After a fairly long debate on the merits of this hypothesis, we got down to the question of what the basis of the libertarian philosophy was. I said that, IMO, the libertarian principles are held by people for a number of different reasons, and I was unable to continue the argument under the guise of libertarianism for this reason. So we agreed that I would continue the debate in a new thread. I have finally gotten around to fulfilling this promise.
I believe that it is ridiculous to assume that by “choosing” to not partake in the US economy one is still free in any sense of the word. I maintain that in order for a society to be free, participation in all aspects of its economy must be purely consentual. In order for it to be consentual, one must be free to simply choose to not avail oneself of the protections offered by the US government.
I figure I’ll set some groud rules for this debate, just to keep it from going off topic too much. First, discussion of whether or not libertarian principles are correct is not the argument. In discussing a free society, I am using the word free to mean (in a phrase you should be familiar with) “free from initiated force and fraud”.
I’m afraid I can’t abide by the terms you’ve set. The crux of the bisquit is whether your definition of “freedom” is meaningful, desirable or possible.
By your definition, the US (and every country in the world) is not “free”. My position is that your definition of freedom is arbitrary, undesirable and impractical.
Why should you restrict “intiation of force or fraud” from freedom? If I’m not free to kill or rob or rip off suckers, can I be said to be truly free? Why do you get to insert arbitrary restrictions and still call it “freedom”?
Let’s stipulate, for a moment, that your definition of freedom is accurate. Coupled with the libertarian primacy of ownership, the result is that only people who are economically independent can exercise real freedom. Everyone else has to abide by any restrictions and limitations that the owners of capital care to arbitrarily insist upon. By your definition, I cannot use force protect myself from exploitation by owners. I am not economically indepentent. Therefor your definition is contrary to my self-interest and is thus undesireable.
A modern economy derives its power from specialization. It’s demonstrably and objectively true that, on the whole, people who specialize are more efficient than people who generalize, especially if the generalist has to be directly self sufficient (grow his own food, build his own house, understand and research his own medical care, etc.). In order for an individual to specialize, he needs to have confidence that his dependency on others will not leave him open to exploitation. By exploitation, I mean taking advantage of his short-term dependence on good he does not directly produce to artificially devalue his compensation for specialized work. Thus we have implemented a social system that protects those who are economically dependent because of their specialization by the imposition of force to enforce protections against exploitation. Because your definition of freedom does not protect the specialist, it is impractical.
