Can you please provide me with the full definition of both force and coercion as you use them? Are these the same as the legal definitions of the words? I truly do not know if the way you use them are consistent with that used in legal jargon. If so, I apologize for my ignorance. If not, from where are these definitions derived?
Why do you think it seems so clear to me? I have my own opinions, sure, but I don’t think yours are worthless. If someone asks me what I think Libertaria should do about so and so, I’ll give my opinion. But I’m willing to sign on and let the arbiters decide these things. That’s what they’re there for. So long as the noncoercion principle is their guide, I’m okay with that. I know and understand that things would not always go my way. Sometimes, questions are asked as though I am the arbiter. The answers are my best guesses with respect to the information in the hypotheticals given, that’s all.
Once again, if what he signed says, “I have every intention of paying back this loan,” then no problem. Repeat: no problem. But if it says, “I agree to pay back this loan on these terms,” then he should think it through before he commits. I mean hell, I used to see Pit threads all the time (there likely is one there now) from people bitching like crazy about people renegging on E-Bay purchases or merchants breaking promises and the like. Why bitch if breaking contracts is okely dokely? Whoever doesn’t follow the terms is in breach. And that’s assuming that both parties entered the agreement voluntarily and understood what it was. If it has terms that spook you, don’t sign it — seller or buyer either one.
No problem. In libertarian philosophy, force includes both physical threat and mental deception — either of them used as a means to make a person do something that otherwise is against his will. The first emergence of force is called initial force, or coercion. Forces in response to initial force — i.e., defensive or retaliatory force — are not coercive because they are not initial. For example, a man walks up to you and says, “Your money or your life.” He has initiated force. You may use whatever force is necessary (and no more) to counter his force. Or, a man cons you out of your money. You may use whatever force (including deception) that you need to to get your money back. Essentially, it means don’t start a fight, but feel free to defend yourself. The fight starter is being coercive; the defender isn’t.
If you’re interested in more detail on how the theory is developed, see Human Action, by Ludwig von Mises.
Incidentally, Stonebow, libertarianism defines freedom as the absence of coercion.
That you find it necessary to include #5 before anyone points out the weakness of #4 indicates that you recognize it is in dire need of defending. Would I be irresponsible in Libertopia if I obtained a mortgage without have the full value of the property in the bank? If so, there will be very few property owners in Libertopia. And your economy is really going to suck.
And borrowing money so you can keep your assets? What good is having assets if they are pledged to a debt; you can’t spend them without becoming a bad person in Libertopia. This explanation is really lame.
Just wondering if my post will get a reply…
No one said said its okey dokey to not pay back a loan but if you can’t you can’t. Allowing someone to declare bankruptcy is a heck of a lot better than tossisng him into a debtor prison. Either way, I still don’t see why Libertaria cares in this situation. There was no deception or force initiated by the debtor which according to your definition means there was no coercion and thus no crime.
If you had read mine, you wouldn’t be wondering. “I will check back in case a miracle has happened, but if I find this post parsed and peppered with your aw shucks silliness, I’ll click out of here as fast as the server will allow.” Gah. Are you thoroughly incapable of engaging in honest debate and discussion?
Wow, even Dewey doesn’t pull that “Libertopia” crap anymore.
But now the American system has made that even harder to do. At least in a libertarian context, you would have the option of selecting a government that sees things the way you do, and allows for generous bankruptcy terms. To me, being able to give or withhold your consent to be governed is a heck of a lot better than bending to the whims of lawmakers.
But breach is a deception. You read the terms. You signed the agreement. You cannot now reneg or else your signature was worthless.
There is nothing stopping me from finding a company that will give me better bankruptcy terms except of course them not existing. and as we have gone over before Libertaria his no qualms about initiating force. The creditors government will hunt me down and force me to comply with its judicial system.
Perhaps, but I still never decieved nor used physical force against anyone. That means I have committed no crime.
Aw, shucks, Lib…
But seriously, I thought my post was quite free of “aw-shucksness” of any kind. I thought it was a pretty direct and straightforward reply, actually.
At any rate, if you could kindly tell me which parts you thought were silly and why, I can explain why I posted what I did and why I don’t think it silly, and perhaps we can proceed from there as a fresh starting point.
Libertaria, Libertopia; to-may-to, to-mah-to. Why don’t you answer his actual question?
So you find my argument irrefutable, and stoop to the indignant, irrelevant retort. Classic **Lib ** debate style.
