Coercion as a Crime: Is it Realistic?

[Tevildo]

@Liberal

A libertarian society may have as many laws as it wishes. It is only my own preference that is for the greatest possible simplicity.

OK. I think that really draws the sting of the whole argument, or at least reduces it to a difference of political opinion. I would still claim that having a legal code would be simpler than trying to decide every case based on the one fundamental principle, but that’s something which could be easily resolved in practice.

I’ll just run through my political disagreements with the rest of the points you raise, but I accept these don’t count as objective arguments against the libertarian position as a whole, merely my own subjective reasons for finding it - distasteful.

You are coercing him. Bigotry is not prohibited under libertarianism.

So you would permit full-blown apartheid? That would be a killer for me, no matter what other benefits the system might have. Or, if you wouldn’t, it means that a line between “bigotry” and “coercion” would have to be drawn, which I would suggest is a job for a legislature.

It is my own preference that the contract you sign with your government commits you to its arbitration.

I’m assuming you don’t mean to imply that the government would own the roads - that smacks of gasp socialism. Do you mean that there would be a standardized government test for drunkenness that I explicity consented to submit to, and the landowner explicitly consented to use? If so, how does this differ from a conventional legal statute?

So long as the doctor does not misrepresent himself (deception), you are free to deal or not deal with him as you please.

So there’s no legal protection for the vulnerable. Another political aspect that I think we can legitimately disagree on.

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.

I could ask you to read Blackstone, but I doubt if you’d want to. Here’s the official guide to minor civil claims in England and Wales - although this may be a sidetrack that involves us both in too much unnecessary effort, and I’m happy to drop it, now that you’ve conceded that legslation is a possibility in your society.

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.

I’m sorry if I gave the impression that philantropy doesn’t exist - I recognize that many individuals (Shaftsbury, Wilberforce, Rowntree) have done a geat deal to benefit society. I just feel that requiring the disadvantaged to rely on philanthropy doesn’t give adequate protection; my ideal state would provide guaranteed support for everyone who deserved it, rather than leaving it up to benevolent individuals.

Suddenly? The “Dickens” you say!

Thanks for the feedline. I assume you would have no objection to a Josiah Bounderby operating his factories with no regard for worker safety, unlimited hours of work, child labour, payment in kind rather than in cash, etc? I would object to this, but I accept it’s just my personal opinion.

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.

Would you agree that this “tuning” might be regarded as “legislation” by some people?

[Liberal]

@Tevildo

I’ll just run through my political disagreements with the rest of the points you raise, but I accept these don’t count as objective arguments against the libertarian position as a whole, merely my own subjective reasons for finding it - distasteful.

Okay.

So you would permit full-blown apartheid? That would be a killer for me, no matter what other benefits the system might have. Or, if you wouldn’t, it means that a line between “bigotry” and “coercion” would have to be drawn, which I would suggest is a job for a legislature.

Nope, nope, and nope. First, apartheid is institutionalized racism, and government has no business doing that. Second, libertarianism is not concerned with what benefits society. It is not an “end justifies the means” philosophy. Society might well benefit from fully oppressive authoritarianism, but that is neither here nor there. Finally, as you saw from the link I gave you previously, libertarianism classically holds that rights and property are two aspects of the same thing; that is, they are authority with respect to ownership. Take this site, for example. The Constitution aside, we have no right to free speech here because we do not own the site. All rights with respect to this site are those of the Chicago Reader. What we have are permissions which the Chicago Reader is authorized to extend, owing to its ownership. Authoritarians quite naturally view rights differently — specifically, rights are permissions, granted by magisterial fiat. Ironically, the authoritarian theory of rights serves only to prove the libertarian theory of rights true: it is the authorities who own the property and call the shots with respect to it. If you don’t believe me, try to build a home in a public park. By contrast, there is no such thing as public property in a libertarian society.

I’m assuming you don’t mean to imply that the government would own the roads - that smacks of gasp socialism. Do you mean that there would be a standardized government test for drunkenness that I explicity consented to submit to, and the landowner explicitly consented to use? If so, how does this differ from a conventional legal statute?

