my questions to your “parameters.”
Spiritus
Egad, you’re right! I shouldn’t have called that a release of the source code. My error.
Chief Wahoo
The implication of your protest against what I title my philosophy (which you have yet to get right) was that I must desist.
No, I am not.
Now we have the following equivocations:
It is your Spiritual Life that is the ultimate value, which is born by voluntary and volitional submission of your ego eimi to the Owner of the Heaveans and the Earth.
The brain is for apprehension. The heart is for comprehension.
The death of the old is the birth of the new. You needn’t wait for your cells to decay to enter the Kingdom of God.
“The Kingdom of Heaven is within you.” — Jesus
Yes. But it is not according to Christianity; it is according to the writers of the Gospels.
Morphing atoms is a violation of identity? Good thing Rand was a 10th century figure, rather than a 20th. Most everything we’re doing today is impossible.
Yes, I know. “True” Objectivism. She is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to Objectivity except by her.
Consider, if you wish, that my Objectivism is not “True”. Makes no difference to me.
Kimstu
My apologies. What are you, then. A Centrist?
But will it force him to abandon his property, or does it claim eminent ownership of it?
Tracer
It is my most fervent hope to stir up that great well of compassion in left liberals that they pour onto a faceless society in wave after wave, such that at least some of it might spill over onto individuals with beating hearts, thinking brains, and eternal Spirits.
2Sense
To be a libertarian, it is only necessary that you believe every person has the right to be free from the coercion and fraud of all other people.
It might be easier to take down one tyrant than to take down a hundred million of them.
Well, that’s easy:
Libertarian Monarchy: The queen secures the rights of the citizens.
Antilibertarian Monarchy: The queen abridges the rights of the citizens.
Libertarian Democracy: The majority secures the rights of the citizens.
Antilibertarian Democracy: The majority abridges the rights of the citizens.
Arnold
I’m so lost in the bowels of your hypothetical that I cannot remember which witch was which.
You do not have to sign contracts with anyone. But contracts are proof of consent; therefore, a prudent man will make use of them. With respect to property, rights inhere to the owner. You have yours, and the man beside you has his.
Again, Libertarian government recognizes nothing but its own obligation, which is to its citizen. It has no obligation whatsoever to anarchists, citizens of other governments, or agents of other governments. It will use whatever force necessary to restore its citizen when he has been coerced, no matter whether the source of that coercion is a solitary thug or a nation-state.
Yes, I was wrong in that regard. Thank you for the kindness of your indulgence.
What do you mean by unfair?
Are you from England?
If you don’t like the way we do things, don’t sign the contract. Seek out a government whose form you like, or start your own.
The arbiters are elected by majority vote, consent to which was given by each citizen. The enforcers are chosen by the monarch.
No, it isn’t.
That is as it should be. Every person and every situation is quite different. That’s why centralized laws (especially those as complex as ours) are naive in the extreme.
To apply a single law regarding housing, for example, to those who live in South Central Los Angeles as well as to those who live in rural Idaho is patently absurd.
If you believe the arbiter has coerced or defrauded you, then you may bring charges against her. Or, at your discretion, you may vote her out the following year.
Are you concerned about a quid pro quo between them? Of what? She has no power to challenge your authority over your property, no power to take anything from you, no power to give Moneybags any status, property, or favor. Moneybags wouldn’t waste his time with her.
You are used to thinking of government as a Nanny.
The arbiter has full discretion in determining whether force or fraud has been initiated for a particular case. But if you prefer an arbiter who “believes in DNA”, then select her to arbitrate your dispute.
Oh.
Then form one (or join one) that you believe is less risky.
Please understand that I have been answering these questions for a long time and that I do often repeat. Disclaimers are for the sake of those who have been here as long as I have. I do realize that newbies have never heard any of this.
Yes, and that is what I said. What principles are practical depend entirely on what you are practicing.
Ay, there’s the rub. Corruption.
It will bring down Libertaria just as easily as it will bring down Tyrannia. Keep the power to the minimum for maximum hope.
If you went away, I would feel a loss.
But sadly, you are limiting yourself to one person’s vision of how to apply libertarianism, when you could see the views of thousands of others, and perhaps begin the wonderful exercise of envisioning your own.
Let us clarify this again.
I am not arguing for unregulated capitalism. I am arguing for capitalism in a context of noncoercion. Make all the money you please; just don’t think you can buy anything of mine without my consent.
But the parent (not government) decides on those standards. Wouldn’t you really rather decide on the standards for your children, or would you rather leave that up to Miss Paperpusher at the Department of Education thousands of miles away?
Then don’t join it.
But surely more palatable than leaving babies to be beaten, no?
Yes, I do. Socialism is one thing; Fabianism is another. Mixing terms that way can lead to careless analogies, like linking libertarianism with unregulated capitalism.
