Ask the Libertarian Objectivist Christian

[xenophon41]

Lib I’m not gonna waste much of our time here. I just read through everything I missed since I stomped off in a huff. Not much has changed.

I really have no interest in defending Mike Huben’s site, although it’s understandable that you thought so. My intention was to take some wind out of your sails, as your voyage through the wonderful world of logical fallacies has apparently left you so smitten with the beauty of Boolean logic and deductive argument that you tend to overutilise the language while underemploying the rules.

Why did I decide to take umbrage with your list of objections? Simply put, I felt suckered when I started following your references to the Huben comments. Up to that point I had skimmed only a few of Huben’s links (mostly Humor and Satire). When I saw your post, I thought “Oh, Lib’s found some problems with the site,” whereupon I followed not only your links to the list of fallacies, but also took a harder look at the site in question.

It quickly became apparent to me that you were applying Huben’s various introductory comments to a supposed general argument against libertarianism. Since Huben’s site is not offered as a general argument against libertarianism, and he does not attempt to make any direct arguments in his site (see the About this Site section), I wondered why you were deliberately mislabelling his introductory remarks as fallacies. I decided that it would be uncharitable to assume that you did it for the cool appearance of superiority your objections would provide (these Latin terms sure are impressive when cited in refutations of other people’s statements), but that you probably should be cautioned about your abuse of the fine and sharp tools provided by the Atheism Web, before you cut yourself too badly.

Since you and LaRochelle might as well be joined at the hip in terms of your rhetorical technique, I should’ve just quoted Huben re: LaRochelle and left it at that:

By far the largest of the criticisms, though it is fundamentally flawed. The biggest error is his misunderstanding of FAQ-nature: presentation of useful background for newsgroups, rather than the most rigorous possible argument. Comical touches are accusations of fallacies (which he commits frequently in his criticisms) and the frequent portraits of the authorities he likes. Major flaws include definition of libertarianism as the glittering generality “libertarianism is the ideology that aggression is bad”, assumption that rejection of libertarianism means preference for its diametric opposite, and the pretense that property, rights, and common law are not created by force, without consent.

Hypotheticals

Since Libertaria itself is a hypothetical, I’m quite surprised at your continued refusal to explore your beloved mental construct within the mirror provided by the hypothetical situations Arnold and Kimstu have posed. However, I understand how pointless it is for me to insist on straight answers from you. It’s your thread, after all, and I don’t really care to upset any of the other conversations going on in it. Your most recent response to Arnold (6/29 @ 10:41am) supports my charge that you duck the hard questions far better than any argument from me could do. It seems that you are becoming the ideal self-parodist.

I objected to this statement of yours:

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?

While I mischaracterized you, in my anger, as saying that “only libertarians care about the downtrodden” it’s certainly a provocative and peurile charge that those who question Libertaria’s ability to deal with poverty are themselves bereft of empathy! You seem to want us to do your work for you, and tell you how your vaunted system of non-coercion would work in real world conditions. Silly me! I must’ve read too much into the title of your thread, as I expected you to try and actually answer the questions put to the LOC. As you said yourself: “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 admonished us:

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.

I haven’t seen anyone do that on this thread. What some are saying is that our government provides a system whereby the poor are helped, whereas Libertaria provides no such system. (Or if it does, you aint sharin’ that information.)

[Kimstu]

Libertarian: I regret my sweeping generalization, and apologize to you and to other left liberals who do indeed have compassion for individuals […]

Okay then, sorry I snapped at you.

L: *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). *

That sounds to me as though you are looking for people who are both left liberal and libertarian—probably not a large set! To clarify: I and many other left liberals, particularly ACLU’ers, often describe ourselves as committed civil libertarians, meaning we are for rigorous enforcement of the individual freedoms specified in the Constitution. But we are not libertarians per se, because we don’t dispute the essential legitimacy of governmental acts provided for elsewhere in the Constitution (such as taxation) that a libertarian society would call unlawful coercion.

L: Presently, I was asking about your views on secession (in the context of withholding consent), thinking you might oppose it.

Oh okay, I get it: you are asking whether the formerly-governed have a right to maintain property within their former sovereign state in the form of a separate state. Hmmm. IANAL, but I believe that most constitutional scholars hold that the Constitution prohibits secession from the US (probably on the basis of Sections 3 and 4 of Article II, though I hasten to reiterate that I’m no expert), although some others disagree.

