-
People, under this system, will be inherently better than in the old system.
-
People, under this system, will be inherently better than in the old system. The rich people will gather round a campfire with the poor people, join arms and sing kumbaya.
I suppose I should deal with obligatory follow-up. Not that you, Tevildo, would raise such a weak point, but someone inevitably will. Suppose that Moneybags isn’t really interested in the economy of the situation at all, but instead is a psychopath whose wealth has been obtained by sheer osmosis from a society of mental zombies who inexplicably bowed to his every whim and turned over to him virtually all their rights and property over the years as he pursued his quest of squeezing the life out of everyone and everything around him. Given these facts, we may assume a likelihood that he will buy all the land around Widow Smith (remember that everyone on earth except for her is a hapless dolt) leaving her no access to the outside world and thereby effectively starving her out for his purposes. Even so, there is nothing that gives him any right to her land upon her death. And so he will have a perpetual and glaring monument to his cruelty for all and sundry to examine until he dies (unless the questioner stipulates that he is immortal). Of course, it won’t matter, given that the questioner is likely to stipulate that no one is put off by his deeds and in fact that everyone gleefully enables him. Note that with all the questioner’s stipulations, I will not be allowed to stipulate such things as air travel or tunnels or the existence of entrepreneurs capable of competing with Moneybags who are cognizant of the sheer value of the publicity they might get by assisting the Widow Smith. No, it is important that every stipulation empower only Moneybags. So given all that, we will end up with an immortal tyrant surrounded by death and devistation sitting on his piles of money amidst hideous echoes of his own evil laughter.
Nonsense. People are inherently better under the old system. That’s why the War on Poverty, the War on Drugs, and the War on Terrorism have been so successful. It’s also why forty-nine percent of the population is so happy with the president that the fifty-one percent have given them.
- nods * - I still can’t quite see how it manages to do this without a legislature. How can I, as an individual citizen, know whether or not something I’m proposing to do will be deemed “coercion” and regulate my behaviour accordingly, without a written law for me to refer to? Do I just have to hope that nobody decides to “prosecute” (or whatever the appropriate term would be) me?
In more general terms, how does anyone obtain a locus standi in the legal processes of such a system? Who gets to initiate cases, and against whom may they initiate them?
Thank you for covering the inital obvious response to this already. 
Although, he doesn’t need to starve her out - he can just open one of his famous “24-Hour Crack Cocaine, Hog Slurry, and Pneumatic Drill” emporia next door to her. His property rights are as inviolate as hers, after all.
More seriously:
So you agree that the only people with any power in this society are the wealthy? Widow Smith is dependent on the goodwill of Moneybags and his competitors to survive, the state has no role in securing her well-being, and she has no “positive rights” (to healthcare, food, clothing, education) other than those that her rich “friends” deign to give her to further their own business ends?
Coercion is coherently defined as the initiation of force or deception. You’ll have no trouble grasping the concept; after all, we expect five-year-olds to comprehend it: don’t start a fight, but feel free to defend yourself. If you have been forced or deceived into doing something against your will, while at the same time you have been peaceful and honest, then you have been coerced. But my question back to you is this: if coercion is so hard to understand, how can anyone be expected to understand things like justifiable homicide or contract consideration?
Another case in point. What the hell is a locus standi? I have never understood the concept that ignorance of the law, in a land with so many legal complexities that a doctorate is required to examine them comeptently, is no excuse for breaking it.
And why should she care? So long as no crack addict bothers her; so long as no disease infects her from the hogs, and so long as her hearing is not damaged by the pneumatic drills — how is she harmed? Of course, nothing is to stop her from selling her property to Moneybag’s arch enemy, who will open his famous “24-Hour NRA Target Shoot, Barbecue, and Jet Engine Testing Laboratory”.
Ah. Of course we must stipulate that Widow Smith is poor and powerless, that she has not had the means and foresight to insure her health, and that an education is impossible without desks and lecturers. I can save us all some time if I just allow you to stipulate every conceivable advantage to him and every conceivable disadvantage to her. Even so, this does not condemn libertarianism any more than it condemns any other political philosophy. Power and wealth are synonyms in every society, including authoritarian ones where power and wealth are sucked up by the rulers and planners. That’s why there are homeless people in France.
