All initial force or deception is unethical. That’s the NP, and it is where all deduction begins. The first deduction is that ethical force entails all force that is NOT initial. (By modus tollens.) An arbiter is not excused from the NP with respect to the citizenry he serves. Otherwise, if a car is stolen, then every building in the land may be searched and pillaged until the car is turned up. The answer on how to deal with investigations is to be found within the philosophy — it’s just that it isn’t what you’re used to. You’re used to an agent (or agents) of government flipping through libraries of documents for proscriptions about what they may do in the pursuit of their investigation. In this case, an agent (or agents) of government do not look for proscriptions, but to principle. It is rather remarkable to me that you are worried over how an arbiter might conduct an investigation while you do not complain about a magistrate whose piece of paper entitles an enforcer to enter your home. It is almost an identical process. One system calls it “probable cause”, and the other calls it “reasonable suspicion”. The main difference, in my opinion, exhonerates one above the other: in one system, you have no recourse to punish a maverick prosecutor who is acting in his official capacity, while in the other, you may bring the system itself to bear on its agents. The fact of the matter is that it is libertarianism, and not Americanism, that best protects you from rogue investigations. At the same time, the criminal has more to fear because he may not hide behind a good lawyer with the wherewithall to invoke one of a thousand technicality exceptions. I suppose that, in the end, it is all just a matter of preference, but even in that, I demand nothing from you. I am willing to allow you to select whatever you prefer — i.e., whatever you believe best ensures your safety and happiness. I ask nothing more than that from you.
I’ve enjoyed our discussion. Thanks for your civility.
Then in effect there are no limits on an arbiters power becuase the arbiter is the one that decides what is excessive.
Perhaps I am missing something here. A woman has the right to use her body in the way she wishes becuase it is her property. Since she coerced someone all of her rights go to the coerced. This means that the right to use her body as she wishes is no longer hers but it is in the custody of the coerced. If the coerced tells her to go become a prostitute why is she able to refuse?
Again I don’t understand why her will comes into play anymore. She no longer has any rights or claims to how her body is used. On what basis may she refuse prostitution and not be forced to using reasonable force up to shooting her dead.
Well, I guess the difference is that my current government does not pretend to be constrained by anything other than its own rules. I don’t have to like it, but at least I know approximately what they’ll say when I ask where they get their authority. But since libertarianism is so big on the NCP and on the concept of voluntary acceptance of a government’s authority, I was wondering how this issue would be resolved.
A “majoritarian” government, or a minarchist libertarian government which claims sovereignty over a particular area of land, may not necessarily be more fair or just but at least it would not have this particular philosophical contradiction to worry about. It’s a bit like how, if you don’t have any principles, you can never be accused of hypocrisy.
Actually, I do have recourse, and it is pretty similar to what I would do in the libertarian context. In the case of a rogue prosecutor using excessive force, I could sue him. In the case of an unfair judge, I can ask another judge to overturn the judgment. In the libertarian case, if I were treated unfairly by a government of which I am not a citizen myself, my only recourse would be to ask my own government to start a war against them – not very practical for your run-of-the-mill speeding ticket dispute, I’m afraid.
You know, I actually like the idea of the State being required to cross its t’s and dot its i’s before it can haul me off to jail, even it that means that the occasional bad guy is given a benefit-of-the-doubt he does not deserve…
Granted – until such time as one of us has his house broken into, and suspects the other one of being the burglar. Then, all bets are off…
You too, thank you for your time. You have not made a libertarian of me yet, but I enjoyed the conversation as well.
I can only assume by this line that Lib has placed me on his ignore list – board rules prohibit publicizing the persons on you ignore list.
But in the off chance that he hasn’t taken that step, and that he can read this post: Lib, don’t you think this is a bit childish? I’ve asked reasonable questions in good faith. You really only undermine your own credibility by ignoring them.
And I fully intend to continue to participate in these threads. I recognize, as you apparently do not, that I am not just writing responses to the person I’m quoting, but also to other readers of the thread. The points I raise and questions I ask in response to your posts have value even if you don’t read them.
Hardly. He knows that his decisions can be reviewed by some other arbiter. It seems to me that shielding officials from prosecution is what gives them unlimited power.