Government can own nothing, as it has no rights. Perhaps our discussion should restart at a more fundamental level so that we don’t spend time talking past each other as we mix the particulars of one philosophy with another.

So there’s no legal protection for the vulnerable. Another political aspect that I think we can legitimately disagree on.

A random conclusion. The legal protection is the same for everyone: every citizen is guaranteed freedom from coercion.

I could ask you to read Blackstone, but I doubt if you’d want to. Here’s the official guide to minor civil claims in England and Wales - although this may be a sidetrack that involves us both in too much unnecessary effort, and I’m happy to drop it, now that you’ve conceded that legslation is a possibility in your society.

And I can link you to papers at Cato and Free-Market. Not to question your motives, but it seems odd that when I alone was saddled with this task, it wasn’t too much effort, but now that we both are called upon to do it, it is. I ask nothing more than fairness in our argument. Let us not demand anything of the other that we are unwilling to do ourselves. And that includes hypotheticals. If you get to stipulate A, then I get to counter-stipulate B. We can achieve nothing by long and boring examinations of things that only might happen.

I’m sorry if I gave the impression that philantropy doesn’t exist - I recognize that many individuals (Shaftsbury, Wilberforce, Rowntree) have done a geat deal to benefit society. I just feel that requiring the disadvantaged to rely on philanthropy doesn’t give adequate protection; my ideal state would provide guaranteed support for everyone who deserved it, rather than leaving it up to benevolent individuals.

No such thing is required of them. It is your system that levies the requirement. You cannot, in fact, achieve your goal of support for everyone who deserves it (and let us set aside the burdensome task of defining what deserving actually means) without the enslavement of men’s bodies or minds; i.e., their labor or their consent. That is to say, you must take from them by force what they otherwise would not give. And, of course, you will need laws — and exceptions to those laws — to do that.

Thanks for the feedline. I assume you would have no objection to a Josiah Bounderby operating his factories with no regard for worker safety, unlimited hours of work, child labour, payment in kind rather than in cash, etc? I would object to this, but I accept it’s just my personal opinion.

I suppose that the reason you’re all over the place and making no sense is, again, because you have not inquired of more basic philosophical issues. Children, for example, cannot be made to work because they are, by definition (libertarianly speaking), entities incapable of giving meaningful consent. Workers are free to bargain collectively and even refuse to work or seek work elsewhere if they feel that their safety is threatened. Prostitituion is not unethical so long as both parties are consenting adults.

Would you agree that this “tuning” might be regarded as “legislation” by some people?

Yes. But I find it — distasteful.

[Gadarene]

A random conclusion. The legal protection is the same for everyone: every citizen is guaranteed freedom from coercion.

But not every citizen has equal capacity to secure that freedom. In fact, the range is very wide indeed. Is predatory lending coercion, Lib?

[Tevildo]

@Liberal

I suppose that the reason you’re all over the place and making no sense is, again, because you have not inquired of more basic philosophical issues.

My apologies again, if they’re needed. “Basic philosophical issues” may be important, but I don’t believe that a practical, working society can be built entirely on a philosophical principle. What I’m attempting to do, however incoherently, is to suggest some areas where a more concrete approach to the day-to-day workings of a society is necessary. I understand your general principles. I’m interested in knowing how you would, in practice, apply these principles to the actual issues facing a society.

All rights with respect to this site are those of the Chicago Reader. What we have are permissions which the Chicago Reader is authorized to extend, owing to its ownership.

And there should be no restriction on those permissions, I take it. A privately-owned bus company would have every right to prevent black people sitting in the areas of its buses reserved for whites. OK, it’s not institutional apartheid, but I find it equally objectionable.

Government can own nothing, as it has no rights. Perhaps our discussion should restart at a more fundamental level so that we don’t spend time talking past each other as we mix the particulars of one philosophy with another.

No, let’s stick to the specific example. A landowner seeks to prevent people driving on his roads when intoxicated. How does he go about this without “coercing” them? Is it necessary for me to spell out the current methods by which a law-based society does this? I can do so if you feel I’m putting you at a disadvantage if I don’t.

