Exploring libertarianism

Jjimm (and Robert) wrote:

I suppose we are assuming a competent adult person who cannot afford to buy even the most minimal housing and lacks either the means or the desire to rent housing in exchange for work or some other consideration.

Quite a lot of charitable work in Libertaria is done by families and friends with emotional interests, neighbors and communities with aesthetic interests, houses of worship and people of faith with moral interests, local and regional community charity groups with ethical interests, and private businesses with public relations interests. As to the latter, a sports team owner, for example, might build a state-of-the-art homeless shelter as a means to market his team as a critical component of the community. (Far fetched? This is what George Shinn did in Charlotte when he owned the Hornets. In fact, most homeless shelters are privately owned.)

But charity is also itself a business. Just as there are investment capitalists for entrepreneurs, there are investment capitalists for self-improvers. There are businesses that offer job and skills training and placement in exchange for contingent fees.

There is also the fact that a man needs nothing more to open a business for himself than a good idea and a burning desire. I’ve consulted with a number of investment capitalists, and not one has ever had any interest in my appearance or social status. They have all been interested in one thing only: can I make them some money?

To begin his own business, he need purchase no license from the city. He need hire no accountant to wrestle with his taxes. He doesn’t need a lawyer to consult on complex business law. He needs no special political clout to bribe or bully for a change in zoning regulations. He need not worry about a competitor calling in a favor from a legislator and dashing his dreams with special rules and property reassignments. He need only work.

Even though indigence ought to be extremely rare in Libertaria, there are cases where indigent people need expensive medical treatment. This is handled charitably in the same way as self-improvement, although the costs can be considerably higher. Hospitals, like Mercy Hospital in Charlotte, exist primarily to provide indigent care, and often are affiliated with houses of worship. There are also primary care facilities that specialize in treatment of poor families and children. No, they are not always as fabulously advanced as wealthier facilities, but economic means must always be a consideration in someone’s life decisions. Even if The State were completely authoritarian, the end result could easily be that nobody produces and everyone is poor.

But if I were poor (more so than I am), Libertaria is where I would want to live. It would be worth the risk to me knowing that I am limited only by my wits, imagination, and determination. Today’s beggar can be tomorrow’s CEO. And vice-versa. I don’t need special consideration or favor to succeed. I need only freedom — freedom from the coercion of others who might wish that I not succeed.

Incidentally, someone mentioned something about permanent copyrights. As I explained in the snippet they quoted, a copyright can expire if a man does not transfer ownership and dies.

Fenris wrote:

No. Absolutely not! And lucky for you. I might think that if you ate what I eat, lived as I live, and thought as I think it would be good for you.

Your friend’s house sounds like any number of homes that are lived in by good people of sound minds and able bodies. In fact, I won’t mention a name, but there are a couple of Dopers whom you almost assuredly adore and respect who live that way. Artists and poets and musicians and all sorts of people live in places that are messy and cluttered with half-painted rooms.

You cannot measure the ethical worth of a man by that sort of standard. When I was a child, three brothers shared two twin beds for many years in a four-room house with a single heater in the central “hall”. My father had built our home with his own hands.

Libertarian government will not intercede in the affairs of people who are peaceful and honest. As Austrian economists have proved, unintended consequences are a near certain result of such meddling.

“If I knew for a certainty that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life.” — Henry David Thoreau, Walden

Nothing. It sounds to me like he budgets and eats like any college student that you might pick out of a hat. I don’t mean to minimize what you’re getting at, but what has he done ethically wrong? Why should a government that secures rights usurp his?

He is not a savvy and worldly person. He is fast running out of money. He lives like a slob. And he eats like a teenager. But where is his crime?

Understandably, you feel like you want to reach out and help him or, more precisely, you wish someone else besides you would. :wink: If you think he needs assistance, then offer your assistance to him. Organize his neighbors to help since you say they are concerned. (I know you were young, but young people can be passionate and resourceful.) If he is being abused by his parents or guardians, and you are an adult, then charge them with coercion and take guardianship for yourself. Then you can make decisions on his behalf.

But please do not send in strangers whom he doesn’t even know, with the power of an army behind them, to force him into submission to their will. Although you say it worked out fine in this instance, there are gentler and more caring ways.

No, a sibling cannot be expected to have an ethical obligation to another sibling, but as you have rightly pointed out, he certainly has a moral obligation.

