Maybe in some manner, I don’t know. Now that I think about it, if we say one’s rights increase when one acquires more property, then one’s protection would necessarily have to increase in some manner (eventually, considering a graph of property vs protection). But I don’t know, would it take more to safeguard coercion against an owner of ten acres than it would an owner of 0.5? If we double the land size, do we double the protection? —it doesn’t seem it could be that way.
Maybe I’m just overlooking something, but I just reviewed all your posts in this thread. Nowhere do I see an answer to the question “How is this child, with no property, and hence no rights of his own able to seek arbitration? How does he pay for it?” I see you stating that a child could pursue arbitration, but nowhere do I see an indication of how a child could practically pursue that remedy.
Xeno wrote:
Nothing prevents anyone from acquiring property peacefully and honestly. In a noncoercive free-market, wealth is routinely created with every economic praxis.
Say that Mr. Smith owns only a trinket, but Mr. Jones owns a large house. Ethically, Mr. Jones’s property is no more valuable than Mr. Smith’s. Each acquired his property using the original property that God or nature gave him. Mr. Smith’s trinket is as ethically meaningful as Mr. Jones’s house. The value is different only in an economic sense, and libertarianism is not an economic philosophy. It is an ethic.
In a year or two, their relative economic values could be reversed. But their ethical values will remain constant.
So, everyone who consents to be governed by Libertaria pays the same fee. People are then free to pursue their economic goals, if any. Assaying the economic status of people would be beyond the scope of a Libertarian government. A bureaucracy would be necessary to carry that out.
It can be misleading to say that as a man’s property increases, so do his rights. They increase quantitatively, yes, but not qualitatively. His economic value has increased, but his ethical value has not.
It seems to me the rights accrueing to one just by being alive are much more important than the rights to physical property or money. The fee for goverment could be a relatively large constant (for protecting one’s life, e.g.) and a smaller proportional cost for other property.
Thinking along these lines, though, does suggest that there could be the goverment of the rich and the government of the poor. That would seem like a pretty natural development. The govenment of the rich would be especially aggressive about protecting property rights, while the no-frills government of the poor woul dbe mainly about the bodies of the governed.
Then there would be the indigent, who could of course have no government, having no means to pay for one. Would that be a problem?
I suppose some governments could offer citizenship in exchange for serving in their army-- I think an effective army would require some relinquishing of rights, no?
Since property is the same as rights, I guess I must exchange some of the rights I was born with: my body, my life, my mind, for other property/rights, such as food or protection (of what rights remain to me) by a goverment.
Not to answer for Eris, but unless you are independently wealthy, you do this every day. You exchange your body as labor, your mind as ideas, and your life as time for food, clothing, shelter, and other property. You don’t have to exchange these for your government’s “protection”, though. It takes whatever loot it wants by force. 
Maybe in whacko-libertarian-redefinition land where you’ve redefined ‘citizen’ so that it means something different than the normal definition. I see no reason to coddle the sensitivities of the massive-redefinition crowd in the pit, and Libertarians would probably be more convincing in general if they didn’t keep redefining words.
Ruling is not only done to citizens, in fact ruling predates the concept of citizenship. More to the point: If Libertaria uses coercion against ANYONE, not just a “citizen”, it is violating the One Law of Libertaria which is the whole basis of it being moral according to Lib.
Libertaria is violating the One Law of Libertaria and using coercion against people. All of your redefinitions don’t change that, and the world would likely be a better place if people like you, Lib, and others tried to make real arguments instead of simply redefining terms to your heart’s content.
In other words: Libertaria will pass laws calling anything Libertaria doesn’t like on the basis that it’s “the equivalent of initial force”. Libertaria’s alleged moral superiority comes from disavowing the use of coercion, yet it’s quite willing to redefine things so that whatever Libertaria’s rulers don’t like is “coercion” under their definition. Through all of these threads, Lib will dance around and use terms like ‘required to respond’ and ‘excessive force’, but he can’t provide an objective means to determine what they are. So Libertaria avoids coercion by simply defining non-coercive acts they don’t like as coercion - examine the paraphrase below:
'If you respond to force or fraud from a citizen of Libertaria in a manner in which Libertaria doesn’t approve, Libertaria is justified in using force against you. Libertaria does not practice coercion, because it defines using force against someone who defends themself from a citizen of libertaria as non-coercive".
I believe you are referring to not initiating force. If so, then this phrasing is wrong. If not, then you aren’t talking about Lib’s system.
Then I don’t understand your objection at all. I mean not one bit. Does it bother you that the government would respond to external threats? Is that the problem?