And I can link you to papers at Cato and Free-Market.

Please do. I’m quite happy to write a couple of hundred words on the issue if it will help progress this discussion.

No such thing is required of them. It is your system that levies the requirement. You cannot, in fact, achieve your goal of support for everyone who deserves it (and let us set aside the burdensome task of defining what deserving actually means) without the enslavement of men’s bodies or minds; i.e., their labor or their consent.

But any captialist system (and please note that I’m not attacking captialism here) requires people to work for their living. If forcing people to pay taxes (for purposes they object to - welfare, military expenditure, support of the arts - there’ll be as many issues as there are taxpayers) is “enslavement”, I don’t see how you can argue that the proposition “Either you work, you find a benefactor, or you starve” isn’t “enslavement”.

Children, for example, cannot be made to work because they are, by definition (libertarianly speaking), entities incapable of giving meaningful consent.

I don’t want to keep harping on this, but how would this be implemented in practice? The state defines minimum ages for various activities? That’s the sort of positive legislation to which you object. Everyone is assumed to be capable of giving “meaningful consent” unless it can be proved otherwise? I need hardly make explicit the immediate consequences of that approach. Everyone is assumed to be incapable until they pass some sort of test for “ability to consent”? If this isn’t authoritarianism, then it’s at least dictatorial bureaucracy.

Workers are free to bargain collectively and even refuse to work or seek work elsewhere if they feel that their safety is threatened.

Assuming such work is available and the dissatisfied workers have the means to survive while they’re looking for it.

Prostitituion is not unethical so long as both parties are consenting adults.

I agree, but I feel that this, and similar desirable social goals, can be achieved within a law-based framework. We don’t have to dismantle the entire system because it has some minor failings - I would say it’s better to correct these failings within the system, and only consider radical change when simple modifications prove to be ineffective; and I would also say that any proposed new system which permits major injustice isn’t worthy of our consideration.

[spazattak]

This is such an interesting discussion. Thank you everyone for continuing to flesh this out. I hate debating in ‘what-ifs’ (and routinely scold coworkers for it) but when you’re testing the limits of an idea, what are you left with? As I read and contemplate on this topic it becomes more clear that this is like any other ideological issue. Theoretically, its beautiful and will lead to an empowered populace. I believe though, that it gets complex and begins to fall apart realisitically (when us imperfect humans are introduced to it). I think its an excellent concept to build upon though.

[Little_Nemo]

We seem to be mainly focused on civil law. How would Libertaria handle criminal law?

For example, let’s say it’s a Libertarian society where the government only exists to intervene when a coercive act is initiated. I go out and shoot a guy on the street. Nobody sees me commit the crime. What happens next in Libertaria?

Does the government get involved? After all, the person who was “coerced” is not in a position to file a complaint. Is there an automatic assumption of coercion made in all murder cases so the government has authority to act on it?

The next step is, if there is an investigation, who conducts it? Does the government have a standing police force to investigate crimes? Who pays their salaries and where do the funds come from? Does the government have the power to detain people and compel testimony? What powers does the government have and when are they invoked?

Assuming that the investigators discover I committed the crime, then what happens? Is there a trial? Who decides what the legal procedure will be? Who appoints the judge? What kind of punishments can the court impose upon me?

[Liberal]

@Tevildo

My apologies again, if they’re needed. “Basic philosophical issues” may be important, but I don’t believe that a practical, working society can be built entirely on a philosophical principle.

Sure it can. To wit…

What I’m attempting to do, however incoherently, is to suggest some areas where a more concrete approach to the day-to-day workings of a society is necessary.

…a philosophy of expediency.

I understand your general principles. I’m interested in knowing how you would, in practice, apply these principles to the actual issues facing a society.

What is practical depends entirely on what one is practicing. A completely different set of issues would face a society if you’re practicing voluntary human relations in a context of peace and honesty versus practicing involuntary human relations in a context of law and order.

And there should be no restriction on those permissions, I take it. A privately-owned bus company would have every right to prevent black people sitting in the areas of its buses reserved for whites. OK, it’s not institutional apartheid, but I find it equally objectionable.

