Let me tell you… dumb-fuck, backwoods, shit-eating, non-thinking, non-READING-MY-POST-BEFORE-YOU-COMMENT-ON-IT, Woodie-Whacking MORONS sure piss me OFF!!
I am referring to you, Oblivion
Because I never, ever said that libertarianism is the same as anarchy… I DO however say, that you are a pitiful bag of pus-filled sores shaken (not stirred) up with your own liquid parrot shit that passes for brains.
I DID however imply that the fictional dreamland that Libertarian often mentions would lead to an anarchy (in my opinion… which is clearly at a level so much greater than YOUR puny, tapeworm-like feelings on any issue other than your twice-hourly nub-thumping bouts of thrashful self-frictioning (lubricated with your own vomit))
And you may note that the dictionary definition that YOU cite, “b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority.” describes perfectly what I’m talking about.
So even as you spew idiotic trash, you manage, by ACCIDENT,(which i’m sure is the only way you have ever done anything at all constructive in your hopefully short and certainly miserable existance) to support my idea completely. (well YOU don’t support it— with barely even an fly-speck sized piece of grey matter-- you are probably incapable of either supporting or rejecting anything other than your horrible ass-rash licking habit)
Thanks for being a dumb-fuck
Keep your fucked-up, nonsensical shit the HELL AWAY FROM ME
A) I really liked your response to the OP, Lib. You really clarified a couple of points on the practical application of libertarianism that I’d always wondered about for me!
B) The part I quoted above leads to a (to me) fascinating area for the practical application of libertarianism.
The ability of the mentally ill to give consent is something that any group , be they statist, anarchist, libertarian, etc has to wrestle with. There’s a principle in our society (not well adhered to and subject to abuse/misinterpretation, etc, granted) that if a person is a danger to themselves or others, they can be institutionalized against their will. Given the set-up, I’ve got several questions:
First, let’s grant that public (but voluntarily funded) institutions for the mentally ill and hospitals exist in Libertaria. I don’t wanna bog down on that point and I have no doubt they would exist, in any case.
[ul]
[li]A person exhibiting all the symptoms of an untreated schizophrenic is barely surviving living in and eating garbage under a bridge. The police try to convince him to go to the institution for treatment. He raves but clearly makes his refusal known. Under what circumstances can the police force him to accept treatment? This is a horribly sticky question under statist rule: how does Libertopolis deal with this?[/li]
[li]Heinlein, who seemed to have much sympathy with libertarian ideals, based a novel on the idea that the right to commit suicide is a basic human right*. For a rational person, I agree. What about a bipolar person at the nadir of his/her depressive cycle? Can the government intervene?[/li]
One more, this one mostly for grins:
[li]If a person with multiple-personality disorder enters a contract in one personality, but the contract is repudiated by one of his/her different personalities, is the contract binding on the dissenting personality? [/li][/ul]
In addition, can you sketch out some general principles on how Liberteria would determine compentency to give consent?
This has the rather preposterous affect of having every single person in the world being a citizen of any government that is bound in any way from acting, ever. Governments with constitutions have limitations on their ability to act. If we are to construe a government’s actions against any party as criteria for being a citizen of that government there are some rather strange conceptual results that will occur.
If America goes to war against Hussien, will Hussien become a citizen of the US?
You feel you have demonstrated a point. Suppose we agree: did the government have a hand in it? Did the SDMB set the standards for when a debate here is won? Do you feel any less inclined to make your point, or any less right for it?
It would be rather illuminating if Oblivian had posted what dictionary we were using so we could see how it defines “government”; “Libertaria is not concerned with borders and is not a regime with any legitimacy beyond your consent”. Whatever it is that Lib advocates doesn’t have any borders, doesn’t claim soverignity, and a lot of other characteristics that would normally consitute a government. Aside from Lib’s insistance on using the word ‘government’ to describe what ACs call ‘private protective agencies’, the system Lib describes is exactly what self-identified anarcho-capitalists argue for, so I find it odd that he always takes offense at any mention of anarchism or anarcho-capitalism.
Lib said:
As is typical, this explanation sounds good until you remember the specifics of Lib’s Libertarianism. The parents themselves can constitute a government in Lib’s Libertarianism, therefore actually prosecuting child abuse is somewhat problemetical since the parents pick their own government and could decide to be their own government.