But suppose I’m a lender who’s willing to take risks for high possible returns. I’m willing to loan out a million dollars each to twenty different people, with full knowlege that ten of them are probably going to fail, but also knowing that the other ten borrowers will pay me back three million dollars apiece. I assuming that any version of libertarianism would allow me to loan out my own money in this manner. And if loaning out money in this manner is both legal and moral, then borrowing money in this manner must also be legal and moral.
What’s a “safe” loan anyway? All loans are risks; even collatoral just changes the odds. Suppose Bill Gates wanted to borrow $1000 from me for thirty days; that seems like a pretty safe loan. But maybe in the next month, some computer virus will destroy every Microsoft product in the world and Bill will lose every cent he’s got, including my $1000. Maybe he put up his mansion as security on the original loan; but the same day as the virus was released, an arsonist burned his house down. Was that something either of us could have anticipated? No.
The bottom line is that loans are prime examples of non-coercive business transactions. The borrower is expected to negotiate the best possible terms. And the lender is expected to not only negotiate the best possible terms for himself but also to assess the risk of the loan and acknowlege that there is a possibility that the loan may not be repaid and his money will be lost due to circumstances neither party anticipated. Accepting this possibility is part of the personal responsibility libertarians are always advocating.
Sure, so long as it is voluntary. But if those are the terms, then that is what the contract will say. It will say that you do not have to pay back the loan. Only that you’ll try your best.
That’s what I said in my post. The borrower risks losing his collateral. But at least that brings him down to zero. Being in debt brings him down into negative.
Sure, if those are the terms of the loan. But if the terms are to pay it back, then the borrow must assume risk too. Both parties risk losing money in a loan. What you keep describing is some sort of conditional gift. Here’s the money, and just pay me back if you feel like it.
Interesting discussion: I never thought about the libertarian implications of bankruptcy law or its absence before. But hasn’t the basic point of the OP now been verified, as follows?
Okay. So legal measures that “decriminalize” defaulting, such as bankruptcy laws, are from a libertarian standpoint coercive, aren’t they? Because they force the creditor who abided by the contract to tolerate a breach by the debtor.
But if legally permitting breach of contract by declaring bankruptcy is coercive, then from a libertarian standpoint, isn’t it a good thing to make declaring bankruptcy harder to do? And since it diminishes coercion, doesn’t it make the market more free rather than less free, from a libertarian standpoint?
Benin, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guyana, Honduras, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Niger, Rwanda, Senegal, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia.
So, Lib, according to your edict, the above 18 countries are all “criminal”, even though The G7 agree that the debt should be wiped out.
No wonder you refuse to give a straight answer to OP’s question who simply asked you:
We are all waiting for your “Yes” or “No” answer, that you appear to evade. Before you finally answer Dewey’s question, however, you may want to find out some of the reasons Why do bankruptcy laws exist at the first place.
You are quick, Lib, to make derogatory remarks about others, such as:
How about taking a look at yourself in the mirror?
I guess I don’t see the necessary connection between libertarianism and the absence of bankruptcy protection.
Correct me if I misunderstand - a contract in Libertaria which includes clauses establishing the same sort of protections as our currect system of bankruptcy laws would be acceptable, if both parties agreed to it freely, right? The libertarian objection is that the government establishes those clauses in every contract. Yes?
But if First Libertarian Bank offered two kinds of mortgages - one where under some circumstances the debt was restructured or revoked, and another where it could never be evaded and default was followed by debtor’s prison - that would be OK, if I understand it correctly. The rates on the first kind of mortgage would be higher than the second, but it would be roughly equivalent to an extreme kind of mortgage insurance.
ISTM that a libertarian society that only allowed the second kind of mortgage would be coercive. Banks should be able to offer both. I suppose you could make an argument that banks who only lent money under the second kind of mortgage are taking advantage of the poor, but I doubt that is the sort of argument that would appeal to a libertarian.
Is it the case that your objections to the new bankruptcy laws is due to the fact that it is being imposed on all?
Even in Libertaria, I can see a standardized system of contracts being developed, where under one contract default is unpleasant but unfatal, and under another you are screwed for life, and people pick which one they want. Then the only role of the government would be to assist people in enforcing the terms of whatever contract they signed - either by preventing lendors from taking their customers’ first born child, or by preventing debtors from walking away from their debts.
Or am I missing the argument altogether?
Regards,
Shodan