Ask the Libertarian

In My Humble Opinion
101

Couple points about charity and lighthouses:

Lighthouses:

Dewey, your question about who owns what would depend a great deal on whether the lighthouse existed already and was later privatized or was built from scratch under a libertarian system. Under the latter, a collective of people who use the waterways would finance the lighthouse themselves (out of their own pocket or via debt/equity). While some economists object to “Crusoeian Economics,” it’s nevertheless a great method for beginning thought experiments. Imagine a newly formed libertarian society that lives by the shoreline. One man decides he can make money fishing and just goes out in his boat everyday and fishes. Then he decides fishing will be more efficient if he can build a dock. He asks other people in the community if they would benefit from the use of a dock. Those people that would like to use a dock would form a collective. Or the fisherman could pay for it out of his own pocket. Or the fisherman could approach people with excess cash and say they can have 10% of his profits if they finance the dock. Or he could barter with a carpenter. A dock is easy because the owner can govern it’s use. Let’s say the demand for fish is so great that the fisherman decides that if he fished at night he could make even more money. Everyone else in the community says “Oh yea well I’ll never use the lighthouse, I don’t need it and won’t finance it.” If the fisherman owns the dock he can charge fee’s for any boats that enter/leave the dock at night. The lighthouse could be financed like everything else - on the expectation of future earnings. While the dock owner might not be able to get up a collective, he could finance the lighthouse himself or like everyone else does: Sells off future earnings ala stock/bonds/loans. Anyone who wanted to use the dock at nighttime would pay a surcharge that would effectively pay off the financing. As would the extra cash generated by night time fishing that made it in the fisherman’s best interests to build the dock in the first place. You don’t charge for the use of the light. You charge for use of the dock.

Charity:

It’s important to remember that many of us feel (perhaps unconciously) that it’s the governments problem to deal with those who can’t take care of themselves. We have someone to blame. Under a libertarian non-government, we would tend to place more responsibility on ourselves. At least I know I would. There would also be private unemployment insurance.

102

What are the restraints against use of force to protect property in Libertaria?

Currently, in most U.S. states, you can’t use deadly force to protect property (and let’s not get into whether that’s good or bad.)

If I see someone driving off of my property with my car, can I initiate deadly force to protect my property?

What if I catch someone picking a flower from my flowerbed (granted, most people would’t shoot someone for picking a flower, even from their private property, but you have to assume that Libertaria will have the same percentage of jerks that currently exist, so SOME people would.)

Currently there are laws that protect a thief from an over-zealous property owner. How does Liberteria address this?

Fenris

103

You can’t deal with one what-if by using another what-if.

Intelligence guy : what if some terrorists hijack planes and fly them into a big building.

Other intelligence guy : what if the passengers manage to overwhelm the terrorists?

first intelligence guy: so we are safe then. file that one away.

104

What happens to the mentally ill in Libertaria?

What happens to orphans in Libertaria?

What happens if a plague strikes Libertaria?

How do you determine who owns what in Libertaria?

Wasn’t the Old West of the U.S. close to a Libertarian ideal? There were few powerful government institutions and big business was essentially the law. Did that produce a superior society than the one we have today?

Do racism, sexism, religious persecution and so forth flourish in Libertaria or does kind, gentle human nature take care of such things in a purely voluntary manner?

What does Libertaria do for its own defense? If taxes are levied in this case, what motivation does Libertaria use to collect them from those who don’t wish to pay for them? What about pacifists?

105

Kid: that’s great as long as there’s only one dock. But suppose after the fisherman builds his lighthouse, I build a dock two hundred yards away. I charge lower docking fees because I don’t have the capital expenditures or maintenance expenses related to the lighthouse. Fisherman loses his customers and cannot pay for the lighthouse. Lighthouse closes.

Or, more likely, fisherman recognizes this problem and never builds the lighthouse in the first place.

There’s even more of a problem when a lighthouse serves as a point of navigation rather than as a marker for a port. If a lighthouse only serves to let passing ships navigate a difficult area, how do you collect fees from the ships to support the lighthouse absent government coercion?