No problem. Just trying to keep everything clear.
Libertarian replied to me:
No apology required (on this point). As I said before, I do consider myself a reasonable approximation to a left liberal, I simply do not undertake to speak for “left-liberalism” in the abstract because I think it’s much more diverse than my own individual views.
However, I do identify myself with other left liberals sufficiently to resent in the extreme your indefensible remark to tracer that left liberals have compassion for “faceless society” but none for “individuals with beating hearts and thinking brains”. The ACLU, a strongly left-liberal organization, helps defend the rights of thousands of actual living individuals each year, and the legalization campaign that might have saved the late Mr. McWilliams and many others was fervently supported by many left liberals. All civil liberties of real individuals in this society would be in much worse shape if it weren’t for left liberals, and you’ll also find a large proportion of left liberals in the front lines of compassionate endeavors to help and empower our individual fellow citizens.
Yours is the sort of comment that invites the accusation of indulging in “dirty rhetorical tricks.” I don’t go around claiming that Libertarians are all selfish and greedy plutocrat wannabes, and you should refrain from making similarly inaccurate and offensive statements about the personal beliefs and feelings of people of other political persuasions.
Not sure I get your meaning here—are you asking whether former citizens of the state are allowed to own property in it? As far as I know, any non-US citizen may own property in the US.
In fact, I’m not sure I understand what you’re getting at overall in our present exchange. It seemed to me that at first we were discussing the validity of the concept of “natural rights,” and then you wanted to know if I thought a government derived its just powers from the consent of the governed, and now you seem to be asking what the property rights of the formerly-governed would be. Is there a particular point that this is intended ultimately to clarify? To me, for lack of seeing what it is you’re driving at, this feels rather like trying to follow a grasshopper.
Kimstu
I regret my sweeping generalization, and apologize to you and to other left liberals who do indeed have compassion for individuals, leaving them to pursue their own happiness in their own way peacefully and honestly. But I would be most delighted to learn of left liberals who believe that you shouldn’t take either a man’s money or his marijuana from him against his will, for purposes deemed good or necessary by society (like The State’s treasury, for example).
I suppose I am trying to find grounds for a debate.
You and I are discussing values that left liberals and libertarians (for the most part) share in common, rather than those where we part ways. Presently, I was asking about your views on secession (in the context of withholding consent), thinking you might oppose it.
Libertarian: You do not have to sign contracts with anyone. But contracts are proof of consent; therefore, a prudent man will make use of them. With respect to property, rights inhere to the owner. You have yours, and the man beside you has his.
Before, when I had said “How do you resolve disputes with your neighbour who is not a citizen of Libertaria”, you had said “whatever agency you assigned when you contracted with your neighbor will resolve the dispute.” But the contract may or may not exist. A more precise answer would have been “the dispute will be resolved using the contract you had signed with your neighbour, assuming one exists; otherwise the dispute will not be resolved.”
Libertarian: Again, Libertarian government recognizes nothing but its own obligation, which is to its citizen. It has no obligation whatsoever to anarchists, citizens of other governments, or agents of other governments. It will use whatever force necessary to restore its citizen when he has been coerced, no matter whether the source of that coercion is a solitary thug or a nation-state.
Therefore, the obligation of the Libertarian government (I know you said there was no such thing, but I’ll just use the same term you do) will include enforcing its moral code upon non-citizens of Libertaria to defend its citizens. It will be guilty of coercion, just not upon its own citizens.
Libertarian: Thank you for the kindness of your indulgence.
Don’t mention it. Or actually please do mention it, I love feeling generous and magnanimous.
Libertarian (in re Microsoft): What do you mean by unfair [business practices]?
Do you really want to rehash the Microsoft court case in this thread? I submit to you that this debate would be complex enough to warrant a whole other thread.
Libertarian: Are you from England?
No, dual citizen of Switzerland and United States of America.
Libertarian: The arbiters are elected by majority vote, consent to which was given by each citizen. The enforcers are chosen by the monarch.
So I as a citizen have freely consented to the tyranny of the majority, and allowing the carnie of government to have authority over me. I suppose that if I have freely consented then I can’t complain when the government abuses its power.
You say “consent to which was given by each citizen.” This must have been specified in the contract I signed when I joined Libertaria. So contract law is the main source for determining legal issues in Libertaria (e.g. how arbiters are chosen, how enforcers are chosen, etc…). Do all the citizens have to sign the same contract, or can they ask for amendments before signing? If they are allowed amendments, does the monarch decide which amendments s/he will accept in the contract for a citizen of Libertaria? Who is signing the contract on behalf of Libertaria?
Libertarian (in re the statement ‘relying on as single law is naive’): No, it isn’t.
Yes it is (times infinity). Top that! 