So will lots of other people, unless you fancy yourself as the sole enlightened person on earth. That’s why competing entrepreneurs are chomping at the bit as they develop their ads: “You’re first class with us.”

No, let’s stick to the specific example. A landowner seeks to prevent people driving on his roads when intoxicated. How does he go about this without “coercing” them? Is it necessary for me to spell out the current methods by which a law-based society does this? I can do so if you feel I’m putting you at a disadvantage if I don’t.

Don’t lose sight of the definitions. Coercion is initial force or deception. If you are driving on his property without his permission, then you are a tresspasser. He calls upon his government to defend his rights (property), just as you would call the police if someone were drunk on your lawn.

Please do. I’m quite happy to write a couple of hundred words on the issue if it will help progress this discussion.

I would recommend less writing and more reading. What is missing is a grasp of fundamentals. You can’t have it both ways: libertarianism is a political philosophy that is deduced from the ethic of noncoercion; understanding it, therefore, requires understanding how it is derived. You can ask a thousand questions and never understand the answers because they are without any context. But if you understood the philosophy, then you could answer all the questions yourself. I’m doing nothing more here than you could do. I’m applying a general ethic to whatever specific example you raise.

But any captialist system (and please note that I’m not attacking captialism here) requires people to work for their living.

Lots of people have inherited wealth. Some win the lottery. Some hit a lucky investment. Some are just in the right place at the right time.

If forcing people to pay taxes (for purposes they object to - welfare, military expenditure, support of the arts - there’ll be as many issues as there are taxpayers) is “enslavement”, I don’t see how you can argue that the proposition “Either you work, you find a benefactor, or you starve” isn’t “enslavement”.

I really can’t help that. If you don’t see it, no explanation is likely to make a difference. But I think that freed slaves know the difference. You seem to equate hardship with slavery, but a freed slave knows that he now faces merely a different hardship. Freedom isn’t necessarily easy. Nobody said it is. But I much prefer the hardship of dealing with obstacles that I may overcome with my wits and effort than obstacles that are forced upon me by men with guns and prisons.

I don’t want to keep harping on this, but how would this be implemented in practice? The state defines minimum ages for various activities? That’s the sort of positive legislation to which you object. Everyone is assumed to be capable of giving “meaningful consent” unless it can be proved otherwise? I need hardly make explicit the immediate consequences of that approach. Everyone is assumed to be incapable until they pass some sort of test for “ability to consent”? If this isn’t authoritarianism, then it’s at least dictatorial bureaucracy.
Assuming such work is available and the dissatisfied workers have the means to survive while they’re looking for it.

It’s surprising, given your obvious legal knowledge, that you’re unfamiliar with any process for emancipation of minors. In practice, a minor appeals to arbitration that he is now capable of giving meaningful consent and that the obligation of his parents is completed or else they are incapable of completing it. Arbitration hears his case and decides. It is a mystery why this is a sky-is-falling problem for Libertaria, but no big deal for Authoritaria.

I agree, but I feel that this, and similar desirable social goals, can be achieved within a law-based framework. We don’t have to dismantle the entire system because it has some minor failings - I would say it’s better to correct these failings within the system, and only consider radical change when simple modifications prove to be ineffective; and I would also say that any proposed new system which permits major injustice isn’t worthy of our consideration.

If you believe that there are no major injustices in your present system, or that there can be none in any system you conceive, then I submit that this entire discussion is a waste of time and borders on the irrational. It is clear that you have no interest in understanding libertarian theory, so I would only ask you a personal favor: in your quest to form your society with its “desirable social goals”, take care that you do not run roughshod over the vulnerable and helpless to achieve them. They are the ones who experience the injustices that you do not perceive. That’s the nature of central planning — you fix it so that it’s just right for you and what you perceive other men need; meanwhile, other men might have different plans and find yours to be unsatisfactory.

[Liberal]

@Little Nemo

We seem to be mainly focused on civil law. How would Libertaria handle criminal law?

The same way.

For example, let’s say it’s a Libertarian society where the government only exists to intervene when a coercive act is initiated. I go out and shoot a guy on the street. Nobody sees me commit the crime. What happens next in Libertaria?