• Do I think that the Constitution can legitimately prohibit secession? Sure; after all, your property within a nation-state is only recognized as yours because the sovereign authority of the nation is willing to back up your claim to it, so why should the nation support you in refusing to recognize that authority?

• Do I think the Constitution ought to prohibit secession? Not so sure. I can certainly think of hypothetical situations in which I would consider secession the best solution (for example, the twentieth-century colonial independence movements in Asia and Africa). And there is something to be said in favor of maintaining the option of secession, like that of emigration, in order to curb government complacency about citizens’ support for it. But I think we’d have to pass a constitutional amendment, with pretty strict anti-frivolity safeguards, if we really wish to make that a viable option.

And I must say that as a practical possibility, the chances of successfully seceding from the US in order to form a state that has no intention of recognizing the US government or engaging in international diplomacy seem pretty much nil. Any legislator could foretell the outcome with half an eye: little Libertaria will refuse to make treaties or have any official dealings with the US, and sooner or later the Queen of Libertaria will do something that the US considers an act of aggression (maybe punishing a US citizen for committing what Libertaria calls coercion upon a Libertarian citizen). Boom, Congress will declare war, in roll the tanks, and Libertaria is conquered and probably re-annexed. Who needs the aggravation? If disaffected citizens want to start a new state that refuses to maintain any diplomatic relations, let 'em go start it somewhere else, preferably in a different galaxy: that’s what the legislators, and the vast majority of citizens, will think.

[pldennison]

What some are saying is that our government provides a system whereby the poor are helped, whereas Libertaria provides no such system. (Or if it does, you aint sharin’ that information.)

I would venture a guess that the “system” in Libertaria is that those who want to help the poor will, and those who don’t won’t. It certainly would make people selective about who they want to have as neighbors.

Look at it this way (and forgive me if this is poorly explained or unsophisticated–I tend not to be very good at these thought experiments):

For the purposes of these few paragraphs, nation-states do not exist, and there is no government claiming eminent domain over the land on which I and my neighbors live. We don’t even have to imagine Libertaria exists. There don’t have to be any governments at all.

Because there is no such government, there are no government-provided fire or safety services. There are, however, entrepreneurs who have found it profitable to offer fire protection services to any nearby residents who want to buy them.

I am Mister B. I live between Mr. A and Mr. C. A and C have contracted with one of the local fire protection companies. I, being near the poverty line, have not.

One night my house catches fire. I am in a pickle, am I not? After all, I have no recourse for fire protection, because I cannot afford it. So my house is going to burn to the ground, right?

Well, we can be assured that, at some point, Messrs. A and C are going to call their fire protection service. After all, they at least need to be on hand should the fire spread; they’re going to want to have it contained to my property, at a minimum.

Now, here, there are several things that could happen:

1. A and C can direct their fire protection service to contain the fire outside their property line but let mine burn. This is certainly a pragmatic option, but it certainly isn’t very neighborly. I may be poor, but I may also provide some service A and/or C may want sometime, and I may remember that they could have kept my house from burning and didn’t.

2. A and C could simply not call their fire service at all. This would be manifestly stupid, as their houses would almost certainly catch fire as well, should the blaze continue unabated.

3. A and/or C can offer to have my house put out, and offer to pay for it. This would be the act of a compassionate person and a good neighbor.

4. A and/or C can offer to have my house put out and pay them for it later somehow. This is also fairly compassionate and neighborly, and practical as well.

If I am B, I hope I have chosen not to live next to people who would act like A and C do in choices 1 and 2. I suspect most people would be more likely to act like they do in 3 and 4.

[xenophon41]

Good “thought experimenting” there, pldennison, but let’s posit a more likely situation:

I am Mr. B. I live in Neighborhood Y, which is across the railroad tracks from Neighborhood Z, and down the river from Neighborhood X. Nieghborhoods X and Z are pretty well covered by a variety of fire protection services. My nieghborhood (Y) has much lower property values and predominantly houses what would’ve been called “the working poor” in the USA. Only a few of us can afford the service, and in any case there’s only one service that will venture into our neighborhood, and they are unreliable.

Therefore, we’ve formed our own volunteer fire department, which we equip however we can, using pooled resources. (Typically, we form a bucket brigade, which is not very good for large fires, but keeps the department operating within budget.) Operation of the fire department within our neighborhood causes us to adapt other forms of public effort on a community basis. Since this type of cooperative effort seems to produce results, we’ve decided to secede from the rest of the town and form a commune.

