Well said, Ludovic. Feudalism had its day, pure Libertarianism will not. I’m more of a pragmatist and believe that 100% private ownership of everything is not practical, any more than was the Communist ideal of 100% public ownership of everything.
What is practical depends entirely on what you are practicing. If you are practicing feudalism, then you need eminent domain. But if you are practicing voluntary relations, then you need noncoercion.
Lib, that’s simply wrong. What’s practical depends more on what human beings will go for not what you’re practicing. I think you’re being idealistic again.
I think you’re not making sense again. What people “go for” and what they practice are one and the same.
Lib said “A threat of force is tantamount to the use of force. If you believe that your neighbor has created a situation that is hazardous to the extent that it is coercive, you may exercise responsive force or take the matter to arbitration. If he has a nuclear bomb, for example, you may reasonably argue that a nuclear bomb in such close proximity renders you and your property unsafe. Robbing people of their safety against their will is coercive”
I’ve been waiting for this comment to show up again, because it seems to me to demonstrate some of the most serious weaknesses in Libertarian thought.
First: how would you expect to know that your neighbor has an Abomb? There isn’t any NEC going around with gieger counters;
there isn’t a Customs Service at the border (there isn’t even a border); there is nothing to prevent your neighbor from flying off to Russia, buying a suitcase nuke, stuffing it in his suitcase, and bringing it home. (Rumors suggest that the going price for a mininuke is around US$250,000, and my compadre, who is the recently retired Chief of Police of Oaxaca, has heard that some of the big-money narcotraficantes may have actually bought one, although what they think they’re going to do with it isn’t clear). Once he’s got the thing back home in Libertaria, the only way you are going to know about it is if he’s threatening to drop it on you, which is probably a little late if you’re planning to take him to arbitration.
Anyway, even if you did somehow find out that your neighbor is now a Nucular Threat, exactly what kind of force do you plan to use to persuade him to get rid of it? It seems probable that anyone who wanted his own A-bomb would also be likely to have accumulated a lot of other heavy weapons, and would no doubt resent, violently, your attempts to take them away.
In fact, Libertaria seems to have no way at all of dealing with potential terrorism, atomic or otherwise. Somebody wants to produce a few tons of ricin, or buy enough nitromethane and fertilizer to make a couple dozen Oklahoma City-style bombs, or brew up some anthrax in his basement lab? Well, after he’s killed a million people or so, I suppose you can sue him. Or take him to arbitration. Sheesh.
Jonathan is saying that not EVERYONE will join Libertaria. Libertarian says they dont have to, it is a voluntary association.
But, the only way you will get Libertaria off the ground is if there is enough critical mass to “Break free” of more authoritarian laws. In that sense, it is idealistic, since it has a very small chance of ever happening.
On the other hand, I think legislation is a valid method for pushing our society more towards that ideal, if , indeed, it is the ideal. There’s no way present legislation will let go of its hold without either a physical confrontation or legislation. I would prefer legislation.
That said, I would not like to see small-l libertarian economic legislation pass: I think that while it has moral merits, it would be on the balance economically destructive.
On the other hand, social freedoms, I agree with the non-coercion principle. on the balance, I would be willing to live with “bad” drugs in public (tobacco, crack, heroin, etc.), hate speech, and less restrictive free-association legislation, in order to live with greater opporunity to do the same as well as other, umm, social opportunities.
Agreement. The statement is self-defeating: if I can attack my neighbor because I’m afraid he might attack me…then there can be no peace in this world.
What if I, personally, feel threatened because my neighbor has a hand-gun? Maybe he intends to use it only in self-defense, but he’s been known to argue with me over political issues. What if he suddenly decides that I’m a threat to him because of my views on gun control? He might consider that a valid reason to shoot me…and I might consider that a valid reason to take away his gun!
What kinds of “threats” are objective, and what are subjective? And do you want to base a system of regulation on subjective measurements?
Trinopus
Trinopus wrote:
What statement? Not mine. Mine was this: “If you believe that your neighbor has created a situation that is hazardous to the extent that it is coercive, you may exercise responsive force or take the matter to arbitration.” Where in the statement I made is there any mention of fear that you might be attacked? If you lunge at a man because you believe he has looked at you funny, arbitration will likely see that very differently from lunging at a man who has demanded your money or your life. Irrational fear that your neighbor will attack you is nothing like a well grounded fear from his threats and actions. The whole purpose of arbitration is for an objective party to determine which is which. If you harm a neighbor who has not threatened you, then you yourself are subject to charges of coercion.
Close on me but not quite…
I believe that humans almost instinctively create order out of chaos and we call that order ‘society’. In each of these societies there exists a need to enforce conformity to societal norms.
Therefore I believe that any ‘strict’ libertaria is predestined to collapse into some force of ‘coercive’ government. I also believe that the most likely outcome of such a collapse is an authoritarian monarchy. What we should be working towards is the implementation of libertarian ideals as they fit into the framework of a liberal, western-style democracy.
The trouble is that there is no conceivable way to assess an improper perception from a proper one. The issue is subjective.