My guess would be that the street owner would call the cops.

Does the government get involved?

Yes.

After all, the person who was “coerced” is not in a position to file a complaint. Is there an automatic assumption of coercion made in all murder cases so the government has authority to act on it?

Yes. Murder is coercive, unless you were defending your life.

The next step is, if there is an investigation, who conducts it?

Whoever is hired.

Does the government have a standing police force to investigate crimes?

Certainly. That’s one thing you hired your government for.

Who pays their salaries and where do the funds come from?

The people they govern. Of course, your consent to this system was willful. (Otherwise, we aren’t talking about Libertaria.)

Does the government have the power to detain people and compel testimony?

Yes.

What powers does the government have and when are they invoked?

It has the power to suppress coercion and does so whenever force or depection is initiated.

Assuming that the investigators discover I committed the crime, then what happens?

You face arbitration.

Is there a trial?

Yes.

Who decides what the legal procedure will be?

The founders of the government.

Who appoints the judge?

Personally, I favor a random judge.

What kind of punishments can the court impose upon me?

Up to and including the complete loss of your liberty.

Now that I’ve answered your questions, would you be so kind as to answer them yourself with respect to whatever system it is that you advocate?

[Gadarene]

Could you answer my question, Lib? It’s fairly focused, specific, and on-topic.

[Dunderman]

@Liberal

It’s surprising, given your obvious legal knowledge, that you’re unfamiliar with any process for emancipation of minors. In practice, a minor appeals to arbitration that he is now capable of giving meaningful consent and that the obligation of his parents is completed or else they are incapable of completing it. Arbitration hears his case and decides. It is a mystery why this is a sky-is-falling problem for Libertaria, but no big deal for Authoritaria.

This is the one thing that I still don’t get after all these discussions about libertarianism. If I understand you correctly, children are deemed incapable of giving meaningful consent until such time as they actively and successfully seek to be declared capable. Until then, they are completely in the power of their parents. Correct?

[Tevildo]

@Liberal

I would recommend less writing and more reading. What is missing is a grasp of fundamentals. You can’t have it both ways: libertarianism is a political philosophy that is deduced from the ethic of noncoercion; understanding it, therefore, requires understanding how it is derived. You can ask a thousand questions and never understand the answers because they are without any context. But if you understood the philosophy, then you could answer all the questions yourself. I’m doing nothing more here than you could do. I’m applying a general ethic to whatever specific example you raise.

I appreciate your point, and must thank you for improving my understanding of libertarian philsophy, although I freely admit that my understanding is doubtless still very imperfect.

Referring to fiction may not be the best of debating techniques, but I read an unspectacular but competent SF novel a few years ago - “Chimera”, by Will Shetterly - which is set in a libertarian society such as you describe. The book’s society works adequately, but it’s still not one in which I’d like to live.

If you believe that there are no major injustices in your present system, or that there can be none in any system you conceive, then I submit that this entire discussion is a waste of time and borders on the irrational.

This is perhaps true. I don’t feel competent to design a Utopia, and have no desire to make the attempt. Our disagreement, as I see it, is over what we consider to be major injustices. I don’t regard the laws-based system I currently live under, that of the UK, as being perfect, but neither do I regard it as supporting or condoning any injustices that I would describe as “major”. A libertarian system would still permit injustices - I know you’re far too sensible to claim that such a system would be perfect. However, in my opinion, the residual injustices of libertarianism would be unacceptable, while the residual injustices of the system I actually live under today aren’t. Of course, I don’t hold out my opinion as being the only valid one, and accept that your assessment of the two systems may be the opposite of mine.

[spazattak]

@Tevildo

This is perhaps true. I don’t feel competent to design a Utopia, and have no desire to make the attempt. Our disagreement, as I see it, is over what we consider to be major injustices. I don’t regard the laws-based system I currently live under, that of the UK, as being perfect, but neither do I regard it as supporting or condoning any injustices that I would describe as “major”. A libertarian system would still permit injustices - I know you’re far too sensible to claim that such a system would be perfect. However, in my opinion, the residual injustices of libertarianism would be unacceptable, while the residual injustices of the system I actually live under today aren’t. Of course, I don’t hold out my opinion as being the only valid one, and accept that your assessment of the two systems may be the opposite of mine.