Her only obligation is to settle her debt, in the form of restoring her victim. She is not obligated to be anyone’s toy for amusement. She lost the rights (property) that she owned at the time of her conviction, and must use what remains to generate more. But that does not mean that she may be forced into rape or torture. Why you think otherwise is unclear. She may choose whatever work she wishes to restore her victim, but she must choose. If she is recalcitrant, and chooses some low-paying work just to spite the victim, then she is cutting off her own nose because it will take her longer.
No, you’ve extrapolated far beyond what is implied here. The only way to snuff out the rights that remain after she has lost her liberty is to kill her. Incarceration is her opportunity to begin anew. She now has the same property with which she was born.
The laws of your current government are written to protect government from its citizens, not the other way around. Your police officers are not even required to defend individuals from harm. Because your laws are based on scribbles from the whims of legislators who are out to protect their own interests, you stand to be surprised at any moment by some new law or Patriot Act that redefines what your government may do. It already may do anything it pleases. All it needs to do is scribble it down.
Not necessarily. Qualified immunity might shield him. “Even where a constitutional violation has occurred, an officer will be immune from suit if he or she ‘could have reasonably believed that his particular conduct was lawful’.”
Only in certain circumstances, and never if you are the plaintiff.
How on earth did you get from an arbiter is unlikely to start a war without compelling evidence to starting a war is your only option? At any rate, if your government is unwilling to fight for your rights when you have been wronged, then what good is it? Any old government can just tootle along while everything is hunky-dory. But suppose it is your wife who is wronged, and being held prisoner by the offending entity. Don’t you want your government to spare no effort in freeing her? As to practicality, what is practical depends entirely on what you are practicing. If you are practicing impotent government, then libertarianism is not practical for your needs.
But it writes the t’s and i’s that it crosses and dots. If “you have a right to privacy” does not suit it, it may simply change the words to “we can enter your house when you’re not there and search for whatever we wish.” Do you have any idea how many of these words it writes on a given day?
Honestly, I’m not prosyletizing. I can understand very many reasons why libertarianism might not appeal to other people. For some, it is a matter of a differently held principle or set of principles. They are not bad people; they just think differently from me. For others, it is a fear of being on their own and fending for themselves without a teat to suck. They aren’t bad people either; they’ve just become accustomed to being dependent on someone else. Again, I’m not asking you to be a libertarian; I am asking only that you allow me to be one, and to pursue my own happiness in my own way so long as I initiate no force or deception in my dealings.
“Coercion” (or “violent force”) is an act by a human or humans against the will or without the permission of another human being with respect to that which is his own (his own person or property). It means for someone to take, use, meddle with or otherwise do something to the body or property of another human being without the permission or against the will of that other human being. This includes fraud and embezzlement and other indirect uses of force as well as direct physical violence.
An excellent description, except that I would replace “an act” with “a voluntary and volitional act”. (What Ludwig von Mises calls a “praxis”.) Libertarianism has borrowed the term and modified it slightly to mean the initiation of what you describe. The use of what you describe in the defense of rights and property is not, within the philosophy, considered to be coercive.
You’re fond of saying this, but it really isn’t true, at least not universally. Indeed, if anything, the history of American government has been one of increasing individual protection from government rather than less.
That doesn’t mean police officers aren’t required to respond to crime – they are, and if they don’t, they will not be police officers for long. However, it is recognized that the cops can’t be everywhere at once. Our system of governance does not demand omnipresence or omnipotence on the part of law enforcement.
Point of fact, the doctrine of qualified immunity is not a legislative enactment, but rather a common law doctrine that evolved through the courts. That is not much different than how I imagine doctrines would emerge in a libertarian arbitration scheme – I assume that good arbitrators would seek consistency, and in doing so would look to earlier arbitrations to ensure later complainants who are similarly situated are treated similarly.
So there’s an appeals system in Libertaria? Care to flesh that out? When is a party entitled to an appeal of an arbiter’s judgment? How is this any different from the endless litigation you so depsise under the status quo?
Can this woman just decide that she’ll never be able to work off the debt in her lifetime and go live in her parent’s basement? Can the arbiter command the use of force to make her work and pay off the debt?
Wait, is there a debtor’s prison or not? Is a person free to go work to pay her debt or not?
Perhaps you would be kind enough to respond to post #34, detail what rights a person has and what rights they lose after they are found guilty of coercion. Let us get solid definitions and move on from there.
It ensures that there will be sufficient force to extract from her wages his share until he is repaid. Without such supervision, she might pay him nothing at all.