Sooner or later, as our growing nest of communism begins to cause unrest in the other neighborhoods, Mr. A and Mr. C lead a vigilante crowd (in a purely reactive action, as they would never “initiate” force) and we are herded into the “Ask the Commie Bastard” thread, never to be heard from again.

[August_West]

Lib, your refutations of my comparisons makes it clear to me that there is no point in continuing my objections. If you were an Objectivist, you would know that you are sowing the seeds of your own destruction by trying to have it both ways. Call yourself whatever you want. I think I’ll call myself a Christian because I like the name Chris. I just won’t bother with all the beliefs and such.Adios.

[Liberal]

Arnold

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.

Well, that’s up to you, Arnold, whether there exists a contract or not. If you do not give your consent to be governed, why would you blame a government for not governing you? In your scenario, aren’t we operating under the assumption that you were not forced into some disputative activity with your neighbor at the point of a gun?

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.”

Were you expecting a libertarian government to butt into a private transaction which it was not invited to arbitrate? Perhaps you have your governments mixed up.

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 government does not coerce. It uses defensive or retaliatory force to the degree necessary to secure the rights of its citizens.

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.

That’s right.

If you freely have consented, you may be someone’s field slave if that makes you happy. Moreover, if your consent was given conditionally or temporally, you may withdraw your consent upon breach of that condition or end of that time. Thereupon, your property is no longer of any concern to your government. In effect, you have seceded.

Yes it is (times infinity). Top that!

No it isn’t (times infinity ^ infinity).

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?

Because he believes that you initiated force or fraud.

And thank goodness! Sometimes the exact same activity is okay in one context, but not in another. Take pot, for example. If a person without an essential or fiduciary obligation to the contrary were to smoke a joint, there would be no coercion. But a person who is smoking a joint on his neighbor’s property, when his neighbor has forbidden that activity, is initiating force.

Laws ought not to be against things. Laws ought to be against unethical (or coercive) behavior.

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.

As I told you before, select a different arbiter.

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.

She has no more authority than that to which you willingly and freely consented.

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?

Sometimes, Nanny’s can be mean or overbearing.

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?

The person accused of coercion selects the arbiter.

I have, it’s the USA (as we all know, Libertaria can have many forms of government.)

Fine, then. Are you not glad to have made that choice willingly and freely? Would you not grant that same dignity to any man?

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.)

A government is Libertarian if it does this and only this: secure its citizens (all of them) from coercion and fraud.

OK, I will rephrase my sentence to say “almost unregulated capitalism” instead of “unregulated capitalism.”

Unsatisfactory. “Almost unregulated” is obfuscatory.

There is a clear and utter regulation that, despite its focus and simplicity, drastically alters the behavior of a potentially anarchocapitalist economy. When you regulate out coercion and fraud, you regulate in peace and honesty.

What’s wrong with that?

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.

You, as a parent, are free to raise your children with the values you cherish most.

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?

You do not have an “implied social contract” with your child. You have an explicit unary contract with him. Your responsibility in that regard is to teach him how to give meaningful consent, that is, to teach him how to be an adult. The easiest way to do that is to teach him responsibility, the same as you are discharing.

For the benefit of those who like their abstractions cast into practicalities for them, that means that if you raise your son to be a farmer, you must teach him (or see that he is taught) what he needs to know to farm. If you are raising him to be a doctor, then you must teach him (or see that he is taught) what ne needs to know to heal. If you decide on a general education for your child, you need only teach him (or see that he is taught) what he needs to know to give meaningful consent.

Naturally, if you raise your child to be a doctor, he, when he is an adult, then has control over his own consent, and may be whatever he wants, so long as he is peaceful and honest.

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.

Well, if you like the idea of your neighbor being held to account for his actions in his dealings with you, then join it. But if you value something else, then join whatever you like.

Perhaps I should let the editors of Encyclopædia Britannica know that their article contains an error.

If indeed they have made an error, you may inform them or not as you please, assuming you are free to make that decision. Do not discount out of hand, however, that you might have come away with a misinterpretation. Fabianism is government control over the means of production, whereas Socialism is government ownership of the means of production. The latter is more honest in its intentions than the former.