Also, if I think – rightly or wrongly! – that my neighbor has threatened my life, and I kill him – then the arbitration is going to be heavily biased in my favor: I’m the only one who can testify!
(I agree that this is largely an abstract issue; it doesn’t happen much in the real world, and probably wouldn’t happen much in Libertaria. I’m only arguing that the real world has rules governing this, whereas Libertaria, by its nature, cannot.)
Trinopus
Have you seen Hayek’s Theory of Spontaneous Order?
er…no. Point me to it and I’ll try to understand it.
Trinopus
Is it just me or is this “private roads” idea just nutz? I have gotten various things from the LP over the years and watching them talk about privatizing the roads always seemed to have the biggest squirm factor.
Look, the utility of a transport network depends largely on it’s efficiency. A system of roads where I have to constantly slow down to pay tolls as well as keep track of the ever shifting (and perhaps in some cases bizarre) rules and regulations of numerous road owners will reduce the efficiency of the road network to roughly zero. It’s hard enough to keep out of danger and arrive in one piece just trying to handle the traffic and weather. I can’t imagine trying to remember whether or not I’m planning to turn down a “No Blue Shirts on Thursdays” or a “No bumper stickers allowed” stretch owned by random local psychopaths.
In the middle ages there was a system like this. Each dorky little village had a tollgate, each river often had a tollgate for it’s bridge. Sometimes the toll takers were calm and businesslike. Sometimes they were thuglike and extorted huge fees to “let you pass” (actually to just let you live).
I generally favor market solutions to most problems of production and distribution but private roads?!? NO.
There’s tons of stuff out there on Hayek, the Austrian School, and Spontaneous Order. You can find stuff at Amazon, Cato, and Google. But here’s an introduction to the basic idea.
With respect to privately owned roads, tolls are only one possible implementation. There are many possible implementations for anyone interested in reading the Cato archives and other free-market sites.
Libertarian said “Drunk Driving — How that is handled is entirely up to the owner of the road. (NB: He may not represent his road as safe if he allows drunk driving. That would be fraudulent misrepresentation.)” (bolding mine). Now, presuming anything with regards to Libertarian, much less Libertarian’s, claims can be a tricky business, but as far as I can tell the government of Libertaria would be the one that determines what is “drunk driving” and will take actions against a road owner for “fraudulent misrepresentation”. If my reading of what Lib wrote is not correct, then explain to me who tells the property owner that he “may not represent his road as safe if he allows drunk driving,” and decides what is ‘drunk driving’.
It’s been covered in a grossly inadequate manner. When, exactly, does this ‘child’ switch from being a non-rights-bearing cluster of cells to a rights-bearing entity? It’s a rather important distinction, since it determines the difference between murder (killing a rights-bearing entity) and a medical procedure (aborting a fetus), not just some minor technicality.
Also, bear in mind that I was discussing Libertaria and Libertarian’s comment on it; you can’t cop out by presuming there is one government with jurisdiction who makes the decision. Libertaria only governs you with your consent unless you initiate force or fraud, but is
So, you’re required to support your child but you get to decide what is a child?
[QUOTE]
But the child himself may, if he believes that his parents have imposed the status upon him unreasonably, appeal to arbitration to be declared an adult.
How is that possible? He can’t form a contract with an arbitrator if he’s not capable of consenting to a contract, and he’s not a kid if he’s capable of consenting to a contract! If he can contract with an arbitrator, then he can’t be a kid, and if he is a kid, then he can’t contract with anyone to be declared a kid.
Even if we ignore the problem above, there is another problem under the system Libertarian talks about, since there’s not just one court system for him to go to - he would pick
How does a person become “a consenting party to the unary contract of guardianship over a rights bearing entity who is incapable of giving meaningful consent”? Yeah, great, you’ve got one of those Libertarianese definitions of ‘parent’, but it doesn’t give us any clue as to how one enters into the ‘unary contract’. Note that you cannot use the biological definition of parent, as you’ve explicity stated that some biological parents are not “a consenting party to the unary contract of guardianship over a rights bearing entity who is incapable of giving meaningful consent”.
BTW, just what is a ‘unary contract’ anyway? Don’t just tell me to look up the words, because it’s pretty obviously a Libertarian-specific term like ‘property rights’ meaning ‘what are traditionally called property rights, plus all rights related to the person’.
Man has sex with a woman who claims to be sterile, but her claims are fraud and she eventually has a child (or vice versa). Is he then “a consenting party to the unary contract of guardianship over a rights bearing entity who is incapable of giving meaningful consent,” or was he just a sperm donor who has not contracted to care for the child and therefore “he is not” a parent?
Are you telling me that parents can use no coercion on their child - no confining him to his room, setting (or maybe enforcing?) rules on what he can do, spanking him, grabbing and dragging him from a situation they don’t think he should be in, etc? Those don’t sound like ‘parents’ in the traditional sense, they sound like money-giving machines.
Wait, ‘starving a person’ is now coercion? I thought the whole point of Libertaria is that people aren’t entitled to the fruits of other people’s labor. You’re not even using the Libertarian concept of rights now, you’re using the ‘entitlement’ concept of rights, which is a bit of a problem.