What are you qualifying as ‘major injustices’? Where is libertaria falling short for you?

[Tevildo]

@spazattak

What are you qualifying as ‘major injustices’? Where is libertaria falling short for you?

Well, to take the examples that have come up so far in this thread - condoning of racial (and I assume sexual) discrimination, condoning of unsafe working practices (“A Triangle Shirtwaist on every corner! Minimize your margins, maximize your PROFITS! Invest in Libertaria TODAY!”), failing to protect its citizens from professional incompetence, allowing eight-year-olds who can pass the “meaningful consent” test to become prostitutes…

[Gadarene]

What are you qualifying as ‘major injustices’? Where is libertaria falling short for you?

For me it falls most short in dealing with agreements between entities with vastly different bargaining power/capacity. Sort of the EULA argument writ large.

[Frankenstein_Monster]

@spazattak

Where is libertaria falling short for you?

My take: I don’t see ‘Major injustices’ and ‘vastly different bargaining power/capacity’ as any worse under Libertarianism than today (we have a tolerable situation with respect to the former as long as you’re not a “guest” in Guantanamo Bay and your name isn’t Maher Arar, and a rather less than satisfactory situation with the latter but hopefully improving), while I agree they are central considerations for a societal philosophy .

My beef with orthodox Libertarianism would be considering taxes to be a bad thing or a reduction of liberty.

[spazattak]

@Tevildo

Well, to take the examples that have come up so far in this thread - condoning of racial (and I assume sexual) discrimination, condoning of unsafe working practices (“A Triangle Shirtwaist on every corner! Minimize your margins, maximize your PROFITS! Invest in Libertaria TODAY!”), failing to protect its citizens from professional incompetence, allowing eight-year-olds who can pass the “meaningful consent” test to become prostitutes…

The argument would be that the open market would solve alot of these problems. One person refuses to hire qualified latinos. Glut of qualified latinos in the market = cheap latino labor. Someone hires cheap latino labor and does the same thing for cheaper, making money. Unsafe working conditions can be addressed by the market (company A has safer conditions than company B - employees at company A will take less in wages for the safety - company A makes stuff cheaper because of this and blah blah blah) unions, and/or coercion. What do you mean by ‘protection from professional incompetance’? And the last one… I think you’re grasping at straws. The system wouldn’t be allowing that really. Whatever in that child’s life that would lead to that kind of life could have been curtailed by enforcement of coercion.

[Gadarene]

Unsafe working conditions can be addressed by the market (company A has safer conditions than company B - employees at company A will take less in wages for the safety - company A makes stuff cheaper because of this and blah blah blah) unions, and/or coercion.

There are really serious information/rationality concerns with this formulation.

[Liberal]

@Tevildo

Referring to fiction may not be the best of debating techniques, but I read an unspectacular but competent SF novel a few years ago - “Chimera”, by Will Shetterly - which is set in a libertarian society such as you describe. The book’s society works adequately, but it’s still not one in which I’d like to live.

That’s exactly why I love libertarianism. Since it is not a society you care to live in, it does not force you to do so. If you like nothing else about it, you should like that.

[Liberal]

@Gadarene

Could you answer my question, Lib? It’s fairly focused, specific, and on-topic.

Could you carve me out a few more hours of time? It’s a fairly focused, specific, and straightforward request. Now that Tevildo has pulled back a bit, maybe you could squeeze in here. Tell me what predatory lending is and I’ll take a stab at it.

[Liberal]

@Priceguy

This is the one thing that I still don’t get after all these discussions about libertarianism. If I understand you correctly, children are deemed incapable of giving meaningful consent until such time as they actively and successfully seek to be declared capable. Until then, they are completely in the power of their parents. Correct?

No. That only comes up when people posit these child labor and tyrannical parent scenarios and want to know what government does about it. Ordinarilly, children just grow up and leave home.