[Liberal]

Xeno

Since Libertaria itself is a hypothetical, I’m quite surprised at your continued refusal to explore your beloved mental construct within the mirror provided by the hypothetical situations Arnold and Kimstu have posed. However, I understand how pointless it is for me to insist on straight answers from you. It’s your thread, after all, and I don’t really care to upset any of the other conversations going on in it. Your most recent response to Arnold (6/29 @ 10:41am) supports my charge that you duck the hard questions far better than any argument from me could do. It seems that you are becoming the ideal self-parodist.

If that is how you see it, you’re entitled.

As I thought I made clear, I do not object to the hypotheticals except when you insist that I can’t play, too. Got it? If you want to say, “Let’s suppose,” then I get to say, “Well, let’s suppose otherwise.” Else, you are reserving to yourself a privilege that you will not allow your adversary. When taken, understandably, as a show of blatant disrespect, the tactic can often bring out a display of irritation. Sometimes (but surely not in your case) that is the whole point of such bully tactics — to piss off your adversary and thus disorient him.

I plainly do not duck any questions. Rather, I have attempted diligently to respond to every question (other than scattered rhetoricals), even citing them in the form of copy-and-paste quotations.

What some are saying is that our government provides a system whereby the poor are helped, whereas Libertaria provides no such system. (Or if it does, you aint sharin’ that information.)

Well, Libertaria doesn’t provide it. It is provided by people like you, me, Phil, Gilligan, Kimstu, Arnold, and all the others who think it is important.

[Liberal]

Kimstu

Okay. Thanks for your candid answers. I guess at this point, you and I could say that we agree that noncercion is, in principle, a satisfactory ethic, but that I would apply it as a categorical imperative, whereas you would apply it as a conditional imperative.

Is that essentially right?

[Liberal]

Chief Wahoo

I think I’ll call myself a Christian because I like the name Chris. I just won’t bother with all the beliefs and such.

As you wish.

[Liberal]

Someone recently asked about well known libertarians. At the Liberarian Party Convention today, Melanie announced that she is.

You might remember her as a Woodstock generation folk blues singer. Her most successful song was “Brand New Key” (Oh, I got a brand new pair of roller skates. You got a brand new key…). My personal favorite was “Ring the Living Bell”.

[Gilligan]

“Well, I got a brand new pair of roller skates
You got a brand new key
I think that we should get together and try them out you see
I been looking around awhile
You got something for me
Oh! I got a brand new pair of roller skates
You got a brand new key”

Yeah, I see it. She’s not saying “collectively, we have roller skates and a key”; she respects individual private property. She indicates a desire to conduct a free-market transaction with the key holder, to their mutual benefit. But she never demands the transaction, as indicated by the repeat of the line “You got a brand new key.” This is repeated later, even after realizing the transaction will not take place, since the key holder does not consent, but has chosen a different trading partner:
“I asked your mother if you were at home
She said yes but you weren’t alone”

An individualist philosophy, with the understanding that her needs are best met by social interaction is clear from this line from the first verse:
“I’m okay alone, but you got something I need”

More importantly, she doesn’t let her economic situation define her. She makes the most of her life with what nature (or God) has given her, making no demands on “society”:
“I ride my bike, I roller skate don’t drive no car
Don’t go too fast, but I go pretty far
For somebody who don’t drive
I been all around the world
Some people say, I done all right for a girl”

Definitely a libertarian.

[2sense]

I saw a little of the coverage of the Libertarian Convention on C-Span. Whould you care to give us your thoughts on it?

In my last post, I was asking because you stated earlier that rights come from a deity or from nature. I was wondering why you excluded the idea of rights coming from people themselves.

Also, how about some more ethics of philosophies. I presume that Freedom is the ethic of Anarchism. I would like to know the ethic of Conservatism and any other -isms that you care to think of.

[Kimstu]

Libertarian: I guess at this point, you and I could say that we agree that noncercion is, in principle, a satisfactory ethic, but that I would apply it as a categorical imperative, whereas you would apply it as a conditional imperative. Is that essentially right?

Well, I have learned to hesitate before assuming that I’m using any word or concept in the same sense that you’re using it! I think that I’d locate our essential difference in the definition of “coercion”. I don’t consider constitutionally permitted and legally mandated taxation to fall under the heading of coercion. I don’t think it’s intrinsically coercive for a society to build into its constitution and laws certain shared goals and activities which will bind every citizen unless they a) change the constitution and laws or b) renounce their citizenship. I consider that continuing to be a citizen of a nation that permits emigration at will constitutes a voluntary acceptance of those citizenship obligations. I imagine that you’d consider all these views to be quite “soft on coercion” by libertarian standards!