And like always, there is no objective way to determine who can give meaniningful consent - if my government says child is under 12, and yours says under 18, what’s to stop your 14-YO kid from running away, going to my government, and saying ‘protect me from these people, they’re violating my rights’?
When Lib’s super-amazing setup falls apart on something as simple as this, you have to wonder how it would manage to work in the real world.
What would be remotely “over the top” about it? Oh, wait, you’re the idiot who thinks that anyone who criticizes Lib’s Libertaria must be looking for redistribution of wealth. Let me guess - it’s over the top because it criticized your hero? Maybe Edlyn should look out for you…
But seriously, folks, if you’ve been here and done this, why vent it all over again right now?
Lib, I’m not planning to read any of the referenced links until we finish talking. If then. Whatever basis anyone may have for their feelings is their own business.
It seems like that can be a self-reinforcing habit, like picking at a scab. (I pick, you get irked, so when the next guy picks, you get more irked more quickly.) I realize it would take the patience of a saint, but maybe you could can some standard responses to the typical initial questions to weed out the people who will not listen fairly. Maybe that would be me, but at least you could keep your blood pressure in a healthy place.
So far, so good. I’m not finding your answers lacking… I can imagine the detailed arguments that might devolve along the lines you’re suggesting. Still, I think there’s a difference between a think tank that often has a partisan axe to grind and an individual with ideals.
I don’t follow the logic there. Can you fill it in for me?
Well that might be fun… I suppose I could start a large smoky fire every day during rush hour and that would make people not want to use the road. Does that seem like a suitable retributive solution?
So, what if it’s a less direct pollution-- like a coal-burning plan located 500 or 1000 miles away that kills the fish in my lake?
May I take retributive action against this subversion of my property rights by blowing up the plant?
[quote]
… if your road is sold, then the new owner likely was attracted to it because it was a profit-making enterprise. Cutting off his customer base would be a fundamental commercial mistake. The only way you can reasonably assure that you will be put into a fairly hopeless situation is to introduce a Giant Squid, such as a mean old man with almost unlimited wealth who delights in torturing his neighbors in an area that is free of entrepreneurs and people who can think for themselves.
[\quote]
I imagined the economic argument, and was specifically thinking of the Giant Squid. I agree that it’s a remote possibility, but it’s easy to imagine very rich people in the entrepreneurial environment you propose-- heck, I imagine Bill Gates could own all the land in North Dakota and still have lots of cash. If Bill is a mean man, he could in fact cut me off from the world.
Granted. It would require lots of different utility suppliers all not liking me very much.
Your response does raise the intereesting question, though, of how there could be competition to supply me with water.
I suppose that the pipes are owned independently of the reservoir, and the pipe company will sell the right to supply me water to the highest bidder among reservoirs?
What if one of the reservoirs buys the pipes and won’t allow the others to supply water through them?
Then if I want water, I must pay the price they ask. Or, I could move, I guess, to a place with more livable prices for utilities.
That would seem to put a lot of power in the hand of the arbiter. Who decides who the arbiter will be? [I realize this is perhaps a side note since it’s just a particular possible realization and not a required element.]
Ah. I didn’t realize that libertarians were required to treat non-libertarians with non-coercion.
Libertarianism is an advocation of personal responsibility and freedom. Under a libertarian society, the individual and not the government decides what is best when it comes to schools, community, common defense, infastructure and many other issues.
There is a need for government. Without government there would be anarchy. The US government is structured so as the Federal government is the strongest (biggest what have you), then the state government, then the local government. Imagine if this were to be reversed. Local communities can make their own laws and decisions, without fear of them being rejected by a faceless national government.
The only responsibilities given to a National government is that a common defense and the coinage of money. That’s it.
Social Security should be abolished for several reasons. What gives the government the right to take money out of my pay that I have earned just to return it to me at 65? I can take that money and put it into a savings account, IRA, or throw it away on chicken wings and beer at Hooters. What is really happening is that the government is borrowing into the SS fund to pay for other debackles and debts, so when you pay into SS, this is merely another tax.
Another truly ridiculous deal about SS is that EVERYONE will one day get a check from them. Warren Buffet, Charlton Heston, Dick Clark, plus ten of thousands of others extremely wealthy people are getting this money every month. With them, as well as us, we will never see that money that we were forced to give to this fund again.