John Mace:
I started a thread about environmental standards in a libertarian society a while back, and (with Liberal’s help) it turned into a fruitful and interesting discussion. I can dig it up if you’d like.
Liberal:
You understand why people frame the debate that way, don’t you, Lib? We must test the system at its fringes, not in its commonplace center. Any viable social context must do justice for those Widows Smith who are poor and powerless as for those Widows Smith who are well-to-do and resourceful. It’s not that people are trying to catch you out; it’s that they’re trying to see whether the system works well for everyone.
The problem with libertarian principles is that they are based on the premise that every single party in every single case will agree on general principles. In this specific case, it’s assumed that everyone will agree on which acts are coercive and which are not, so everyone will agree on who initiated the coercion.
But the real world doesn’t work that way. Suppose Al and Bob are neighbours. Al does something on his property. Bob claims that what Al is doing has an effect on his property. Al says it does not. Bob figures out a way to stop Al from doing what he was doing.
Who’s the coercer here? Bob claims Al coerced him first. Al claims he never coerced Bob and it was Bob who coerced him first. But Al and Bob are staunch libertarians who don’t want any outside organization telling them what to do when they know they’re right.
The libertarian answer: Bob and Al will take their dispute to an agreed-upon mediator.
Who Al slips money under the table in exchange for a favorable ruling. That’s the problem
Sorry, I got cut off. What I was trying to say is that that’s the problem whenever we have debates like that. Under the old system, it’s taken for granted that Sen. Fatcat will accept bribes from Mr. Moneybags to take the Widow Smith’s land, but under the new system, the arbiters are fair and just.
The concept is easy to understand - the problems come in when we try and apply the concept to actual situations.
Let’s take a very trivial example - speed limits, and motoring laws in general. In what way am I “coercing” someone or being “deceitful” if I drive at 80 mph in a 30 mph area? Or should I be free to do that, despite the danger it poses to other people? Should I be free to drive a car without any brakes? Should I be free to drive drunk?
One other obvious area that such a system doesn’t address is negligence. Suppose I’m a doctor, and I prescribe penicillin to a patient without checking whether they’re allergic to it. It turns out that they are allergic, and they suffer serious injury as a result. Would they have any claim against me? I didn’t coerce them to take the drug, or to come to me for advice; I didn’t deliberately deceive them - my advice might have been along the lines of “You have a bacterial infection, antibiotics are drugs used to treat such infections, and penicillin is an antibiotic. I can give you a prescription for penicillin if you want me to.” Would I be completely in the clear under your legal system?
But your system effectively devolves all legislative power to the courts; it abolishes the statute law in favour of an entirely common-law approach. If it managed to avoid descent to anarchy, the complexity of the resulting legal system, where every decision depends on precedent and judicial interpretation of one rule for every case, would make ours look like the rules of Snakes and Ladders.
OK, public nusiance is a good example (as I see it) of another limitation of this approach. At what point does “bothering” become “coercion”? If an addict asks her for money on the street, is that “coercion”? When do the headaches she gets from the smell and the noise become “damage” - and why does she have to prove “damage” before she can get any legal redress? If Moneybags manages to make her life in her house unbearable without actually causing her physical harm, is he legally in the clear?
Such people do exist in the real world. Should we just let them starve?
Yes, nobody is claiming that the current system is perfect. But your system would remove all the safeguards for the powerless, making their problems worse. Is that the result you’re aiming for?
Is abortion a coercion, or not a coercion in Libertaria? Is punishing a woman who wants to have an abortion a coercion, not a coercion?
I think roughly half the population will answer yes to the first question, and no to the second. The other half would answer no to the first question, and yes to the second. How would Libertaria handle this situation?
If Bob and Al haven’t managed to agree on anything else up to this point, why are they going to agree on a mediator? Or what happens if we have a situation where one person says there’s a need for mediation and the other person doesn’t?