[Liberal]

2sense

I saw a little of the coverage of the Libertarian Convention on C-Span. Whould you care to give us your thoughts on it?

Overall, I was favorably impressed.

I was surprised when the two fellows on the production staff, who had been hearing the convention through their headphones, joined the party live on stage. I heard the usual heady libertarian humor, as when Dasbach said he often describes himself as a liberal who learned economics. And I was greatly impressed by the candidate who refused, on principle, to accept a shoe-in nomination that came about from a suspension of the rules. And there were very sad moments, as when Peter McWilliams was honored and when the litany of police-state laws, enacted in the last ten years, was read to the crowd.

I must say that Harry’s commercials were quite good, especially the Rosemary’s baby one.

In my last post, I was asking because you stated earlier that rights come from a deity or from nature. I was wondering why you excluded the idea of rights coming from people themselves.

God or nature pre-existed us. Laws of God and laws of nature are immutably objective. When men make laws over other men, they are presuming a status which neither God nor nature gave to them. I was not born your Nanny, nor has God appointed me to judge you.

Also, how about some more ethics of philosophies. I presume that Freedom is the ethic of Anarchism. I would like to know the ethic of Conservatism and any other -isms that you care to think of.

Great question!

Here are how I see a few of them. (I assume you meant political and economic, and not teleological, philosophies.)

Anarchy — Natural selection

(Right) Conservatism — Power

(Left) Liberalism (traditional) — The common good

Centrism (modern liberalism) — Compromise

Authoritarianism — Authority

Fabianism — Expedience

Socialism — Entitlement

[Liberal]

Kimstu

Well, I have learned to hesitate before assuming that I’m using any word or concept in the same sense that you’re using it!

A good lesson indeed. One we all would be wise learn with respect to one another.

I think that I’d locate our essential difference in the definition of “coercion”.

Well, in the context of politics, mine, as you know, is “initiation of force or fraud”. That’s its definition. Its connotation is heinous, and I am categorically opposed to it.

I don’t consider constitutionally permitted and legally mandated taxation to fall under the heading of coercion. I don’t think it’s intrinsically coercive for a society to build into its constitution and laws certain shared goals and activities which will bind every citizen unless they a) change the constitution and laws or b) renounce their citizenship.

I think it does make sense, then, to say that you are conditionally opposed to coercion as I define it. Would you agree?

I consider that continuing to be a citizen of a nation that permits emigration at will constitutes a voluntary acceptance of those citizenship obligations.

But forcing you to emigrate and leave behind the property you toiled and cared for! It is as though I came into your home and said, “I’m laying down the rules here, but to be fair, if you don’t like them, you can leave.”

I imagine that you’d consider all these views to be quite “soft on coercion” by libertarian standards!

You know, I really misread you early on. I assumed, foolishly, that you were attacking me. But as I pay greater attention, I sense a noble respect from you, and I notice in you a gentle nature and a good character. I trust you to understand that the Christian side of me compels me to consider the individual above all else. God saves us one by one, and not a society at a time. Every person matters. Even those people we think are nuts.

Yes, I believe you are quite soft on coercion, but only because you do not realize the potential vast scope of a tiny insignificant tyranny. An avalanche can have an almost imperceptible beginning.

[Kimstu]

Libertarian replied to me:

Well, in the context of politics, [my definition of “coercion”], as you know, is “initiation of force or fraud”. That’s its definition. Its connotation is heinous, and I am categorically opposed to it. […] I think it does make sense, then, to say that you are conditionally opposed to coercion as I define it. Would you agree?

Um…well, but that simply pushes the contested definition back to the terms “force” and “fraud”! I am indeed categorically opposed to the initiation of force or fraud, but I don’t consider constitutionally-permitted-and-legally-mandated-blah-blah-blah to fall into either of those categories. I think our conceptions of these terms are so fundamentally different that we may just have to give up on establishing agreement on such statements.

I consider that continuing to be a citizen of a nation that permits emigration at will constitutes a voluntary acceptance of those citizenship obligations.

But forcing you to emigrate and leave behind the property you toiled and cared for! It is as though I came into your home and said, “I’m laying down the rules here, but to be fair, if you don’t like them, you can leave.”