Schools should be all local and ran locally. Not only this, people should be responsible for paying tuition to send their children to school. I should not have to pay from my taxes for your six brats to go to school. People should be allowed to “shop” for the best schools to fit their child’s needs. At the end of their education, a test would be administered by the local government to test knowledge to award a High school diploma.
If you own a car, you will pay a tax to the local government every month for the upkeep of the roads. Of course the roads will be repaired through private industry that the local government hires for the work.
The Post office will be history. Let Fed Ex, UPS, DHL and others contract for the work.
Medical marijuana CAN become legal because the Federal government is no longer our MOMMY telling us no. The local governments can make other decisions including that of taxation itsself, public/private enterprises, education, you name it. The local government decides if they want to pay money for the arts, the local government decides what is acceptable and not acceptable in their communities. There is no faceless national government dictating their terms on you (localities). Wonderful.
Taxes will be paid through sales taxes on the local level. No more INCOME TAX. No more IRS! Everybody will pay taxes, but since almost everything is privatized (which will help with employment) the government has little to spend on except common defense (soldiers, police,prison system and courts) the taxes will be very low. Also, it will be in writng the rate of tax and all tax changes are required to be put up to a vote.
A libertarian America does not get too involved in foreign policy unless threatened by a foreign power (i.e. Hitler). To note, America is threatened by a foreign power, that being Al Queda, a terrorist organization. Saddam Huessain has never been a threat to the United States and never will be.
The core issue with the Middle East (ME) is that the US has given billions of dollars to Israel, and Israel has declared war and has killed thousands of defenseless people in the name of God (sounds like Iran huh?). If America would STOP foreign aid to Israel and all countries, America would not be in the cross fire and America can take care of its own internal interest and not take sides. This is true freedom. Take our troops off the 38th parallel in Korea, stop the embargo against Cuba, and stop funding dictators and Zionists worldwide.
So, it’s just a vague accusation of wrongdoing that you can’t back up in the least? Why am I not suprised? <-- Rhetorical Questions, no need to provide another non-answer.
Ah good, now you’re to the ‘outright lies’ stage of the moron’s guide to Libertarian advocacy. What’s next, an accusation that I want to murder you, maybe something about jackbooted thugs?
For anyone else reading: I never claimed that “governments only act on its citizens”, though I’m sure erislover will continue to shout that I did. When Lib and his pal’s lack an answer, they resort to making false claims about their opponents, sometimes going so far as to accuse them of wanting to commit theft, murder, and other high crimes. What I have claimed is that “Quite simply, Libertaria does not govern me only by consent if initiation of force by a citizen of Libertaria subjects a person to Libertaria’s laws, and government only by consent is the fundamental principle which Libertarian uses to justify his self-righteous whining in a variety of threads.”, which says nothing which remotely resembles ‘a government only acts on its citizens’ - it in fact explicitly talks about a government acting on noncitizens. It does say that either Lib’s claim that “Libertaria… is not a regime with any legitimacy beyond your consent” is false or that shooting kids for trespassing is fine by Libertaria as long as the shooters are noncitizens.
Sorry if I keep repeating that, but Libertarian and pals seem to be unable to read at a third-grade level. Maybe they should follow Oblivion’s advice and go back to grade school.
Jesus H Christ, did you go into your mother’s crack stash again? What I wrote said nothing about having every person in the world be a citizen, or whatever that contortionist English Lesson. is trying to say. “If we are to construe a government’s actions against any party as criteria for being a citizen of that government” then we are contruing something that has nothing at all to do with anything I wrote.
The question makes grammatical sense, so I’ll answer it with a no, but won’t even try to figure out how its supposed to relate to anything else in this thread.
We should agree to a question? That doesn’t make any damn sense at all, and I think I actually lost IQ points by reading it.
Yeah, you’ve definately got the some kind of pipe out today. Is the above supposed to mean anything, or are you just creating some kind of word salad to stave off the munchies? I’ve seen a drunk monkey with a head wound produce a more coherent argument.
Just a little interjection from the real world of extant governments: The US Supreme court has already decided that non-nationals residing elsewhere can be kidnapped in foreign countries and jailed in the US for breaking US laws. (This is the Noriega case, if you weren’t paying attention at the time.) As far as I’m concerned, this means that everyone pays the price of US citizenship (obeying the laws, not paying the taxes) but only a few of us get the benefits.
No, Riboflavin, let it trouble you no more: I said I wouldn’t, not that I couldn’t.