106

Scupper’s post brings to mind an additional question. Suppose through illness or accident a close relative of mine acquires a mental illness serious enough to warrant committment to an institution. Is my signing committment papers (and the resulting nice men in white coats fitting her for a straightjacket) an initiation of force against my relative? Why or why not?

107

It seems more likely that people will ‘fall through the cracks’ if there is no safety net at all (to mix metaphores, can you have a crack in a net?)

Someon else mentioned unemployment or disability insurance. But the poor people will be less able to afford this. And what about people who are disabled from birth?

108

Dewey,
As I’m sure you know, lighthouses are the classic case of what classical economists consider to be a public good - the bane of libertarians. Like I said in my first post, I believe that certain infrastructural things best be left to government and lighthouses would probably be one of them. Having said that, virtually all of the lighthouses built in England in the 18th century were privately funded and immensely profitable. Lighthouses were patented and the rights sold off and tolls were taken for passage. Some economist used this research to debunk the myth that lighthouses would never get build without public funding (I think Coase). I am no expert on how lighthouses really work so I’ll have to wing it:

One option would be to pay the owner of the patent (yes there are libertarians who believe in intellectual property rights) not to sell a license to anyone within a mile of his dock. He could also pay the land owners to not allow the building of docks on property surrounding his dock.

It’s a shame that many libertarians speak of a libertarian society as a utopia because it sure as shite isn’t. It’s also a shame people like Ayn Rand got associated with libertarianism because it’s best argument get’s lost in her screaming for individual rights. I don’t support libertarians because I want rights. I support it because I think it would be better than our current political/economic system in providing the greatest good for the greatest number.

My ex-boss is founder of one of the largest, most progressive charity foundations around. He treats giving to charity as an investment. He has thousands of charities competing for his money and he get’s rid of those he doesn’t think are giving him the best return for his money. Of course he and the board are the arbiters of what constitutes a return but at least someone is monitoring the effectiveness of where they’re giving.

109

Libertarian, thanks again. I haven’t been “converted” to Libertarianism, but I think I understand it a bit more than I did before. I still have questions, but I don’t want us to go around in circles, so I’ll save them for a less generalized thread.

See, the main problem I have is the idea that you have to voluntarily “subscribe” to government services in order to use them. Then people opt out, don’t pay, and then one of two things happens:

  1. As a result of their not having access to those services, society suffers.

  2. They somehow manage to use the services anyway without paying for them.

An instructive example might be motorcycle helmet laws. I used to work for a non-profit organization that helped people whose brains had been injured. One of the offices of our organization was in charge of lobbying and activism, and one of their causes was motorcycle helmet laws.

“It’s my head, I can do what I want with it” was the gist of the anti-helmet-law people’s argument.

Our response was “Injuries sustained by people who ride motorcycles without helmets cost the state such-and-such a huge amount of money per year” (I don’t want to get into a discussion about the merits of this conclusion, I’m just using it as an example).

Now people can say “My safety is my own business and my own responsibility. If I’m not specifically asking you to come out and save me in the event that I bang up my head, then why should I be subject to a law that says I have to wear a helmet?”

Because we’ll come out and save you anyway. That’s the kind of people we are. Imagine a couple of paramedics at the scene of a horrific accident between a car and a motorcycle:

Paramedic #1: Whoa, I can see this dude’s brain. But we can probably save him if we work fast.

Paramedic #2: Okay, get him on the stretcher and… hey, wait. Was he wearing a helmet?

Paramedic #1: <checks> No.

Paramedic #2: Hmm. That changes everything. Well, I guess he’s fucked then. Let’s go help these people who were obeying our seat belt laws.

Needless to say, we were not prepared to accept this scenario in my state. We’d rather coerce people into wearing helmets than leave them bleeding to death in the street or spend millions of extra dollars per year rehabillitating their non-helmet-wearing asses after they’ve sustained a traumatic brain injury. It’s just seems a lot simpler to me.