Seems to me it’s more as though my landlord reminded me, “There are certain obligations set forth in your lease, and unless you can persuade me to change the terms, you have to abide by them; to be fair, if you don’t like them, you can leave.” After all, “my” home is only mine because my landlord admits my claim to it; similarly, “my” property within the territory of the nation is only mine because the national government backs up my claim. Strictly speaking, I suppose, “my” home belongs (if we invalidate all property transfers effected via force or fraud) to the Narragansett or maybe Pequot tribe of Native Americans; but the US government recognizes my claim to it—or rather my landlord’s—and doesn’t recognize theirs (or that of the French or the Danes or anyone else who might like to get their paws on it), so that’s my good luck and their tough noogies. Since the sovereign authority of the US is what upholds my claim to my property, I have to recognize that authority as my side of the deal.

And just a brief note on your exchange with 2sense:

In my last post, I was asking because you stated earlier that rights come from a deity or from nature. I was wondering why you excluded the idea of rights coming from people themselves.

God or nature pre-existed us. Laws of God and laws of nature are immutably objective. When men make laws over other men, they are presuming a status which neither God nor nature gave to them. I was not born your Nanny, nor has God appointed me to judge you.

This sounds very noble, but it seems to me that when it comes to a discussion of human rights, such declarations are pretty much meaningless. An immutably objective law of God or nature would be, for example, the law of gravity, because God or nature can be counted on to enforce it. You may consider your “rights” to be similarly guaranteed by God or nature, but if God or nature really bothered to uphold them, we should be seeing a lot more evildoers struck by thunderbolts. That was the point of my bear-&-bacteria example a while back: as far as practical enforcement goes, we don’t have any rights in the sight of God or nature (except maybe the right to be killed only once), so it’s not very meaningful to say that our rights are bestowed by God or nature. (Though of course it sounds nice and forms an indispensable feature of new rights proclamations. :)) The only meaningful rights we have do come from people themselves, because only people consider it important to defend them.

You know, I really misread you early on. I assumed, foolishly, that you were attacking me. […] I trust you to understand that the Christian side of me compels me to consider the individual above all else. God saves us one by one, and not a society at a time. Every person matters. Even those people we think are nuts.

Er…thanks, I think!

Yes, I believe you are quite soft on coercion, but only because you do not realize the potential vast scope of a tiny insignificant tyranny.

Hmmm, but perhaps it’s unwise to assume you know why I believe what I believe? Perhaps I’m fully aware of the dangers of my position but have chosen it with my eyes open because I think the alternatives are worse.

[Liberal]

Kimstu

Um…well, but that simply pushes the contested definition back to the terms “force” and “fraud”!

Indeed it is the bain of philosophy that definitions consist of terms, each of which has its own definition, each of which has its own terms, each of which…

That is why it is said that definitions are, by nature, tautological.

I am indeed categorically opposed to the initiation of force or fraud, but I don’t consider constitutionally-permitted-and-legally-mandated-blah-blah-blah to fall into either of those categories.

I assume that, because you have allowed for exceptions to the category based on perceived authority, you also will allow for exceptions to the exceptions. For example, if the law said that gang rape is okay, I assume you would oppose that law. Or if the Constitution still said that Americans of African descent are one-third of a person, I assume you would call for an amendment.

I think our conceptions of these terms are so fundamentally different that we may just have to give up on establishing agreement on such statements.

I agree. I do not believe that God or nature confers upon any human authority over another human. Such authority ultimately must be either conferred by consent or taken by force or fraud. You, on the other hand, recognize such authority when it is imposed by a majority or authenticated by scribbles in ancient documents — but those only within limits that you, as an individual, will allow. (May I assume that you would not allow either the majority or the documents to sway you in your opposition to gang rape?)

Seems to me it’s more as though my landlord reminded me, “There are certain obligations set forth in your lease, and unless you can persuade me to change the terms, you have to abide by them; to be fair, if you don’t like them, you can leave.” After all, “my” home is only mine because my landlord admits my claim to it; similarly, “my” property within the territory of the nation is only mine because the national government backs up my claim.

Although that sounds like a Fabianist argument, I think you mean it (and always feel free to correct me if I’m wrong) centristically; that is, you mean that nationalized property is a compromise, rather than an expedience. Would you agree?

