Apparently, you are jumping to conclusions about what I said. I didn’t say jack about any taxes which must be paid under threat of criminal penalty. I specifically restricted it to property taxes. They’re kind of a sore subject in this state, since that is the principal method of financing city and county governments, and the sole method of financing school districts.
I don’t know where you live, but not paying property taxes is not a criminal offense here in Texas (or any other US jurisdiction that I know of). It merely gets you evicted from “your” land, which is then auctioned for the benefit of those who have claimed a right to extract rents from landowners.
The only difference from medieval feudalism is that the holding of estates and land is dependent on the payment of rents by the vassal to the lord, instead of an obligation to render miltary services.
Are you saying that in Texas your property taxes go into some rich landowner’s pockets who doesn’t have to pay property taxes himself? Who is this lucky fellow?
May I take a shot at it? Entrepreneurs would pop up who would lend money to such young persons, hoping to be paid back over time, once the “child” is legally an adult.
Such loans would be risky: if the court rules that the child is not an adult, then the loan agreement is invalid, and the legal guardians of the child can just rip it in half if they wish.
(I suppose, at some point, a recently emancipated minor would try to avoid paying back the loan, arguing that, when he signed it, he was legally a child and thus not competent to enter into such an agreement. However, since the money was specifically borrowed to assist the child in proving that he was competent as an adult, I think the court would rule for the lender.)
Actually, I have answered that before, several times. You can find more detail through search (and research), but I will hit the highlights for you. The child is both a rights bearing entity and a nonconsenting party to the unary contract with his parents (or guardian) and he therefore enjoys the same governance as they. A child is not a parent’s property, but rather a parent’s obligation. As consentors, the parents’ contractual obligations are enforced by their government. And because the child is a coerced party to the contract, his coercion is in part mitigated by his parents’ provision of governance. That cost, like all other costs in rearing the child, are part of what parents must consider before they commit to such a sober obligation.
No. But the parents risk charges of breach, and you likely know by now that breach is a coercion, and a very serious charge. It is conceivable that the parents could lose their property to an assigned guardian if they withdraw from their obligation to the child prematurely. In cases where parents suspect that their decision might be challenged, they will typically seek arbitration before making a decision. Personally, I would myself report the parents if I knew they had breached their obligation to a five-year-old child.
Yeah. It’s a corporation called The County of Travis, a wholly owned subsidiary of The State of Texas.
I am baron sole of my little fiefdom, in exchange for an annual rent payment to the county. I paid for the right to enter this little arrangement from the previous baron of this bit of land. I am not saying this is good or bad- merely that it is what it is.
Remind me, how is this different from feudalism? Why is it a good or bad thing?
And I suppose we would need to bring in social workers to make sure the “entrepreneurs” didn’t jack the little waif for a 5000% APR. But wait, this is sounding more and more like the current system.:rolleyes:
Gosh, what a shock. If I ask people what their vague comments mean, then I’m bad for debating by only asking questions. If I try to guess at what they actually mean, I’m jumping to conclusions. Try to make a coherent argument at the outset for the benefit of everyone you’re arguing with, especially if you’re a Libertarian (Libertarians tend to make arguments using very unusual assumptions and definitions).
Here’s a hint: when making an argument like the above, mention that you believe property taxes don’t involve a criminal penalty (or provide a reference showing such) and explain how it relates to your claim. I’ve never heard an argument remotely like the one you’ve made, and presuming that someone is going to just look at it and say ‘oh, he means property taxes don’t involve a criminal penalty, therefore (someone) is a feudal lord’ is just silly.
Cite, please.
First, provide exactly what definition of Feudalism you’re using, as far as I can tell renting an apartment would make your landlord a Feudal Lord by this definition. Who is the lord and who are the vassals in this case, and what is the full extent of obligations exchanged between them? Is there more than one level or lords and vassals? I don’t see how you’re getting from a to b here.