Likewise, if someone makes the foolish decision not to subscribe to my Libertarian government and then needs help, my Libertarian government has the choice of either sighing and going “That’s a shame” or using resources this person has not paid for to help him out, which would bankrupt the government if it were a routine practice. Better to just tax this stupid guy and use the money to help him when he needs it. I realize you think it’s tyrannical to tax him and to help him whether he wants it or not, but I guess I have a more paternalistic (or maybe maternalistic) view of government. Yes, it’s a tit that we suck on. I guess there are just varying degrees to which we think the lactate is yummy.

Thanks again.

110

Stepping in late again, but I’m curious about a few things.

In our current system, even with all its many flaws, Sally can seek damages from the government.

In your system, Sally did not contract with LNY and so, if I am not mistaken, LNY has zero obligation to her. I broke into Sally’s house, unbeknownst to Sally, and LNY, searching for me, burned her house down. LNY was responding to me, but in doing so, LNY used coercive force against Sally.

LNY broke their own most sacred law, but they aren’t responsible for damages?

I’m interested in a response to that, but there’s still more to this situation. If Sally does not receive compensation, then LLA is obligated to attack LNY.

Do you see this as a justified use of war?

It seems to me that property is such a sacred matter to you that you believe any harm done in the attempt to restore lost property is justified, whether or not the harm is done to innocent parties along the way. Am I wrong about that? If so, how so?

111

Dewey

I’m going to ask you once last time nicely please not to debate here. I can see that you are frustrated, and that you want to argue. But you’ve been here long enough to know where debates belong, and they don’t belong here.

Would you crash an “Ask the Muslim” thread with rants about the Qu’ran? It is, in my opinion, jerkish behavior.

This thread was intended as educational for people who, like you, do not understand the libertarian philosophy. In fact, I opened it inspired by you, because you said that you would like to have a better understanding.

So far, I don’t see much that indicates a correlation between your words and your deeds. You say that you respect me, and yet you will not refrain from arguing in this thread despite my request. You say that you’re interested in learning more, and yet you stay anchored to a single issue (lighthouses) and ignore my answers so you can preach.

I’m going to answer your question one last time in the hopes that I have misunderstood you altogether, and that the evidence of your disingenuousness is merely circumstantial. But I can’t think for you. You need to listen to the answer and ask about what you don’t understand.

You’re presuming (and you’ve done this all along) that Libertaria will be a mixture of libertarian and nonlibertarian principles, and that is not the case. For example, you’re presuming that a claim of property is a seizure of it. And yet, even while you recoil at the notion of someone owning land with water on it (deep water, to be sure, but just water), you apparently have no problem that the system that you’re defending stole its land through war and conquest.

Now, please listen. This directly addresses your question and all its underlying questions. Property that is previously owned may be owned by transfer of ownership with proof of title or receipt. (Please consider the term “title” to mean a general documenation of ownership and not a nonlibertarian legal term.) Property that is not previously titled may be owned by possession. And property that is not previously possessed may be owned by claim.

But no property, of any kind, may be seized from its owner by initiated force or fraud. The thief is not an owner, but a usurper or conman.

You therefore come to own property by either claiming it, possessing it, or purchasing it depending on its prior status. Moreover, when there is a transaction involving transfer of ownership, it must be both voluntary and volitional on behalf of both parties. You can get an in depth explanation on this, if you wish it, here.

Your whole argument, aside from being inappropriate here, is classic Argumentum ad antiquitatem. Just because the United States owns lighthouses, harbors, and seashores and almost always has, that does not mean that that is the only right, practical, or possible way to do it.

If you come back with questions for clarification, then I will answer them.

But if you continue your hijack, then I will request that the thread be closed because you are elbowing your way past everyone else in order to take over the thread and espouse your nonlibertarian point of view like an angry fundamentalist Christian in an “Ask the Muslim” thread. And although the thread’s closure might likely satisfy you in some morbid way, I appeal to your sense of decency to allow everyone an opportunity to have their questions answered.

I am not a posting machine, and if I spend resources arguing with you, I am short-changing people with sincere questions and genuine curiosity.