That might be why the appeal ad populum and the documents are so important to you. After all, what is to stop any man who, with sufficient force, can “back up your claim” or else take your (rather, his) property away? I pray that you remain ever vigilant, lest that exact same man find his way into the hearts of your populace or the office authorized by your document.

Strictly speaking, I suppose, “my” home belongs (if we invalidate all property transfers effected via force or fraud) to the Narragansett or maybe Pequot tribe of Native Americans; but the US government recognizes my claim to it—or rather my landlord’s—and doesn’t recognize theirs (or that of the French or the Danes or anyone else who might like to get their paws on it), so that’s my good luck and their tough noogies.

As I see it, the property belongs to whoever can show either by claim, possession, or title (in ascending order of authority) that he has acquired it peacefully and honestly.

You, on the other hand, recognize the authority of the guns in this case. Is that right?

This sounds very noble, but it seems to me that when it comes to a discussion of human rights, such declarations are pretty much meaningless. An immutably objective law of God or nature would be, for example, the law of gravity, because God or nature can be counted on to enforce it. You may consider your “rights” to be similarly guaranteed by God or nature, but if God or nature really bothered to uphold them, we should be seeing a lot more evildoers struck by thunderbolts.

Whoa, Nellie!

I have never said that rights are guaranteed by God or nature. Rights are given to us by God or nature; that is, God or nature is their source.

Libertarianly speaking, that is the definitive role of government: to guarantee (or secure) the rights (or property) with which we are born, and that which we peacefully and honestly acquire in the course of our lives.

The only meaningful rights we have do come from people themselves, because only people consider it important to defend them.

Surely, you are not saying that might makes right. A moment ago, I thought you were saying that rights come from institutions, but in these latest portions, you seem to be saying they come from guns.

Hmmm, but perhaps it’s unwise to assume you know why I believe what I believe? Perhaps I’m fully aware of the dangers of my position but have chosen it with my eyes open because I think the alternatives are worse.

Let me ask you flat out.

Do you believe that the alternative of leaving peaceful honest people free to pursue their own happiness in their own way is worse than interfering in their affairs?

[Kimstu]

Libertarian: *For example, if the law said that gang rape is okay, I assume you would oppose that law. Or if the Constitution still said that Americans of African descent are one-third of a person, I assume you would call for an amendment. *

Sure: I never said that everything in the law or the Constitution is necessarily right. All I said is that it’s not intrinsically illegitimate just because I never signed a piece of paper agreeing to abide by the law or the Constitution.

L: *Although that sounds like a Fabianist argument, I think you mean it (and always feel free to correct me if I’m wrong) centristically; that is, you mean that nationalized property is a compromise, rather than an expedience. Would you agree? *

I dunno. What are you talking about?

L: *As I see it, the property belongs to whoever can show either by claim, possession, or title (in ascending order of authority) that he has acquired it peacefully and honestly. *

Again, that sounds nice and simple but conceals a whole raft of ambiguities. One person might peacefully and honestly acquire property from someone else who did not acquire it peacefully and honestly. In real-life situations, this principle of ownership will frequently serve to legitimize the results of coercive acts, just as any other principle of ownership will.

L: *You, on the other hand, recognize the authority of the guns in this case. Is that right? **

If by “recognize the authority of the guns” you mean that the practical defense of all property claims comes down in the end to force or the threat of force, I agree that that’s so. Libertarians think so too, which is why they insist that a libertarian government would fight to defend what it considers its citizens’ property.

L: *I have never said that rights are guaranteed by God or nature. Rights are given to us by God or nature; that is, God or nature is their source. *

Well, that’s where we enter into the realm of individual faith and preference and leave “objectivity” and “immutability” far behind. Unfortunately, neither God nor nature ever signed the Declaration of Independence or any other rights proclamation, so since neither God nor nature will defend the rights they “gave” us, we have no objective way of knowing what rights God or nature “intended” us to have.

L: [Kimstu]: “The only meaningful rights we have do come from people themselves, because only people consider it important to defend them.” *Surely, you are not saying that might makes right. *

Of course not.

L: *Let me ask you flat out. Do you believe that the alternative of leaving peaceful honest people free to pursue their own happiness in their own way is worse than interfering in their affairs? *

But citizenship is our common affair. We are not “interfering” with one another by fulfilling, enforcing, or legally altering our mutual responsibilities of citizenship.