The only difference?? So the medieval peasants could vote in elections, had a Bill of Rights, right to trial by jury and all that too? Wow, and I thought those things only came along in modern times. Fact is, we do not live under feudal tyrants and to say that we do because of superficial similarities is hyperbole.
Why would a Libertarian government-entity take on this additional obligation at no charge?
If I join a health club, I can join as an individual or I can get the family membership. The latter costs more, because it covers everyone in my family. The health club won’t let me pay the individual rate unless it’s only got to provide services to me.
As I understand it, governments in Libertaria are a little like those health clubs – they are, essentially, business enterprises offering their services for a fee. Above, you just assume that the Libertarian government to which the parents have contracted will assume the additional responsibility of governing the child, including looking out for the child’s welfare when the parents fail in their responsibilities. Wouldn’t they charge extra for this additional level of service? What if the parents refused to pay extra, withdrawing their consent from that government entity if that entity insisted on their paying the family rate?
Libertarian, please let me join the chorus of people asking what a “unary contract” is. I have never heard of the term in my studies, I never heard the term in the several libertarian meetings I went to (back in the early 90’s), and when I Copernic-searched the term, I only came up with four examples, all referring to Java-script.
I’m very disappointed that you’ve used such a obscure term without explaining it, especially when you were directly asked what it meant.
It’s been explained many times in my three years here, Duke. It is a contract with one consenting party. And please note that I am cherry picking to whom I will respond.
Lib is famous for “cherry picking” and famous for ducking out when the questions about Libertopia become a little too tough to answer. For the interested, here is a recent history of discussions on Libertarianism on the SDMB (please feel free to add to the list):
Dec. 2002 My Foray into the Nuances of Libertarianism:
A play in three acts starring Dewey, Lib, and several other Dopers. Act I – BBQ Pit Act II – IMHO Act III – BBQ Pit Revisited Epilogue – GD
Well, if someone was charging 5000%…surely someone else would come along and undercut him, only charging 500%… Then 50%…
(I am not a libertarian! But the answer to a great many of the questions being asked here is: “the market will take care of it.”)
(I believe that the libertarian ideal breaks down in times of crisis. For instance, if your house is on fire and I’ve got a pond of water on my property. Sure, I’ll sell you water…for $1,000 per gallon… How am I “coercing” you? But it is a breakdown of the “free” market, since someone whose house is on fire is not exactly “free” to seek out a working market solution.)
This is interesting. How WOULD public property be diveed (sp?) up. Who would lay claim to the road in front of my apartment complex? DIBS!!! And dibs on Rocky Mountain and Glacier National Park.
And I’ll also note that this is a fairly radical redefinition of the word “contract,” which I was taught needed a meeting of the minds to exist. No meeting, no contract.
There are situations where the law will act as though a contract exists even though it doesn’t (promissory estoppel, for example), but generally that’s just to keep one party from jerking the other around, and in any event it isn’t a “contract” – it’s a substitution for contract.
And as long as I’m wading in here, here are some of my unanswered questions from the last thread (I’m betting that Lib will just “cherry pick” his way around them by ignoring them completely):
Due Process in Libertopia
Does Libertopia have jury trials or witnessess?
Seating a jury depends in part on the coercive power of the state to require individuals to sit, and to require that their employees not fire them for taking jury duty time. Does Libertopia have professional jurors, paid a full wage for their time?
And in the real world, if a crucial witness refuses to testify, the court can subpoena them. I take it that in Libertopia requiring that a person testify at an arbitration would be an initiation of force, particularly if the witness is a noncontracting party to whatever government is holding the arbitration. Can Libertopia compel witnesses?
Trespass and Children in Libertopia
What happens to a landowner who puts a bear trap on his property where a (admittedly trespassing) neighborhood child can wander into it?
The real world correctly recognizes that parents cannot keep their children tied to a leash like a dog, and that children wander, and that property owners who own property where children will foreseeably wander owe a duty to those trespassing children. Evidently this is not the case in Libertopia; apparently, Libertopia requires that children be kept tied to the front porch at all hours, lest they run across the next-door neighbor’s lawn.