That’s my real problem with this system. For one thing, the arbiters have exactly the same pressures towards corruption as legislators do. However, there’s less control on the arbiters. The NP is sufficiently vague that, left to itself, it can be construed to mean just about anything. If the arbiters are constrained by precedent, then the system would quickly become just as legalistic and incomprehensible to laymen as the present one is accused of being. However, under the present system, if the courts or the legislator screws up, making a ruling or passing a law that the people cannot accept, new laws or constitutional amendments can correct the injustice. Not so here. A bad ruling remains unchallanged for ever and ever.
If the US had been founded as a Libertarian nation, the Dred Scott decision could never have been overturned by the fourteenth amendment.
The legislature, precise laws, and the ability to repeal or amend laws all act as checks on government power. I could support the NP as the driving mission behind government, even as the sole power of government, but not as the only law.
Actually, they don’t. Because if they did, how would you make your laws you want to make? I mean, if it’s so hard to figure out how to apply principle, then how much harder to *codify * the application of it. If you can’t figure out what a transgression is and what isn’t, then how will you write down what they are?
That’s up to the owner of the road. The only rights with respect to it are his.
Well, sorta. I mean, why you would be bothering with a prescription is unclear since the patient doesn’t need it. He cannot be prevented from taking whatever drug he wants to take so long as he is peaceful and honest in his dealings. So, you would be in the clear for arbitration, but you might lose a lot of clients.
A gratuitous assertion gratuitously denied.
That depends on who owns the street. Rights and property are synonyms. She doesn’t have to prove damage in the sense you mean; she has to prove usurpation of her rights. But again, your comments really say nothing about libertarianism. Lots of people put up with unbearable neighbors, except that in the present system, government sometimes facilitates the aggravation with frivolous ordinances that allow, for example, a minimal volume or smell or other nuisance that applies to everyone in its jurisdiction regardless of their levels of tolerance.
We who? You? Me? I wouldn’t let her starve. Would you? How many here would? If we’re all so charitable, why the need to pass off our responsibilities toward our neighbors to men without faces a thousand miles away?
Given freedom from coercion, today’s powerless can easily be tomorrow’s wealthy. I believe that libertarianism offers the best safeguard possible: get off my back. I know that you mean well with your wealth distribution schemes and whatnot, but in order to provide “free” care to the Widow Smith, you must enslave or otherwise dehumanize someone else unless you intend to provide the service yourself.
You do have a good point there, and I agree.
Except that arbiters are as subject to the law as everyone else. You have every right to bring charges of coercion against an arbiter whom you believe has broken his oath.
What does the Second Amendment mean? How about the first? Is there anything other than court precedence that prevents it from being construed to grant liberty to yell “fire!” in a crowded theater?
Because people will have differences of opinion as to what counts as a “transgression”. A written legal code enables us to determine if our actions are legal or illegal - without one, all our actions are potentially illegal. I agree that putting together such a code from scratch would be difficult, but I would still argue it would be necessary in order for a society to function normally, without spending 95% of its collective time in court.
OK. He puts up a sign saying “No drunk drivers” - I’m coercing him if I drive on his road under the influence. All well and good. The next week, he puts up a sign saying “No gay drivers”. Am I coercing him if I drive on his road anyway, or is he coercing me from exercising my freedom of movement?
For that matter, how does he enforce his rights? Am I assumed to have consented to all the medical tests necessary to prove drunkenness by the act of driving on his road? If not, is his insistence on doing those tests “coercion”? If so, what else am I assumed to have consented to? There’s no way of me finding out, there aren’t any written laws…
So you’d be quite happy to see an incompetent doctor or surgeon continue in practice, provided people were still willing to be treated by him? You’d be happy to see Radithor back on the market? After all, everyone would be able to read that article before buying it - they would have no claim against the manufacturers if they didn’t, would they?