Lib hasn’t responded to me, as usual, and your answers haven’t closed the huge, gaping holes I’ve pointed out.
And if there aren’t enough capable caregivers who want to adopt, which seems to generally be the case in the real world? It’s very easy to come up with answers to everything if you get to wave a magic wand and declare ‘ohh, someone will always volunteer to adopt the child’, but it’s a hole in the system theoretically, and from the number of kids who aren’t adopted IRL (especially mildy retarded or disabled kids) that hole would be present in any real-world implementation.
Oh, and who pays for determining which people are ‘capable caregivers’ anyway? Taxation is theft, remember.
That’s largely because the Libertarian “debating” style seems to be making sweeping assertions using decidedly nonstandard definitions and ignoring the holes.
First off, what is my ‘philosophy of children as property of The State’ and from what information that I’ve posted did you determine that I held it? Which of the multiple, differing child care systems referenced in your links do you think is an implementation of ‘my philosophy’? You’re setting up a false dichotomy, presuming that if I disagree with what you say that I must then support some existing system exactly as it operates now.
Secondly, your links are to what are obviously cases of ‘the system’ (really multiple systems) not working as it is supposed to, whereas my questions about Libertaria’s child care are pointed only at how Libertaria’s child care is supposed to work theoretically. If your system doesn’t even work theoretically, then trying to say ‘but look, my system is great because this other system has problems when implemented in the real world’ falls a bit flat.
Thirdly: for the children under the system (or systems) you’re talking about, or indeed for any children anywhere, what has your philosophy of a parent as a consenting party to the unary contract of guardianship over a rights bearing entity who is incapable of giving meaningful consent and a child as the nonconsenting party to that same unary contract done?
Um, Riboflavin, that was my post you were responding to. My wife failed to log out last night, and that’s why I posted immediately after it that it wasn’t Edlyn’s post but mine. You missed that, of course, just like you miss most of what I say. But that’s fine. I don’t need your acknowledgment. Everyone can see that you’re just ranting. And since you’re dodging my questions, I’m not wasting any more time on yours.
When, exactly, does this ‘child’ switch from being a non-rights-bearing cluster of cells to a rights-bearing entity?
I say age ten and don’t try to coerce me otherwise.
Why am I not suprised? “Oh, boo hoo, Riboflavin pointed out my whacko definitions, non-answers, and equivocations and also didn’t play the game of trying to defend a system he doesn’t advocate, I guess I better leave”. At least you’re not accusing me of murder this time, though I find it funny that you have such an enourmous ego that you think I would read all of your short posts before responding to a post from someone else (no, I don’t keep a scorecard with who might be on each others computer).
And it’s not dodging to point out that someone is asking a false question, such as when someone says ‘yeah? well why do you support this thing you don’t suppport’, or to point out the absurdity of using practical implementation problems with one system to justify ignoring the theorestical problems with another system.
BTW, next time someone thinks of asking ‘why don’t Libertarians do well in elections’, remember that the response to ‘what does Libertaria do about child support’ was effectively ‘a parent is a consenting party to the unary contract of guardianship over a rights bearing entity who is incapable of giving meaningful consent, and parents have to pay for their children’, and that such weird responses are not exactly rare.
There are electronic toll systems that collect fees automatically. Most of these still require you to reduce speed. They still create a choke point and reduce the efficiency of the road network and the sheer number of them you would see in Libertaria would especially do so. Or do we track the cars by GPS and debit their accounts accordingly? What about the people who disable their GPS units or rig them to send false information? Seems you need a law to force people not to then. You also do not address the issue of local eccentrics who happen to own roads. Imagine driving through, say Utah, and encountering a roadblock where the (well-armed) road owners asked to see your “church papers”. “Oh, didn’t you see the (tiny little unreadable) sign that said ‘Mormons only’, you didn’t? Too bad trespasser scum! - BANG!”
I’ll make a last attempt at seeing whether you’re interested in serious discussion, Dr. Zoidberg. If you and I respect one another, we can develop a long-lasting relationship on the board that will benefit us both. But if it’s all a joke based on your assumptions that I have not made, then we’re wasting each other’s time. Aren’t we? We can do this sort of Riboflavin thing in the Pit. I’m not sure there’s much hope for anything constructive here anyway, since the official position is that a response of “that’s f*****g crazy!” is suitable.
You can’t just shoot people for accidental trespassing. (The notion of excessive force equalling coercive force has been discussed many times.) You can’t make signs unreadable and represent them as signs. (That’s fraud.) And even though I just finished saying that tolls are only one way and that you can find information at Cato in their policy papers, you came right back with tolls again and clearly haven’t looked at any of the papers.
Most roads will be built by the businesses that need them. Would you open a business without a way for customers to reach you? Would you build a housing development that required people to ride horses to their homes?
Regarding local eccentrics, you seem to be saying that they are intrinsic to libertarianism, as is evidenced by the fact that they don’t exist in the real world, right?