I know that families can fail, but so can governments. People fall through cracks every day, and bureaucracies are notoriously bad at filling cracks. The idea is to minimize such occurences up front. Hold people accountable for their decisions, including (and especially!) their decision to become parents or guardians. Establish a no-nonsense precedence that is crystal clear to anyone who can see: take care of your children or you will forfeit your rights and property to someone who will. Children are important. Nothing is more important than they. Can’t take the heat? Then plan your life around something else, something you can handle.

My pleasure. :slight_smile:

Distinction without a difference. Under your system, so long as I can transfer ownership “upon my death” I can keep the copyright alive forever. I don’t even have to wait until my dying breath; the transfer will just take place upon the condition subsequent’s occurrance – namely, my death.

Can I pass the copyright by will? Why should that be treated any differently than a contract with death condition? And if a will is OK, why can’t it pass via intestacy?

And of course, corporate-owned copyrights will essentially last forever under your system because corporations have a potentially infinite lifetime.

Robert wrote:

An excellent question, and one that goes to the very heart of libertarianism. If you did not know this answer, it will likely surprise you. Possibly jolt you. It might even evoke scenes from Keanu Reeves movies. :smiley:

There is no border.

If your contractual obligations have expired and you no longer wish to “opt in”, then you don’t have to go anywhere at all unless you just want to. No one claims your land. You are its owner. You may stay right where you are. Government has not drawn a line and said, “Here is our domain.” Government has no domain. Libertaria’s “borders” are comprised of the land that is owned by those who have consented to be governed.

You are not born as property of The State. You do not belong to any magistrate by accident of birth. You may not be governed without your consent.

If you wish to sell your land and leave the whole area, then leave by any ordinary means that you have travelled thus far in your ordinary dealings. You never contracted with government to use any road. You contracted with your neighbors and with commercial interests.

Actually, there is a very robust body of libertarian literature examining this very question. You can find lots and lots of information at Cato and elsewhere, but I will hit the highlights.

Theoretically, monopolies could arise. But they would arise for a very different reason and under a very different circumstance than they would under an authoritarian government. For the reasons you have foreseen, a monopoly will arise if and only if there is no other entrepreneural remedy that can provide better quality of product or service at a better price.

In other words, a business reaches monopoly status because it is doing business perfectly. The moment it ceases to offer the best for the least is the moment that its monopoly crumbles. Unlike authoritarian contexts, it could not elbow its way through coercion to the top. It got no special favors from Congress. It didn’t pollute anyone’s land. It didn’t seize any property by force. It didn’t commit fraud and misrepresentation of its products. And it didn’t squelch its competition by dispatching goons to rape and pillage hapless upstarts.

It operated peacefully and honestly and 100% of consumers decided that it was the best deal of all the deals available.

Zwaldd wrote:

Quite many actually.

On any scale, you have people who lust for political power, and who will, if no one will stop them, do whatever they have to do by any means, ethical or not, to hold their power. You have complacency among people who have sucked on the government teat for subsistence and who have lost all hope of self-improvement. You have dulled minds who neglect lessons from the past about vigilance. You have people who are afraid to be free, who do not value liberty at all, and in fact prefer the snug comfort of being cared for. You have those who consider poverty to be something shameful, something that indicates a failure of society. And you have people who are lazy, duplicitous, and cowardly — people who whine endlessly about the plight of the “underpriviledged” while never even lifting a finger themselves to do anything about it.

The biggest obstacle to libertarianism is the corruption of reason. “It is lucky for rulers that men do not think.” — Adolf Hitler

Yes, I think so. I’m not a member of the party, though I used to be long ago. You may visit their website at http://www.lp.org

No. In fact, the LP seems nearly incompetent at accomplishing anything but trivial implementation. I’m not sure why. There are likely lots of reasons. Their candidates come across as nutcases, for one thing. Or snobby intellectuals. Or potheads with an agenda. Or something.

A leadership that will awaken people from their slumber and make them think. Something that will make them appreciate the difference between what liberty can offer them and what a central planner offers them. Something that convinces them that working several months out of the year to finance dams in dry lake beds, armies in Somalia, and two-million dollar outhouses is outrageous.

Sometimes, abused people don’t even know that they’re abused. It’s all they’ve ever known. They have only black eyes and bruises, and they look around to see that other people have gouged out eyes and broken bones. So they reason that they don’t have it so bad.

Futurologists in early 20th century America thought that by now we would have air cars and colonies on Mars. But they thought that men would be free, that entrepreneurship would flourish, that capitalism would be fair and equitable. But principle is principle. If you cut off your roots, you won’t grow many leaves.

None from the LP per se, but Congressman Ron Paul (R, TX) is a libertarian at heart, and was the LP candidate for president many years ago. You can see the unmistakable libertarian influence on his website at http://www.house.gov/paul/

Incidentally, if anyone would like to see a short story I wrote quite some time ago about a libertarian implementation, feel free to read Sarah’s Gold.