Very well. How do you envisage your legal system operating? Take us through a typical court case, and show us the procedure for raising a grievance and having it dealt with. Excessive levels of detail aren’t needed, just a basic outline. I’ll be more than happy to point out areas where complications are likely, if not certain, to arise.
I’m afraid to say that I would let her starve. I wouldn’t want her to, I would probably feel guilty about it, but, when it comes down to it, I’m sure I’m not alone in putting my own personal comfort above the well-being of others, especially of others with whom I feel no particular social or familial ties.
I’ll turn this one around at you, if I may - “If we were all so charitable, we wouldn’t need to pass off our responsibilites to the state.” But, we’re not.
Responsibilities mean nothing without an authority to enforce them, to compel us to discharge our responsibilities. You personally may feel that a moral obligation is good enough to compel you to do good works; this is a very admirable characteristic, but it’s not one which I possess, and I’m sure that I’m not unique in this, or even in the minority. Will the majority of people choose the “greater good of society” over their own personal comfort, if there are no adverse consequences to being selfish? For myself, I doubt it very much.
For suitably large values of “easily”, and if the powerful suddenly decide to assist the powerless out of the goodness of their own hearts.
I think the main objection I have, subjectively, is that your system relies on everyone being generally “good” or “benevolent”. I fear that, in practice, most people - or, at least, a sufficient number of people to make your system unworkable - will only be concerned with their personal gains, and be entirely indifferent to the problems others may have.
Who defines corruption? Under a legalistic system, we can define what amounts of money an individual may contribute to a campaign, or alternately finance the campaigns on the public’s dimes.
I admit that precedent is important (and also the the second amendment is shockingly poorly written), but both of those amendments are limited in scope. We know, at the least, that laws regarding expression, assembly, and firearms are suspect. That’s far, far more concrete and limiting than the NP.
And if the courts’ interpreatation of these amendments prove especially unsatisfactory, they can be clarified or changed by further amendment.
And yet, people still have differences of opinion as to what the statutes actually say. That’s why courts are supposed to interpret law. If it’s so hard to interpret one law, why is it so much easier to interpret literally millions of them? Incidentally, keep in mind that this is no deal-breaker with respect to libertarianism. A libertarian society may have as many laws as it wishes. It is only my own preference that is for the greatest possible simplicity.
You are coercing him. Bigotry is not prohibited under libertarianism.
It is my own preference that the contract you sign with your government commits you to its arbitration.
Well, you know, fully 50% of the present doctors graduated in the bottom half of their class. Also, people already elect to be treated by herbalists, scientologists, and other quacks. So long as the doctor does not misrepresent himself (deception), you are free to deal or not deal with him as you please. But again, you cannot succeed in idicting libertarianism unless the system you advocate has no shortcomings of its own. I quite willingly stipulate that libertarianism is not for everyone. And that’s the beauty of it: libertarianism allows for your right of consent; i.e., no one will force you to be governed by a libertarian government. You don’t like Libertaria? Sign up with Authoritaria.
I’ll do that if you’ll do the same, and allow me to point out areas where complications arise in whatever system it is that you advocate. Whatever it is that gave you the idea that I envision a simplistic hand-holding shiny happy people land of plenty is a mystery.
But we are. Google the numbers.
I think it’s time that you defend your unstated assumption; namely, that people are less likely than their governors to care about their families, friends, and neighbors. Your foundational axiom that power and wealth equate to negligence and cruelty is without any solid basis. Bill Gates arguably has done as much tangible good for schools as has the Department of Education. Oprah Winfrey has done as much to feed hungry children and help the poor as UNICEF. And Stephen Bornstein certainly has done as much as FEMA for the folks in New Orleans.
Suddenly? The “Dickens” you say! 
On the contrary, it relies on everyone being a bully, and a dishonest one at that. That’s why I advocate a strong government tuned specifically to suppress coercion. If I felt otherwise, I would advocate anarchy.
Corruption means the onset of coercion: initiating force or deception. Nothing else. Meanwhile, it’s good to know that your legalistic system has eliminated corruption so thoroughly.
Who defines unsatisfactory? And who defines clarified?