Well, one of us may surely stumble into that territory.
I apologize; see, you are attempting to present a paradox, and that can involve some torturous phrasing; to wit, that Libertaria does not just govern by consent, in which case (one would assume) you must be pointing out that the mere act of Libertaria against a non-citizen must render them a citizen. If it didn’t, the charge of them failing to rule by consent is moot. So which is it: is Libertaria only governing by consent, or is it forcing non-citizens to become citizens? Otherwise, I don’t see how you can say that you are being governed by Libertaria coercively; it rather seems like any act of physical agression any government might take in order to protect the interests of its citizens. Which, thankfully, would not be you.
Then your charge that Libertaria fails to govern only by consent is false. Thick skull much?
No, my dear, suppose we agree that you have a point. I admit grasping something like that is difficult as you seem to not have one, but we can at the very least hypothesize.
nogginhead
Yes. This is much of what Libertaria might do. It would not render them citizens of Libertaria, and so any claim that Libertaria doesn’t rule by consent becomes false.
That’s an execellent question for this thread because answering it will invoke some the most fundamental principles of libertarianism.
Let’s begin by assessing the scenario itself, because we will discover that it is a highly unlikely one. Even so, I will answer it, but most of the answer itself is in explaining why it is not likely to happen.
In practical terms — and this applies not just to libertarianism, but to any political system in general — de facto ownership is determined by identifying who it is that calls the shots with respect to the property in question. Who has the authority to say you may or may not enter the property? Who determines whether you may or may not build a home there? Or a shoe store? Or a park?
Whoever it is that may say yea or nay about the property, they are the ones who are acting as owner. In our present society, property — all property — is owned by government, which reserves unto itself such “rights” as eminent domain and asset forfeiture.
So-called “public property” is property that is actually owned by whatever group of people has the most political clout. Thus, if you have sufficient political influence, you may take effective ownership of property by the drafting of legislation or regulation that will give you the say-so over it.
Government may seize the property of Mr. Jones so that Mr. Smith will have access for his railroad, for example. Or it may force Mrs. Brown off her property so that The State can build a freeway. In most cases (but not all) it will compensate the person whose property it takes with what it considers to be a “fair” market value. I said that it will not do this in all cases because my ancestors were gathered up and forcefully transported more than a thousand miles away from their homes in the harshest imaginable conditions. Those who survived were then abandoned with nothing more than the clothes on their backs and left to fend for themselves. But I digress.
In Libertaria, the context is considerably different, as you might imagine. Government claims no ownership of property at all. There is no legislative body to do favors for people who are politically powerful. And property is synonymous with rights.
Therefore, you can see how unlikely it is that the man in your hypothetical is living under a bridge. That bridge is owned by someone who might likely not take kindly to his bridge being used for someone’s garbage can and piss-pot. After all, he has customers who use his bridge, and he wants their experience with it to be as pleasant as possible since he is likely in competition with owners of other routes.
The police will not be engaged in trying to convince him to leave. They will be evicting him. They will use whatever force is necessary to whatever degree he resists. If they must, they will physically remove him. If he threatens or uses deadly force, they will respond in kind. Since he does not own the property, he has no rights with respect to it, and therefore any force he uses is not responsive but initial.
He will be taken before an arbiter. I see that your final question pretty much addresses what happens next, so I will leave that for when I answer it.
Not ordinarilly, no, unless there is some contractual obligation for which suicide would constitute breach. Of course, in the case of someone mentally incompetent, breach is the responsibility of his parent or guardian.
Parenting and guardianship are very profound obligations in Libertaria. People do not take it lightly. They know that they face the possibility of being bound for life to the care and maintenance of someone who cannot fend for themselves.
In our present society, some people give more thought to buying a new car than to having a baby — and for good reason! When they grow tired of car maintenance and expense, no one will swoop in and rescue them by taking responsibility for their car. But when they cannot provide for a child, property is taken from others to subsidize their obligation.
Therefore, in Libertaria, the onus is upon the parent or guardian as bearers of a unary contract to protect the schizophrenic from harm. Since he is incapable of giving meaningful consent, he is incapable of determining for himself the value of his life. It must be assumed by his parent or guardian that his life has value. And they are obligated to take every reasonable measure, using whatever force is necessary, to protect him from himself.
In Libertaria, family is a crucial social unit.