Of course. The right to physical property and money stem from the rights to use your intelligence how you see fit. This is true as much here as it is there.
You do not exchange your body for money with your current employer, do you? You, well, you rent it, part time, for pay. In capitalism, we all have at least one product: our directed effort (be that physical or mental). It is this we all start with for passing Go.
It bothers me, yes. As well, Lib and I differ on many practicalities, and our understanding of coercion. I, for example, feel that public schools must still be required. He disagrees, and sees the implementation of a public school system to be coercive, whereas I feel not having one is coercive, and so the government is justified by responding to the coercion. Though I must admit we’ve only ever discussed this once, and not for very long. Usually we get hijacked by people like Ribo who can’t understand something like consent without guns, or Dewey who feels (felt? I don’t know that my arguments ever swayed him) that inherent rights with respect to government are equivalent to inherent rights in some metaphysical sense.
Wow. A system of laws. I gotta let that sink in before I try to tackle the rest of it. Those libertarians are wacky motherfuckers. —I had no idea!
By the way, can you tell me where to pick up your Metaphysically Perfect and Completely Unarbitrary Dictionary of the Gods[sup]TM[/sup]? Amazon doesn’t seem to have a listing.
All countries have similar provisions. You commit a crime in or against a specific nation that nation is usually granted jurisdiction for the crime.
You’d expect to be charged/tried for murder if you flew to france and killed someone. So why would you expect anything different to happen if you flew to france, killed someone, then escaped to germany?
The only requirement being that the person in question has to be guilty of commiting a crime against a soverign state. And in the current Guantanimo Bay issue that’s being largely ignored, or at least not investigated.
AFAIK, Noriega never committed a crime in the US. So your murder analogy doesn’t pan out.
Also, all countries have laws against murder, I believe, while drugs are quite cultrually dependent.
Finally, few crimes are crimes ‘against nations’. The only ones that comes to mind easily are espionage and treason.
Not that I’m a pal of his, but the Noriega case is really troubling. I think it’s ethically equivalent to the Chinese governement coing to the US and kidnapping the President because he advocates greater democracy in China.
These are great examples of how specific problems can be solved by private ownership/lack of public ownership. But I’m not sure it follows that all such conflicts are resolved this way. I think there are several situations where rights/property conflict in ways that might not be as obviously resolved as in the examples. Such as:
My right to quiet (on my own property) vs. your right to make noise (on your adjoining property).
My right to clean air vs. your right to wear perfume.
My right to an abortion vs. your interest in protecting the unborn against initial force.
Can you illuminate as to how the property/rights identity resolve these issues?
(On the other hand, I’d accept that many issues currently deemed difficult or irresolvable are in fact resolved by the equivalence of right and property.)
And are there resolutions to these seeming conflicts under other Libertarian principles?
I think my answer is actually pretty reasonable: I’ve been coerced, in that my right to clean air has been abrogated against my consent. It would be the perfect retibutive and equal force to pollute his air back at him.
Can you explain in more detail where I’ve misunderstood? I mean, the drivers on the road have no special rights to transparent air: they only lease that right from the owner of the road, who has rights equal to my own, not exceeding them. (Assuming we have the same government, of course.)
The answer that I may have to move is troubling… Obviously the value of my property has diminished: due to the pollution, the number of possible buyers is reduced by the number unable to tolerate that pollution. Would arbitration include financial compensation to me for the loss in value? An equivalent problem might be the construction of an airport or change of flight paths so that my house gets a lot more noise…
Do my rights include the right to expect my property values to remain relatively constant? (Again, I’m not saying that our current ‘solution’ to this proble works especially well, but it does seem like an area ripe for conflict without obvious solution.)
Are there other intagible properties around that are comparable?
I think these problems may be difficult even if all parties share a government. But what if we subscribe to different governments? Suppose I really care about my physical environment, so I subscribe to GreenGov, but you care about transportation, so you subscribe to PaveitallGov… I think those two governments may well have irreconcilable differences. Based on your response later, I guess they go to war. Yikes! (And, yet again, I might have a hard time arguing that the present solution is any more satisfying.)
A case for an arbitrator somewhere, of course, since there’s no court, per se. I was about to say that there are no lawyers and no law, but my personal crystal ball expects that there would be people for hire as professional arbitration-representatives who would go in to present your case for you. I would also expect that part of their argument would amount to case law, i.e. what was decided in previous similar cases.
I agree that blowing up the plant could be excessive force for my own personal loss. And your solutions sound practical, assuming the coal plant owner and I share a government.
Couldn’t the coal plant owner drop out of the government after the arbitrator ruled?
But what if my neighbors and I form a government to protect us from the coal plant? Then we could blow it up, I think.
Not unlike our current world, in either case… though the coal plant owner might have less incentive to use the new technology in the US right now!
This actually seems pretty likely to me. I don’t think the monopoly on oil in the US developed in a particularly regulated environment.
In the case of water, what incentive would the pipe owner have to lease the pipe to a competitor? Better to buy the water they can’t deliver from them and sell it to me at a markup, whatever the original price was. Since there’s no market on delivery, there’s no competition
I was focussing on the utilities because I think the opportunity for competition is physically limited there. I suppose water could be trucked in, or airlifted, but if I was the water company, I would price my services just low enough to price those entrepreneurs out of business, then raise the rates.
Do my rights to my land include the air space over it?
But I gather that no Libertarian government would have the authority to intervene, since no citizen’s rights are being abrogated.
Hey, no problem. The arbiter clearly concludes that the former anarchist was abusing the rights of the child that they were holding in trust and thereby relinquished their holding of those rights. (Not too much unlike our current system, as I understand it.)
- re: patents, copyrights *
I fear the lack of patents might cause certain industries to stop innovating. For example any industry with a high R&D cost but with products easily copied. Say, the pharmaceutical industry. How will the owner justify the investment when their competitor has every right to copy the drug as soon as I market it.
Yikes! With no FDA, I have to trust GlaxoSmithKlineBeecham to market a safe product. I know, if they don’t, I can bring them up on coercion charges…
How about the following real-life situation: I write a sequel to Harry Potter. Have I violated the ownership rights of JK Rowling?
Can I claim she wrote it? Or does her property include her name?
[just riffing along, here…]
What if my name also happens to be JK Rowling… do I have to disclose that I’m not the same JK Rowling?
What if I do disclose it? Can JK be considered to own the phrase ‘Harry Potter’?
What if my name is Harry Potter? Has JK abrogated my right to my name by using it in this way? Or my right not to have my doorbell rung every 5 minutes?
Finally, in all seriousness, now, do joint-stock companies exist?
I guess they must, since there’d be no stop them.
Do they have ‘personhood’ they way they do in the US?
I guess not, since they aren’t really people.
How are the coercions of such corporations corrected? Are the stockholders responsible, or the officers of the corporation/people who made the offensive decision? Or the wage-earners who dumped the toxic waste on my property?
Also, re wages (from a different discussion on this thread): obviously those not wealthy exchange their labor for their bread and rights under the government. But there are people who can’t find employment… they surely have nothing with which to obtain a government except the rights all humans are born with. They would have to exchange these rights for a government (and food, if charity failed).
And how do the indigent obtain arbitration if their rights are abrogated?
It’s Lib’s phrasing, and I’m not going to play the game where if I use Lib’s terms you complain that I’m not using normal definitions and if I use normal terms you complain that I’m using different terms from Lib.
Then maybe you need to take a basic class in reading comprehension or logic, or just stop lying. Over and over, I’ve laid out exactly the situation which shows Libertaria violating its fundamental principles. You’ve tried to play the standard Libertarian game of dancing around with definitions and hugely irrelevant tangents, like the whole completely irrelevant citizenship bit.
Here it is, very simply, though I can’t keep it to one-syllable words.
I have no ties to Libertaria.
Person from Libertaria initiates force against me on my own property.
I respond to that initiation of force in a manner that I (and the government I chose) feels is apporpriate.
If Libertaria then uses force against me, claiming my response was ‘excessive’, then they are governing me without my consent and all the claims Lib makes about how I don’t have to worry about what the government of Libertaria says if I stay on my own property is false. They are also initiating force by any objective definition, as Lib’s ‘excessive force’ qualifier is uselessly subjective - most people in England have a very different idea of ‘excessive force’ than people in Texas, for example.
If a government will decide that I’m an ‘external threat’ and ‘respond’ to me even though I do not consent to be governed by them, do not leave my own property, and do not take any action other than use of force in response to an initiation of force by an aggressor, then it is not a government that governs only by consent or in response to initiation of force.
What I understand is that people like you and lib like to play the redefinition game and dodge questions, then pretend that people who point out your lies and hypocracy are bad.
According to Lib Libertaria has one law not a system of laws, so you’re already contradicting his claims about Libertaria. And my objection is not that Libertaria has what amounts to a system of laws (Lib’s ‘one law’ plus reams of case law defining it), but that said system of laws violates the principles which Lib uses to claim moral superiority for Libertaria. If all Lib is saying is “Ohh, Libertaria doesn’t initiate force EVER, because ‘initiation of force’ is defined as ‘a term which only applies to everyone but Libertaria’” then let him say so, but I doubt that’s what he wants to say.
I’m not the one who is claiming moral superiority on the basis of shady redefinitions, and I’m not the one who claims that somehow this magical arrangement of ‘governments’ is going to function on the basis of my definition of ‘initiation of force’. I’m not suprised to see a libertarian trying to blame me for their own inconsistency, but it gets kind of sad after a while.
Wow.
Gee, Ribo, you really have a stiffy on, dontcha? Did a libertarian run over your pet turtle as a child or what?
This is a very useful description of a plausible situation.
Rather than getting bogged down in yelling about what someone once said, let’s think about it.
I think it could be even simpler:
Assume Liberatian world.
I have no ties to person x’s government.
Person x initiates force against me.
I respond to that initiation of force.
(This is the essential nature of many questions and hypotheticals I’ve asked about the specifics of.)
If I understand Lib correctly, then my government and person x’s government would negotiate and either resolve the issue or make war on one another. If you have no government, you’re screwed.
There’s a real issue, not just semantics, implied by the above: what is it to be governed? I think the implication of Ribo’s statement is that if a government does anything to you, you are governed by them. One implication is that the US governs the world, by extension of the Noriega case. IANA philosopher, but to me being governed does imply more than that. Not sure what, though.
I think this is too strongly worded. Let’s say that a reasonable person might consider the force person x’s government uses against you as excessive. The government is ethically bound, though to maintain a believable level of reciprocal force. If not, the other governments will constantly be at war with it. This doesn’t help you individually much, but in the aggregate, it does tend to keep governments behaving themselves.
No, you vacuous fuck-hole. Unless you mean something not-normal about govern they don’t. Governments govern over their citizens, and serve their citizens interests. Sometimes this has a carry-over effect to other humans/ trees/ air/ abstract and wholly theoretical volume of space like your fucking head/ whatever as with all governments. This does not mean they are “governing” them.
But let us just suppose for a moment, the tiniest moment, that you are using “govern” in any way that makes sense in this world or others. What differentiates a citizen of a government from a non-citizen? Does it have anything to do with the act of governing by governments, or is that totally irrelevant?
I am still quite skeptical of your use of “govern” from which you derive this apparent paradox. Perhaps you mean something different, I don’t know. The dictionary definition of “govern” can be taken more ways than I care to investigate without your direct mention of how or what a government’s act of governing has to do with a person being qualified as a citizen.
Oh, bullshit. The US governs some huge number of Mexicans classed as illegal aliens who live and work here in illegal-but-accepted conditions, as well as a variety of immigrant and non-imigrant aliens, all of whom are by definition not citizens. Rome governed a great number of people, but only a relatively small part of their population were actually citizens, and similar arrangements were had throughout Greece. Nazi Germany governed most of continental Europe for a few years without making most of continental Europe into citizens. If I visit another country, I’m still a citizen of the US yet I’m damn well subject to their laws.
So, I can walk over to England and not be subject to their laws (you know, be governed by them) since I’m a citizen of the US and not of England? You Great Libertarian Thinkers really crack me up.
If a government tells me what I can and can’t do in my house, and will send agents out to drag me into court to enforce it, they’re governing me, dipshit. If you and other Libertarians had a shred of intellectual honesty you’d stop trying to gloss over the problems with your Anarcho-Capitalist setup and make real arguments instead of asserting absurdities like your ‘governments only govern citizens’ speil above.
In this case, I’m using ‘citizen’ like Lib does when discussing Libertaria, as ‘someone who consents to be governed by Libertaria’. While that’s not exactly standard usage, Lib has in the past gone fruitcake at somoene daring to use normal terminology instead of Lib-skewed terminology so I use them. To use more standard terms, ‘citizen’ in the context of Libertaria would mean ‘subscriber to the protective service organization called Libertaria’, but the barest mention of anarchism and the fact that it’s what his ideals amount to drives Lib into a frothy frenzy.
Read up on, well, pretty much any history that involves governments. For example, from 1939-1942 Germany governed more and more of Europe, yet most of the newly governed people were not citizens. Later, the US, UK, and USSR started governening large swathes of Euorpe, yet (especially for the US/UK) made almost none of the people they governed into citizens.
So we return to: every exercize of force, or the potential for it, counts as “governing”. Well, that’s enlightening.
Person X’s government might just be person X, there is no minimum size for a govenrment in this context. It’s very important to remember that, according to Lib, the government of Libertaria does not claim that it has a right to do anything an individual would not do.
So, individual rights are worthless in a Libertarian context? Libertaria does not actually follow the principles which Lib claims it does, but just does whatever it can get away with? Hardly sounds like a big improvement, does it?