Which is what people tend to do. You’re likely familiar with Hayeks’ Theory of Spontaneous Order. There will not be 6 billion governments any more than there are 6 billion languages. Few people want to be islands. Most understand the benefits of commerce and trade.
Not an appeal process per se, but you may charge your arbiter with breach, and confidently so considering that any reasonable man understands that a wedding ring is not just a chunk of metal.
His oath is to apply the Noncoercion Principle. He may use precedent as a guide, but he is not bound to it. That allows for the correction of error.
Personally, I prefer monarchial arbitration, but I’m amenable to alternatives, like one who is popularly elected. I like a system where the accused selects the arbiter, but on that I am also flexible.
Those are fine if they are what you want. That’s what libertarianism is all about. You choose for yourself what government you believe might best ensure your safety and happiness. The idea is not at all new:
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’ve written only a couple of short stories, and a lot of posts. But no, I’ve never formalized the whole thing with a citizen’s contract or a procedure manual or anything. That might be fun to do, though.
I think I said probably and roughly. It was just a guess based on how much the US government spends (and wastes) on policing the whole world. It seemed reasonable to me that they could police the homeland for a like amount.
I’m not an economist, but if you’re interested in the economic aspects of free societies, then I recommend the writings of Hayek, Mises, and other economists of the Austrian school. Mises’ magnum opus, Human Action is available in its entirety online if you care to read it.
What will instituting new government bureaucracies and policies mean? No one knows. You don’t know. And yet, they are implemented every day. I am of the opinion that if men do what is right, then their end will be just. Establish an ethical noncoercive free market, and the best of the best will bubble to the top. Those are the theories of the Austrians.
Quite possibly. And you’re right that, for a time, it might indeed mean much warfare. Of course, there is much warfare today, and there has been forever.
Well, you demand evidence for assertions, but provide none yourself. I simply disagree. I don’t know what you believe you need to succeed, but all I need is freedom from the coercive fists and devious minds of men who would try to stop me.
Thanks for your patience. Sorry it took so long to respond.
Okay, your post 34 is answered. A person has all rights with respect to property that he owns so long as he is peaceful and honest in his dealings. Property and rights are synonyms, or two aspects of the same thing. A coercer waives his own rights in the process of usurping someone else’s. Effectively, he is declaring, “I hold my own rights to be cheap and worthless and instead seek to have yours.” He loses all but the rights he is born with until such time as he restores his victim. Libertarianism is not compatible with institutionalized execution. Nothing is restored by killing someone, although killing someone may be necessary in defense of one’s own life. (If someone fires at an enforcer, for instance, he may return fire.)
Are there any ‘superior’ arbiters at all? There has to be a resolution at some point both parties can not continually go to different arbiters and get different rulings.
Using the ring example lets say arbiter A forces me to pay 10 grand in ‘pain and suffering’ compensation. I go to arbiter B and he finds the arbiter A in violation of the non coercion principle. Arbiter A goes to arbiter C who finds arbiter B in violation. Arbiter B goes to arbiter D who finds arbiter C in violation. Repeat ad nasuem. What will the resolution end up being?
It does allow for correction of error but it prevents anyone from knowing what constitutes a coercion and what does not. For example if arbiter A rules that an act is a coercion while arbiter B rules that it isn’t how will I know if the act is legal or not? Or for example if I see arbiter A, B and C ruled that a certain act isn’t coercion and I commit that act there is no garuntee arbiter D won’t find it to be coercion.
But then again I have to comply with your governments legal system unless I am able to defend myself.
I am certainly not interested in reading an 890 page book about economics. Anything a bit shorter?
No one absolutely knows what will happen but there is a good idea what will. Studies are done, experts lend their opinions and the populace (or their representitives) choose whether or not to enact it.
Yes but imagine how much warfare there would be if every crime that happened between foriegners obligated the government to go to war. For example Britain currently holds prisoners from 168 different countries. Thats 168 countries that would be obligated to go to war against Britain. Britain may have been involved in a good number of wars but I doubt they have fought a total of 168 countries.
You are the one making the claim that Libertarianism is better for the economy. You need to provide evidence that your claim is correct. It is not my responsibilty to prove your claim wrong rather it is yours to prove it correct. I will indulge you a bit however. If you want evidence of what limited liability, patent protection, copyright and trademark protection do for an economy look around.