Well, as you said, the question was for jest. But for the record, rights do not accrue to personalities, but to human beings. A true MPD might constitute mental incompetence at any rate, in which case a parent or guardian would be responsible to ensure that such a person not encounter a circumstance to enter into a contract in the first place.
In general, it is determined in a process of arbitration, wherein an arbiter may call upon whatever expertise is necessary to determine whether a person can differentiate his ownership of property from someone else’s and the rights that accrue therefrom, can engage in free and volitional economic praxes involving the transfer of property, and has the mental and emotional faculty to accrue property peacefully and honestly.
As an interesting aside to this, there is no specific “age of consent” in Libertaria. It is up to parents and guardians to decide when their children are adults — an adult being defined as someone who is capable of giving meaninful consent. There might be some people who have enormous mental and emotional maturity at fifteen, while others are mentally and emotionally immature at fifty. If a parent is unsure, he may seek arbitration to determine whether his child has acquired the ability to give meaningful consent.
But there might be cases where a parent abuses his obligation to a child, intent upon keeping the child under his care long after he has become an adult. This might happen for many reasons, some more nefarious than others. Obviously, physical, sexual, or mental abuse are punishable anyway as overt coercions. But there can be more subtle abuses, like a desire that a boy continue to be a hand on the farm.
In such cases, when the child believes that he is capable of giving meaningful consent (and remember that such ethical questions and considerations positively permeate the society, so children are quite conscious of anticipating adulthood), and that his parents are holding their unary contract abusively, he may himself seek arbitration.
His citizenship as a child is by proxy of his parents or guardians. But if by arbitration, it is determined that he is an adult, then his contractual tie with his parents or guardians is immediately severed, and he may elect to pay for Libertarian citizenship as an adult.
Conflicts in rights occur whenever ownership of property is obscure. You seem to like examples, so I’ll give you some:
Can you burn that flag? That depends on whose flag it is. If it is yours, you may do with it as you please. If it is not, you have no rights with respect to it.
Can you say what you please on this message board? No. You do not own it. The Chicago Reader and its authorized representatives have the sole authority to determine what speech is and is not acceptable here. We are not exercising any so-called “right to free speech” here. We are exercising a privilege that is extented to us by the owner of the rights.
Can you walk naked through a public park? There are no public parks. The owner of the park has extended you the privilege to be there, and you are bound by his terms if you wish to use it.
Can you own a rifle? Sure. But if you use it to coerce or threaten coercion, you are a criminal.
And so on…
Er, no. I released you too soon.
You see, while you are protected from pollution of your property, so is the owner of the road protected from pollution of his. All those other people out there enjoy the same rights that you do.
What is involved here is a principle established by Nobel laureat economist, F. A. Hayek, called “Spontaneous Order”, that applies to free societies (much like the language and entrepreneurship that we discussed before). If you insist that no one allow so much as a molecule of pollution to enter your property, then they will demand the same of you. And you will find yourself unable even to exhale without someone taking offense.
Free societies will find the “happy medium” wherein reasonable arbitration can determine what is fair for each individual. Some people are more sensitive to pollution than others. Enough noise can actually hurt someone’s ears and cause pain. Therefore, each individual is entitled to decide for himself, within reason, what is acceptable and what is not.
If you are overly sensitive to pollution in a society where air is not perfectly clean and cannot be owned without being contained, then it is incumbent upon you to select a place to live or adjust your circumstances so that you are safe and happy. Your demand does not necessarily constitute someone else’s obligation. But it might.
If necessary, yes. However, if that is your first response, then the plant owner has an excellent case that your force is excessive and therefore coercive.
There are numerous ways to stop the pollution of your property short of blowing up the plant. A mere decision by an arbiter will suffice to require that the plant adjust its operations such that it does not pollute someone else’s property. If it is unable to operate without polluting, then it must cease operation.
Such circumstances are absolutely golden for technical advancement through entrepreneurship. The entrepreneurs who can find ways for plants to operate without polluting will make a fortune. Science in Libertaria is a big (but peaceful and honest) business.
Possible, I suppose, but not necessarily likely. If I were the water supplier, I would want to own the pipes, depending on whether it would be cheaper operationally.
Well, then obviously, no water would flow. Your grandmother would be your grandfather.
But I have a hard time buying into any of these scenarios where businesses — profit making enterprises in an environment of free competition — are frivolously burning relationship bridges, refusing to engage in commerce, and cutting off their customer base.