Lib, recall that I haven’t read any of the old threads, but I have read most of this one (I skipped the one(s?) with the four-letter ravings) and I was curious about this one, from your pal riboflavin:

I don’t know what you said before, but it seems to me this scenario presents no problem at all. The murderer has clearly violated your rights, since you hold your child’s rights until they are competent. The murdrerer responded with excessive force to a violation of his own rights, and your goverment would be bound to protect your rights in that matter. I’m not sure enough of your set-up to see how they would respond.

In any event, that response, though administered by your government, would not make the murderer a citizen of your government. (Any more than residing in a US Jail makes Noriega a US citizen.) So that Libertaria doesn’t govern him, even if your goverment decides to kill him.

I think a bigger problem is when the murderer’s goverment [a different implementation of the non-coercion principle, say] takes exception to your government’s response. Is there an obviouse resolution here that I’m missing?

Do governments subscribe to arbitration firms to resolve their differences?
Thanks for your latest long response… I may take a day or two to get back to it at length, but have a brief question in the mean time, about utilities. I’ll use water as an example…

Namely, I was assuming that there’s only one set of pipes coming to my house, because it might be physically impossible to have lots of them. Do you think there would be lots of different pipes? Or onyl one, with the danger that I might piss off the owner and he’d shut me off?

Thank you for your prompt and informative answers, Lib. You’re very helpful.

Does Libertarianism define the initiating/escalating of force explicitly? Could someone legally provoke someone (insult their family, etc) until they take a swing at them, and shoot them, because the other person initiated the use of force?

Also, there is a flip side to the tradgedy of the commons. What happens to Antarctica/Luna/Sol? Could someone stake ownership to these things?

Noggin wrote:

Yep, you got it right. Authoritarians think of ethical government as a lord or nanny, a necessary evil. Libertarians think of ethical government as an advocate, a protector of rights.

No. If differences are unresolvable, they fight wars. Government doesn’t represent its own interests. It has no interests. It represents your interests. You did not hire a United Governments to negotiate away your rights. You hired Libertaria to secure your rights.

I don’t know. Well, there are lots of pipes. There are pipes that deliver the water to your house, and there are pipes on your property. Likely, you own the latter. A competitor could attach his pipes to those. But one thing’s for certain: if there is a better way to go than pipes, an entrepreneur will find it. It might be a solution that has never occured to you or me before. Who would have thought, not too long ago, that you would have satellite telephony?

Robert wrote:

Well, there’s libertarianism and there’s Libertaria, the latter being one particular hypothetical implementation of the former. Libertarianism, per se, defines coercion as initial force or fraud. Excessive responsive force is therefore the equivalent of initial force since it is force above and beyond what is required to respond.

But there is no specific scale of force endemic to the philosophy just as there is no specific analytic a priori existence endemic to Kantian philosophy. Specificities are found only in the implementation. What I like about Libertaria in that respect is that there is no legislation, but only the one law. That way, there are no technicality-like exceptions to common sense ethics. If a man calls you a name and you blow up his house, you will almost certainly forfeit your rights.

Sure. Why not? People who call themselves President and Prime Minister and High Holy Poobah do it. Why shouldn’t people who just call themselves Bob? :smiley:

Do you feel like the world as we know it is the Matrix? Do you ever wish that you could go back to not realizing you’re being abused?

Well, I don’t think it’s the Matrix exactly. But I do think the atoms are not real. And I do believe that the abuse is oh so temporary. But all that’s a whole 'nuther thread.

Still curious about that copyright issue, Lib. Should we change the name of our hypothetical land from Libertopia to RIAAtopia?

And that point has made me curious about another, namely property transfers upon death. If I die sans will, who gets my stuff? The various states have intestacy statutes that govern this, as well as conflict rules that determine which state’s laws apply. How does Libertopia handle this?

In fact, much of domestic relations law sounds chaotic in Libertopia. If a couple divorces, how is the property split if the spouses utilize different governmental entities? The law of the various states differs dramatically in this area. Is there alimony in LIbertopia (Texas, for instance, does not as a general rule permit alimony)? Who gets the kids? I’m guessing that both husband and wife would, upon realizing that their marriage is crumbling, quickly contract with whichever government most favored their own position; how does Libertopia handle that?

I’d also like to see an answer to that bear-trap-in-the-yard question. Does Libertopia require parents to keep their small children chained to the front porch lest they wander onto our trap-planting neighbor’s property?

