What about my question to him? If you’re going to butt in, how 'bout answering it? What does the US do about such things in China? And why isn’t it horrible that the US doesn’t send its army to China to stop it?
Yes. And sometimes it matters and sometimes it doesn’t. And I’m saying that this is an instance where it matters, because it involves (a) systematic (b) exploitation of (c) a wide class of people (d) who are more vulnerable than most members of society. As I read you, there’s never a situation where unequal bargaining power due to lack of education or sophistication amounts to coercion. To the extent that’s your position, I strongly disagree.
Who in the world says I don’t see that as coercive? 
Hell if I know. On second thought, I have no one to blame for coming into this thread other than myself. My apologies to you, Gadarene, and to Priceguy, Tevildo, and anyone else to whom I was in any way curt or gruff. But I do believe the thread became rather Pittish sometime back, and I’ve been staying out of the Pit for a reason. I’ll go ahead and stipulate that libertarianism is a stupid and hopeless philosophy and that I am a fool for buying into it. And I’ll know better next time a thread arises.
In your formulation, Lib, the child pornographer could be living right next door, able to prey on all and sundry, and not be subject to the laws of any jurisdiction to which he had not himself consented. China is not right next door. The US doesn’t send its army to China to stop the abuses there because, among other reasons, borders have a meaning in today’s world that (by your own admission) they wouldn’t in Libertaria. The bottom line is that, practically speaking, we can’t stop those abuses in China absent committing ourselves to fullblown use of force.
And you would make every noncontracting household the equivalent of China.
Hah. Did that work in the 1950’s workforce? Why weren’t there more women and minorities in the workforce then? Not enough qualified candidates?
Now mind you, I’m not absolutely convinced that it should be government’s role to regulate free association. I just don’t think it always tends to produce economically-optimal outcomes, such as when employers are purblinded by prejudice.
Well then, what does Russia do about China? What does the US do about Mexico? What does anybody do about anybody else’s jurisdiction? But you’re still neglecting a central point: Libertaria is not libertarianism. There is no reason that US could not make laws based on the ethic of noncoercion and prosecute child abusers within its borders. Just because you don’t like Libertaria should have no bearing on what you think of the philosophy.
But it does beg the question. There is a presumption that government led people by the nose into racial and gender parity, when the argument could be made the other way around. People took to the streets and made demands that changed society, while government played catch-up when it became politically expedient to do so.
When I said next door, I meant it. Next door. My understanding of your philosophy is that literal next-door neighbors could be operating under different bundles of contractual obligations under different sets of governments. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
That’s absolutely true. But it carries with it the assumption that the child abuser would be subject to those laws simply by being within U.S. borders. The same is not true for Libertaria, because Libertaria has no borders. The child abuser would only be subject to those laws to which he had consensually contracted. Or am I misunderstanding you?
Remember my “perfect governmental system” thread from way back? I could conceive of a dozen wonderful philosophies that I would never dare implement in the real world, or never be able to.
But can’t that happen anyway? Isn’t there some line in the dirt that separates Mr. Smith’s land from Senor Gomez’s?
Well, you’re right. But neither does he have any protection, which after all is what government is, at least libertarianly. How will he stop me and my posse?
I’ve said many times that implementation of libertarianism is problematic for any number of reasons. And I don’t seek to force it on anyone at all, including you.
Sure there is, but – assuming you’re talking about the United States and Mexico – only one. If you and me and Socialist Joe all live side by side by side on a lovely little suburban street, in Libertaria we’ve got three individual contractual bundles carrying with them three individual sets of rules, obligations, and protections. Every time anyone lives next door to anyone in Libertaria, it’s likely – or at least quite possible – that the neighbors will be subject to the rules of different governments. That’s a far sight from one big ol’ long border down near the Rio Grande, separating our rules from their rules.
I guess my point with regard to borderless social contexts can be summed up as follows: as long as you’re within American borders, you can’t opt out of American laws. It’s not a bug; it’s a feature.
We’ve never discussed the application of Hayek’s theories to this because, frankly, it’s never gotten to that stage. We’ve always blown up at each other and melted the thread. But even though what you say is true, there is evidence, based on the theory of spontaneous order (which helped Hayek win his Nobel Prize), that these pockets would coalesce into larger communities until eventually they more resembled the nation states you recognize now except that the borders are drawn by volunteers rather than conquerors. But maybe that’s a topic for another thread as well.
Actually, a lot of Indians think it’s a bug. 
And your spontaneous order point is a good one.
[…happy dance!..]
Thank you, Gadarene! If nothing else, I’m grateful that we communicated effectively with one another. Either you or I or both have made great progress. I may never pop into another libertarian thread, but for what it’s worth, you made an old man happy by your graciousness. I’m glad I stuck it out a few more posts.
No thanks necessary. I’m glad you stuck it out as well – you made a point I’ve never really considered before, Lib. I’ll have to give it some real thought.
(And here I was thinking that we couldn’t surprise each other in these libertarianism threads any more…)
My system is pretty obvious - it basically is the one we live in. Majoritarian rule for lack of a better term. A single government is established. The people control the government, usually by electing representatives who run the government. Society is governed by laws that are created by the will of the majority (expressed through their representatives). The rest is details.
Undeniably this system is subject to possible abuse. It’s possible for a majority to impose its will unjustly upon individuals or minority groups and there are numerous historical examples of this happening. But generally in a stable society, the people appreciate the value of respecting individual and minority rights.
The benefits of this system is stability. In a system where every individual is the final authority then there is no final authority - every question of policy has millions of different answers depending on who is involved. In a majoritiarian system, by definition, there is only one final authority. So questions can have definitive answers and society can move on.
Lib, can I now in turn ask you some questions about your system? I’d like to be sure I understand your views on what governments are. Am I correct in assuming that you believe joining a government is a voluntary act that every person can make by choice? Does this mean that multiple governments can exist, side by side, with each seeking to attract “citizens” by offering the best services? What would be the position of people who chose not to join any government? What would happen if two governments disagree about control of some resource, like the water in a river or bandwidth in a broadcast spectrum?