Libertarian (in re laws being interpreted by the arbiter): That is as it should be. Every person and every situation is quite different. That’s why centralized laws (especially those as complex as ours) are naive in the extreme.
It therefore also means that I may see my neighbour engaging in an activity approved by an arbiter, I might assume that activity A is allowed under the law of Libertaria, and when I engage in it, arbiter B may very well decide that arbiter A has incorrectly interpreted the law and forbid me from engaging in the same activity because it contravenes the law of Libertaria. Correct?
Libertarian: If you believe the arbiter has coerced or defrauded you, then you may bring charges against her. Or, at your discretion, you may vote her out the following year.
Fair enough.
Libertarian: Are you concerned about a quid pro quo between them? Of what? She (the arbiter) has no power to challenge your authority over your property, no power to take anything from you, no power to give Moneybags any status, property, or favor. Moneybags wouldn’t waste his time with her.
She has the power to decide whether or not in my contract dispute with businesswoman Moneybags I am the wronged person or businesswoman Moneybags is the wronged person. The outcome of the judgment may very well be a financial compensation. The arbiter will order one of the parties in the contract dispute to turn over a portion of their (financial) property to the wronged party. Therefore, the arbiter has authority over my property.
Libertarian: You are used to thinking of government as a Nanny.
Yes, but a benevolent Nanny, in the Mary Poppins mode. Who can think of Julie Andrews’ charming portrayal in that movie without feeling their spirits lifted, and a song rising to their lips?
Libertarian: The arbiter has full discretion in determining whether force or fraud has been initiated for a particular case. But if you prefer an arbiter who “believes in DNA”, then select her to arbitrate your dispute.
An arbiter is usually deciding a case involving two people. In the example of a rape case, I have DNA evidence that in my mind proves that person X is guilty. Person X, of course, would prefer that this evidence not be admitted in court. Who gets to choose the arbiter? I, the plaintiff, or Person X, the defendant?
Libertarian (in re my dislike of Libertaria): Then form one (or join one) that you believe is less risky.
I have, it’s the USA (as we all know, Libertaria can have many forms of government.)
Libertaria (in re corruption:) It will bring down Libertaria just as easily as it will bring down Tyrannia. Keep the power to the minimum for maximum hope.
Can’t argue with that. The smaller the government, the easier it is for me to ignore it and/or rebel against it.
Libertarian: But sadly, you are limiting yourself to one person’s vision of how to apply libertarianism, when you could see the views of thousands of others, and perhaps begin the wonderful exercise of envisioning your own.
Don’t sell yourself short! Of course, I could see the views of thousands of others, and those thousands of others will have thousands of different governments. A daunting task indeed! But since you’re here, I’ll pick your brain first.
As far as envisioning my own, I already have, and it’s not a government obeying Libertarian principles (unless you’re willing to accept my statement above that USA is a form of Libertaria.)
Libertaria: I am not arguing for unregulated capitalism. I am arguing for capitalism in a context of noncoercion. Make all the money you please; just don’t think you can buy anything of mine without my consent.
OK, I will rephrase my sentence to say “almost unregulated capitalism” instead of “unregulated capitalism.”
Libertarian (in re the education of children): But the parent (not government) decides on those standards. Wouldn’t you really rather decide on the standards for your children, or would you rather leave that up to Miss Paperpusher at the Department of Education thousands of miles away?
So if every one is in charge of choosing their own standard, then I as a parent am free to refuse education to my child, or for example teach them that evolution is bunk, the world is flat and diseases can be healed by prayer. Or is there a point at which the (lack of education) I am giving my child can be considered a breach of the implied social contract I have with my child?
Libertarian (in re joining Libertarian): Then don’t join it.
So far I haven’t seen any compelling reasons to join it. My questions to you are to help me decide if the libertarian political thought is an effective basis for a government.
Libertarian: But surely more palatable than leaving babies to be beaten, no?
Yes. My problem is that you, a citizen of Libertaria, have taken it upon yourself to decide what is an appropriate level of discipline for me, the anarchist. Isn’t that coercion? Not everyone will have the same ideas on raising children. I, the anarchist, will have no recourse. I can’t appeal to the arbiters of Libertaria, since I’m not a citizen of Libertaria. You have the enforcers of Libertaria to protect you, I have nothing.
Libertarian: Yes, I do. Socialism is one thing; Fabianism is another. Mixing terms that way can lead to careless analogies, like linking libertarianism with unregulated capitalism.
Perhaps I should let the editors of Encyclopædia Britannica know that their article contains an error.
“Who can think of Julie Andrews’ charming portrayal in that movie without feeling their spirits lifted, and a song rising to their lips?”
Thanks, Arnold, now I can’t get that damn Spoonful of Sugar out of my head!