If I know that entrepreneurs and investment capitalists in droves are just licking their chops, waiting for me to fuck up, I will be exceedingly mindful of the appearance of how I conduct business. Privately owned consumer advocacy agengies abound, and are reporting to their consumers on how they perceive that I treat customers. No one is forced to deal with me, and I sink or swim based on offering consumers a quality product or service at a reasonably competitive price.
I have nothing but my wits and my reputation to rely on. In fact, it might behoove me to engage in some percentage of “charity business” so that I might be perceived as a caring and beloved community member. A certain amount of philanthropy might be marketably valuable.
Like any other governors, arbiters have only as much power as you have consented to give them. If you don’t like the contract that Libertaria offers, no one forces you to avail yourself of its protection.
Given freedom to decide for themselves, people who are like-minded will come together to form a government that they believe is most likely to effect their safety and happiness. But you cannot expect reasonably to come into a situation where every decision and every arbitration will necessarily go your way. It is part of the risk you assume when you contract with government to secure your rights.
If you are dissatisfied upon the expiration of your obligation, then you may withhold your consent in favor of some other government (or none). It is therefore encumbent upon arbiters to be fair in their dealings. Besides, if an arbiter has failed to consider your case in accordance with the Noncoercion Principle, then he stands in breach, and you may charge him with coercion.
Every arbiter bears the same responsibility to interpret claims peacefully and honestly in accordance with their sworn oaths.
They aren’t. But libertarian government is required to behave libertarianly.
Remember that to govern means to protect. It does not mean to become lord and avenger. The government’s duty to you is to secure your rights, not to assist you in conquering the world.
There might be cases where people, as individuals, are ethically entitled to conduct justice for themselves. For example, suppose you know of an anarchist who is blatantly abusing a child. If you are like me, you will spare no effort and will use whatever force is necessary to rescue the child from the tyrant.
But you must be discerning about vigilantism. If you act capriciously, there is the chance that an anarchist might then respond against you, whereupon your government decides that you were not coerced. There is also the chance that he will decide to hire Libertarian government after all, and you might find yourself brought before an arbiter to answer coercion charges.
You are born with certain property (and the rights that accrue thereto): your body, your mind, and your life. You may use these to acquire other property (and therefore other rights) peacefully and honestly in the course of your existence.
But other people have these equal rights. Therefore, you may not claim ownership of “ideas” per se, because another man has the right to hold the same idea.
You can, however, claim ownership of the implementation of ideas — things that are the actual product of your body and your mind. Just as you may make a new and unique trinket with your hands and claim ownership of it, so you may make a new and unique breakthrough with your mind and claim it as your own.
But just as you would guard your trinket from thieves, so must you guard your idea.
Still, no one is prohibited from making a pearl necklace for themselves once they have seen yours. Likewise, no one is prohibited from devising a way for cars to fly once they have seen that you have done so.
It therefore behooves you to sell your idea to an investment capitalist or entrepreneur who will recognize the advantage of first innovator, a phenomenon in business that gives a certain amount of competitive advantage to competent trail-blazers.
He may not use the specific particulars of your idea as his own to implement anything, and in fact must pay even to hear your idea if those are your terms. He must also agree to secrecy if you require it, and residuals for you if those are in the contract.
You may therefore profit from your idea that way. But you may not use it as some sort of leverage (either short-term or long-term) that suppresses the right of other people to use their own minds and bodies to produce property.
Once another entrepreneur has figured out how you did what you did, he may do it too, and thus enter into competition with the enterpreneur who dealt with you. In fact, depending on the terms of your contract with the other entrepreneur, he may hire you to help him develop the competing product. That deals with the notion of patents.
Scientists and technical innovators are in high demand in Libertaria.
With respect to copyright, that involves circumstances where the idea in the mind and the implementation are the same. If you write a book, then the words are your property, directly implemented from your mind, and no one else may claim ownership of the exact words.
You may transfer ownership as you see fit, perhaps to someone else upon your death. Or you may hold it and let it expire upon your death. You may market it or pay someone else to market it however you please.
You may even exercise your ownership of technical papers in this way if you prefer it over selling the idea itself. In other words, you may write and privately publish a book on how to make cars fly, and then sell the book to whoever might be interested.
Thanks for the detailed answer Lib! You’ve really given me a good look at how Libertaria would work on a day-to-day sense! This is the area of libertarianism that I find the most fascinating: so many times when libertarianism is discussed (not with you) I find that it’s hard to get from “The Non-Coersion Principle” to “Yeah, but how does my everyday life fit into that society.” That’s why I appreciate these threads so much!
You’ve answered all my questions, but I hope you won’t mind a few more on the same topic. You touched on my (eventual) point in your answer to the suicide question, but I’d like to explore it a bit further:
**
Sometimes, families fail, and we can assume the same would be true (albiet in a lesser degree, given that families can be held in breach of contract in Libertaria) in Libertaria.
I know the following situation may sound like a Giant-Space Bat/Hyperintelligent Squid scenario, but I’m basing my example is based on a real person and real situation I was loosely aquainted with in my teens (see footnote* for details).
I’m interested because, although I suspect that what was done to this person by the government violates libertarian principles, it worked out for the best in the long run, so I’d be interested in looking at how Libertaria might handle the same situation.
Imagine a slightly retarded, mildly schizophrenic person who’s parents/family has died and that either they didn’t make plans for him or their plans failed somehow (their trust-fund went broke, for example) or his condition degenerated in some unplanned way.
He’s living in his parent’s (now his) house, which he’s trashed, he’s malnourished, etc and he’s clearly unable to fend for himself but isn’t actually infringing on the property of others.*
A) It’s only his property he’s trashed (his place is filled with newspapers, he’s tried to paint the interior several times, and gotten distracted, so there’s half painted rooms, etc) and the neigbors are concerned, but have no rights/property-based complaint. Can there be intervention despite that? I don’t like the extremes to which our current society has taken the concept of “for your own good” but I’m not sure I want to do away with the concept all together. Does Libertaria even acknowledge the “for your own good” idea? If so, how far?
B) The judge detrmines that he can “differentiate his ownership of property from someone else’s and the rights that accrue therefrom,” (he knows not to mess up other people’s property) “can engage in free and volitional economic praxes involving the transfer of property, and has the mental and emotional faculty to accrue property peacefully and honestly.” (he knows stealing is wrong and understands that you need money to buy stuff…but not much beyond that level) but because of his illness, he’s unable to budget, unable to feed himself properly (grilled cheese sandwiches and generic macaroni and cheese are mostly what he eats) he’s emptied his parent’s trust fund, etc. What (if anything) can the arbiter do?
And one more question:
C) What if he had a brother? If the brother is a cad, can he refuse to be responsible for his mentally ill sibling? The parents, by having a kid incurred an obligation. Does the brother incur one too? In other words, I see the legal obligation reaching down from parent to child, but I’m not sure if there’s one that reaches across from sibling to sibling (legal/contractual obligation I mean: obviously there’s a moral obligation)
Thanks again, Lib: as I’ve said, I really enjoy these “Theory and Practice of Libertarianism” threads!
Fenris
*The guy I’m describing was based on someone I vaguely knew when I was in my teens. He had like 12 dogs (that he didn’t understand the need to clean up after, his house was lined with newspaper, etc. He was a very mild-mannered, very nice guy: he loved to talk to me aa but from what I saw, he was incapable of functioning on his own.
I don’t know the whole story, I worked in a comic shop and delivered comics to him on a weekly basis. Either he or his parents had set up a fund of some sort to pay for his weekly comic books which he loved.
He eventually (against his will) ended up in a (actually very nice) institution and then was then, after some treatment, moved to a sort of halfway house (which he said he loved being in). I saw him in both the institution and the half-way house (I may be using the wrong word) for a while until I stopped working at the comic store and while he was very resentful of being institutionalized, once he was in the halfway house, he told me that he thought that it’d been for the best in the long run.
Question, Lib. If everywhere is private property, where would we deport the homeless man to?
Also, does libertarian society have the right of egress? If I decide that I’ve had enough, can I leave freely, or must I pay whoever owns the property at the border what he asks for the privelage of leaving?
Finally, aren’t monopolies inevitable? Or do you figure that a populace might learn after being burned by a megacorporation a few times not to give absolute market share to big companies?
Libertarian, what are the obstacles to implementing libertarianism, say on a small scale and on a large scale. Is nationwide implementation the goal of the Libertarian Party? Would nationwide implementation require the involvement of the Libertarian Party? What measures would be required? Are there any Libertarian congressmen/women at the moment?
deal with this?[/li]