112

The restraints are that you must use only necessary force or fraud in response to coercion. If arbitration determines that you used excessive force, then you have yourself coerced.

That said, deadly force (or fraud) may be used whenever other force fails. If a thief or trespasser or mugger or usurper of any kind refuses to heed your warnings and your attempts to evict or stop him, then you may use deadly force (because it was necessary) to enforce your rights.

113

Your question seems to be why is it fair that a hypothetical be amended. And the answer is because it is a hypothetical. If you’re just supposing, why can’t I just suppose. But that doesn’t mean that the question is settled, but only that the question remains open.

Using your own technique, we may say

Concerned citizen: what if a general leads a military takeover of the United States?

Other concerned citizen: what if all generals are benevolent and passive?

First concerned citizen: so we are safe then, we don’t need a civilian commander-in-chief.

It has not been determined from that discussion that no commander-in-chief is needed. Rather, nothing at all is determinable from the comment of either citizen.

114

Yours I’m going to have to split up, but I’m going to start here:

No, the Old West was nowhere close to a Libertarian system. It was a system that is called “Anarchocapitalist”.

Libertarianism does not advocate a weak government; on the contrary, it advocates a very strong government. You are confusing strength with scope. Although its scope is limited to suppression of coercion, it must be as strong as necessary to secure the rights and property of all its citizens.

Pretty much the same thing that happens to them anywhere. They are placed with family, friends, neighbors, the homes of volunteers, or orphanages.

Likely the same thing that happens if a plague strikes anywhere: a lot of people will get sick.

Please see my post to Dewey, where I spelled out how ownership is determined.

Racism and sexism in the form of bigotry likely flourish there as much as anywhere, but persecution that is coercive is strictly prohibited.

It maintains an armed force.

It doesn’t. But then it doesn’t govern them either. In libertarianism, to govern means to protect. People who do not wish to be governed must protect themselves.

As I’ve already said before, pacifists are libertarian by definition since they oppose all force including initial force.

115

I’ve got a question for the Libertarian.

Why does this thread remind me of Alice’s attempted discourse with Humpty Dumpty?

116

Well, it isn’t a matter that there are no safety nets. There are merely no coercive safety nets. There are many of us, for example, who are going to help Polycarp despite that every government “safety net” for him failed.

Regarding insurance, it is impossible to say what it would cost once multiple layers of taxation, governmental regulatory fees, and legislative lobbying are dropped. But more broadly speaking, libertarian government is not in the business of interfering in peoples lives unless they are violent or dishonest. When government interferes in an economy, there is a phenomenon called “unintended consequences” that often makes what actually happens very much different from what was intended.

I don’t understand your question about people who are disabled from birth. They are like any other citizen of Libertaria — guaranteed freedom from the coercion of others.

117

You’re welcome! :slight_smile:

Well, let’s start with your problem of perceiving people opting in and out of government services. It is important to remember that there is one and only one government service: protection from coercion. That, and that alone, is all you buy from Libertaria. The rest is up to you.

The government does not compensate people (including corporations!) for loss. Their losses are incurred in a context wherein they make their decisions from their own freewill and volition. You may not force someone else to pay for your surgery if you fall off your motorcycle (although nothing prevents you from asking for charitable assistance).

It is therefore reasonable to assume that the problem of people being careless with their lives and property will more or less take care of itself.

118

Yes, I certainly do see that as a justification for war. Traditionally, war might be about the pissing contests between tyrants — who can claim control of whom — but in a libertarian context, was is a response to coercion. The government is using the force that Sally hired it to use to defend her rights.

I do believe that property, because all your property is derived from your original property (your body, mind, and life), is sacred in that sense. But Libertaria will use only the force that is necessary to secure your rights and property. In the example you’ve used, we have jumped all the way ahead to every possible attempt being exhausted. If Sally or her government refuse to deliver up the coercer, then there is no choice except war.

119

Probably because, in your opinion, what I’m saying is nonsensical.

120

Ok. I’m satisfied. :slight_smile: