That is an interesting take. I would have thought that it meant a fifty-fifty split, regardless of who leaves.
It is sounding more and more like Libertaria has all kinds of laws to cover things not covered by explicit contract. People can always opt out of those laws by contracting otherwise (Larry and Linda could have mentioned in their marriage contract that “the first one to cheat on the marriage only gets twenty percent of the assets”), but otherwise, the laws say what specific terms in contracts should be interpreted to mean.
Are there limits on what you can contract? Could I do the Merchant of Venice pound of flesh thing? Could I sell myself into slavery?
That’s another question. Can I choose not pay for police service, and set up my own home defense? ISTM that even if I don’t pay, I am benefitting from the police protection for others in my neighborhood, because the police would arrest someone for committing crimes against both payers and non-payers. It is sort of like a “herd immunity” that people who don’t vaccinate their kids enjoy, without paying the “cost” of the very small risk of complications from vaccination.
Interesting stuff - keep it coming!
What about the children? Won’t somebody think about the children[sup]1[/sup]? Does the non-custodial partner have to pay child support, and if so, how much? Can those rights be contracted away? Do they get to pick which parent, and what role do the courts play in determining what is in their best interests?
From what Lib was saying, it sounds pretty simple: the contracting parties can make whatever arrangements they want by voluntary contract.
If something comes up that the contract didn’t cover, and the contracting parties can’t come to an agreement about it, the “jackbooted nanny” arbiters will step in and “solve their problems” for them.
What’s to stop me from contracting with a government that doesn’t work like that?
Seriously - I’ve never understood this part: does Libertaria have some über-government that determines which micro-governments can contract with its citizens?
I suspect nothing - if you can find one, or create it.
I thought the only role of the über-government was to prevent coercion and deception. If you want to form some smaller association, the government of Libertaria doesn’t concern itself, so long as no deception is involved.
I think if we add a little more into the situation, but only a little more, we gain something interesting.
First, Linda was very wealthy when she came into the marriage; Larry was not. When they agreed to share everything, mostly they were agreeing to share Linda’s wealth.
Second, their parting is so vicious that they cannot agree to an arbiter. Larry has turned bitter on women, and is convinced that a female arbiter is going to give everything back to Linda despite her infidelity; Linda is so irritated at Larry that, to spite him, she refuses to accept any arbiter unless she’s female.
It’s possible that these situations are previously covered: the government with which they contract already has default contracts set up for property disbursement in divorces, contracts that apply only if there’s no more specific language in a particular marriage contract, and agreeing to be governed by this specific government means agreeing to all these default contracts. They may similarly have a process by which, if two disputing parties cannot agree on an arbiter, one is chosen randomly for them.
But I’m not sure if that’s how it would work.
I am skeptical of the idea that libertarianism would lead to greater personal responsibility–and I say this as someone who used to advocate an anarchism based on personal responsibility. As I’ve grown older, I’ve become less convinced that irresponsibility is a cultural value, and more convinced that it’s part of human nature. But that’s just a personal opinion, not something that I can argue with evidence.
There could indeed be libertarian societies that have even more laws than the US (were such a thing possible). But Libertaria, in the sense of Lib’s ideal libertarian society, has only one law.
So long as all parties are rights bearing entities capable of giving meaningful consent (the definition of adult in Libertaria), and do so, then yes — it’s your body. Do what you want with it.
You must leave behind the notion of borders as lines on a map defining what a government claims. Libertarian government makes no claims to property ownership of any kind. No emiment domain. You are a citizen because you pay, not because of where you live.
Like I told you before, there are threads already dealing with children in quite some detail. And that’s a lot of detail, too much for me to commit to discussing here. But you’re a smart guy. The underlying theory, briefly, is that a child is incapable of giving meaningful consent, and therefore the political relation between parents and child is unary in nature; that is, the parent is the sole consenting party. As such, the parent carries an obligation to provide for the child every necessity (yes, that can be arbitrated) until adulthood.
No, like I explained before (is anyone reading anything? :D)), not every agreement is a contract and not every disagreement is subject to arbitration. But you are right that volunteerism is the key.
Nope. Libertarianly speaking, a government is legitimized solely by the consent of those it governs. You may contract with any government (or none) that you believe most affects your safety and happiness. I think that the US Declaration of Independence captures the essence quite well:
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness – That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
I don’t follow that part of it. The very act of becoming a citizen of Libertaria entailed contracting for government arbitration of disputes. How could they breach that as well?
Right. Did I say it was? If two parties have a contract which is broken under conditions not covered by the contract, as in the OP’s hypothetical, and they can’t resolve it by mutual agreement, then it’s up to the arbiter.
(And I think what Daniel was getting at is not that Larry and Linda are rejecting arbitration per se, which as you note is government-mandated, but that they can’t agree on which arbiter to go to. Presumably that would also have to be settled by an arbiter’s decision somewhere.)
Okay. I misunderstood your “If something comes up that the contract didn’t cover, and the contracting parties can’t come to an agreement about it, the “jackbooted nanny” arbiters will step in and “solve their problems” for them.” I’m afraid the jackbooted nannies (whom they hired voluntarily, by the way) might cause them more problems than they solve.
I don’t think they get to pick an arbiter. At least, I wouldn’t design it that way. I think a random one would be better because it could be the case that that acquaintance or something like that prejudices things one way or the other. (I know Larry and I hate/love him.)
[hijack]Liberal, have you ever read anything by L. Neil Smith? I’m specifically thinking of The Probability Broach. That book is pretty much exactly what you describe. It gets a bit preachy at times, but it was a good read overall.[/hijack]
That’s pretty much how it’s supposed to work here but, as in most societies throughout history, the wealthy and/or powerful can still “shop” for judges that tend to rule in their favor. What prevents this problem in Libertaria?
The author is a bit idealistic, but I enjoyed the series of which this book is the first. My favorite is Tom Paine Maru , which details the extension of a Libertaian Utopia into the future.
This can be arbitrated? I’m a little confused: am I allowed, for example, to contract with a government that agrees that children may be beaten bloody so that they learn good manners, and if so, what may my bleeding-heart neighbor do when she sees me pull out the whip against my own child?
I guess it would depend on whether or not she belongs to the same Libertarian mini-governmental unit that you’ve voluntarily signed up with, doesn’t it?
Who decides which children are capable of giving meaningful consent and which aren’t? Might one government draw the line at 18, another at 21, another at 13, and yet another on a case-by-case basis?
I apologize if this has already been covered in another thread - if so, please provide a link or some keywords to search for.
And might this not allow a parent to shop for a government that allows her/him the greatest leeway with regards to punishing a child, or could the child shop for a better government independently?