Some problems, and some questions…

Replace the word “political” with “economic,” and you have Libertarianism. How is anyone any more free just because you’ve shifted the power from those with political influence to those with economic influence?

How is this child, with no property, and hence no rights of his own able to seek arbitration? How does he pay for it?

Next question, one which I feel is very important, and cuts right to the very centre of Libertarianism - What happens to Rand McNally when the whole world goes Libertarian? Will they have to make really really really big atlases so that they have a sufficiently large scale so that all the borders of every single Libertaria can be properly marked on the maps? Are there even enough colours to colour-code the different Libertarias? Has Libertaria even considered the practicalties of map-making?


How about if my great-grandmother dies and I decide not to bury her? Instead, I stick her on the porch of a small house that I own but do not live in that is located near the centre of a large city. She is my great-grandmother and hence I believe that I can’t be coerced to bury her, but does that mean the people living around the property where my great-grandmother’s corpse now resides have to put up with the inevitable bad smells, dangerous diseases and creepy vibes coming from my porch and my deceased relation?

Whose right takes precedence - my right to do what I want with my great-grandmother’s corpse, or the neighbour’s right to live disease and bad-smell free?


Can I give the Giant Squid/Melevolent Businessman a name and call it the KKK? Whatsay the Klan owns the single water supply in a small isolated desert community - we’ll assume it’s somewhere near the eastern border of Western Australia, just because it’s an area that I know is isolated and dry. The Klan chooses not to supply water to the black people in this community, and because the community is so isolated, the black people cannot access any other water source. What can be done within the context of Libertaria to solve this problem?

And, with all due respect, you have people who have honest philosophical or practical disagreements with Libertarianism. I don’t call you unethical, complacent, dull, afraid, or lazy because I disagree with your political philosophy. Please have the courtesy to treat me accordingly.

Gex wrote:

Nope, it doesn’t work. Here, I’ll do what you recommend, and then we’ll look at that:

So-called “public property” is property that is actually owned by whatever group of people has the most economic clout. Thus, if you have sufficient economic influence, you may take effective ownership of property by the drafting of legislation or regulation that will give you the say-so over it.

(Replaced word is in bold.)

That is false on its face in at least three ways. First of all, there is no pretense by private owners that their property is in the domain of the public; therefore, tagging private property as public property is a non sequitur. Second, economic clout in Libertaria does not extend beyond the property owned, whereas such things as eminent domain and asset forfeiture give authoritarian government effective ownership of all property within the nation-state. Third, there is no legislation in Libertaria to purchase. No legislature and no legislators.

So, no. Your economic clout has no effect on me in Libertaria unless you translate it into coercion. And I’m still waiting for a discussion with Xeno on that.

I’ve already discussed that in this thread (and others).

That’s been a running joke on the Free-Market boards for years. But not the way you might think. The question actually illustrates the whole phenomenon of presumptive reality. Something like this: because atlases draw borders, borders must exist.

If you cause them to be ill, it is a coercion.

Goodness. You’ve given black people a bit too much credit, haven’t you? I mean, it’s not like they’re as smart as Indians. I don’t think they’re smart enough to stop in the desert and settle amidst their friends, the Klan. Surely, they will have marched on into the sea and drowned. Obviously, they can’t have entrepreneurs among them because their craniums are too small. And they can’t get water on their own. Everyone knows that blacks in the African Sahara are brought water by nomadic gorillas. I think that in your scenario, they should just be glad to be still alive. The smart ones are the Klan. They’ve had the foresight to move to Australia, which is famous for intolerance of bigotry, buy land there, and refuse to market the water. Both brilliant and ballsy.

Honest philosophical or practical disagreements are not an obstacle to the implementation of libertarianism. Libertarians are volunteers. I didn’t tag any names to what I said, Captain Amazing. If it does not apply to you, then it is not about you.

Sorry, Lib; I’ve rewritten the Damnéd OP (as I now lovingly think of it) about five times. I may have to let the idea age a bit in the back of my mind before it’s ready to serve. In the mean time, I’ll just drop a quick question to you regarding the gex gex “economic clout” argument.

Your response to gex makes me harken back to a recent economic thread in GD (about progressivity in taxes), where a discussion ensued regarding relative individual costs and benefits of government. In a libertarian context, the benefits of a government which is limited to the protection of property against initial force or fraud would be reaped in direct proportion to the amount of property one holds. If this sliding scale of benefit were not matched by a sliding scale of cost, would this not set up an economic class system merely through the natural effect of the noncoercion principle?

I don’t see why it would be direct proportion by any means, actually.

Do you think it would be proportional in some manner?