Trespass and Necessity in Libertopia
Another question about the limits of trespass in Libertopia: what if trespass is bourne of necessity?
Say I am in a boat and am caught in a sudden storm. Fearing for my safety, I tie my boat to Lib’s pier. Assuming I do not damage the pier, can Lib maintain an action for trespass against me? Indeed, can he push me off the pier back into my boat, cut the ropes tethering me to pilings, and let me drift back into harm’s way?
I am not a Libertarian… But, by golly, I think I can answer some of these questions. May I?
**
In Libertopia, since most people are rational and practice enlightened self-interest, witnesses will come forward voluntarily and testify against wrongdoers, knowing that they, themselves, might be the victim of a crime some day.
I, personally, donate blood at the Blood Bank, for exactly this reason. I’m helping my community…because I know that, at any time, I might need my community’s help.
In Libertaria, people would be able to buy “trial insurance,” which would be used to recompense witnesses for their lost time. Witnesses could not be compelled to testify. But, for instance, “trial insurance” companies might require willingness to testify at trials as a requisite for coverage.
**
A landowner should never have any concern whatever for the activities of trespassers. If the child wanders into it, it is the fault of the child’s parents for not keeping an eye on the kid. If an adult wanders into it, it’s his own darn fault. One presumes, on the other hand, that landowners would post signs: “Warning: bear traps on property.” I also presume that property lines are clearly marked, so that no one can trespass unknowingly.
**
Alas, yes. That is one of the stringencies of that view of the world.
In Libertopia, emergencies (fires, storms, etc.) are considered “coercive,” and thus provide some exemption from the strictures of property law. The presumption is that, once the storm is over, you will recompense the owner of the pier for the temporary tethering, plus any damages your boat caused to the pilings, plus any supplies consumed.
In Libertaria, the pier owner is allowed to charge you vast amounts of money before he’ll let you berth, and if you don’t want to pay, that’s your choice to make. The reason for this is that, otherwise, a person in a storm, by dint of his need, is able to “coerce” you to give him shelter. This may never be permitted.
Again, I am not a libertarian, but these are the answers that I have heard from those who are. Since Libertarian seems to get testy when asked such questions, I hope you (and he) will forgive me for trying my hand at it.
Trinopus, I think your answers are good and accurate. I also think they paint a picture of Libertopia that is less than pleasant. Which explains why Lib gets testy and refuses to answer when such examples are brought up.
One point, though – “trial insurance” doesn’t make sense unless witnesses can be compelled. I take it by the concept you’re describing that people would buy the insurance in case they are called to testify to make up for their lost wages. But if they cannot be made to testify, why would they buy the insurance? Just ignore the request of the arbitrator to appear and go on your merry way.
Actually, I mis-read your answer on the boat in a storm hypothetical. I don’t think describing the storm as “coercive” gets you anywhere. The storm may be coercive, but it isn’t coercion at the hands of the dock owner. My tethering the boat to the dock is thus not retaliatory; it therefore must be coercive.
And even if we presume that the dock owner can’t cast me back to the sea, why wouldn’t he then be able to charge whatever outrageous fee he wants? It’s his property, after all. It isn’t his fault I’m in dire straits. Under libertarianism, there’s no concept of price-gouging; if the dock owner really wants $1 million, I think Libertopia would have to let him have it.
Dewey: Thanks for the heads-up. I’ve been here since 2000 (actively, that is) but I haven’t really stuck may head in these posts till now. Probably exercising the same kind of caution that, well, most of us do when we think, “I wonder what the inside of a bee’s nest looks like?”
One of these days, I’m going to write a long and detailed explanation of why I became a libertarian, and how I was put off the cause forever after attending an Institute for Humane Studies week-long retreat. (Hint: imagine being in one of these threads, in real life, sixteen freaking hours a day for seven freaking days. Even Lib might be a bit put off.)