For example in 1995 there were 6 trillion dollars worth of stock in America. Thats a whole lotta money that companies have raised through the sale of stock. If you remove limited liability you will destroy the incentive for anyone to invest in stock. No one is going to buy stock when that means you potentially can be made the slave of someone else. How are they going to raise that money? Loans and Bonds are nice but if you start losing money for a bit and are unable to make payments your companies assets can be seized.
You also run into the problem of who is going to be able to own massive corporations. For example the market value of GE is 379.33 billion dollars. That is $379,330,000,000 who is ever going to accumulate that much money/wealth to be able to own GE? Even if you got the 14 richest people in the world together they would not be able to afford GE.
I’ll even throw in an anecdotle example. I am not sure if you are familiar with GE’s trivection oven but the short of it is that its a new oven technology that cooks food up to 5 times faster. It took a huge amount of R&D to make the ovens and GE makes that up with ridiculously large margins on their product. The reason they can make these margins is that no one else is allowed to produce ovens with similair technology becuase it is all patented. If it weren’t for the patents they wouldn’t be able to make that margin and they would not have invested the capital. All the people that worked on the R&D would not have had jobs, a new product would not have been introduced and the long term profitability of GE appliances would be in jeopardy. Multiply that effect across the thousands and thousands of companies in America and you lose a good number of jobs in R&D and kill innovation.
I am not an economist nor do I play one on TV but limited liability, patent protection, copyright protection and trademark protection are cornerstones of a modern economy. Removing these will not make the economy boom it will bring it crumbling down to the ground.
Do I look like Miss Cleo? Since we’re just supposing, let’s suppose that the third arbiter dismisses the whole thing as the obvious pissing contest that it is. I mean, if you’re smart enough to concoct it deliberately as much ado over nothing, then what fantasy are you concocting that pins utter obliviousness onto other thinking men? Is your skill at seeing through A and B’s game a special one that only you hold? Or is it the case that you get to make up fantastic stories about Giant Squids, and I have to patiently address them all? If the latter, then we’re done. If you get to make up things, then I get to counter with made up things. Meanwhile, your own system is real, and once you’ve reached the end of your rope, you’re dead.
The arbiter will explain to you why or why not. He will say something like, “You cannot stab Mr. Jones in the eye for wearing a pink shirt because it is a usurpation of his right to see with his eye.”
I’m reminded of our spoiled cat, Jane. When he is lounging on the left side of the room and sees Great Whore Jezzebel lounging on the right side, he cannot rest until he has moved over to the right side and displaced her. If she then goes to the left side and lounges in the place where he was, he voices his disapproval and moves back to the left side, pushing her away again. If you like my government’s legal system, join it. If you don’t, what are you whining about? If you don’t want to wrangle with my government, then don’t tread on me.
I imagine it would be quite much. But I don’t know what chain of inferences brought you to such a conclusion. I daresay that by its reputation alone, the very existence of Libertaria would pretty much leave people with a respectful caution in dealing with it. As I’ve stated and you’ve ignored repeatedly, there are very few instances in which war would be necessary — all being when you can prove unilaterally that you’ve been coerced AND the opposing government decides that its citizen has a right to coerce you. And if your rights have been robbed from you, then any government that will not stand up for you is a poor champion indeed. I suppose you’re probably so used to thinking of government as a nanny cow, that it is hard for you to conceive of it as the champion of your liberty.
Um, no. And frankly, I’m flabbergasted by that response.
Hopefully, they won’t have to read more than 800 pages, eh? Seriously, here’s a brief article about a concept called unintended consequences. An exerpt:
The law of unintended consequences is at work always and everywhere. In 1968, for instance, Vermont outlawed roadside billboards and large signs in order to protect the state’s pastoral vistas. One unintended consequence was the appearance of large, bizarre “sculptures” adjacent to businesses. An auto dealer commissioned a twelve-foot, sixteen-ton gorilla, clutching a real Volkswagen Beetle. A carpet store is marked by a nineteen-foot genie holding aloft a rolled carpet as he emerges from a smoking teapot. Other sculptures include a horse, a rooster, and a squirrel in red suspenders.
If by some chance, you care to read Merton’s original article from the American Sociological Review, it too is available online: Loading...
Despite all efforts to get you to stop attributing to me views that I do not hold or have not voiced, you continue the practice. This practice does not sneak by anyone other than those who have already predisposed my argument in favor of yours. So you’re gaining nothing. I claim that libertarianism is better FOR ME and MY economic circumstance. I have also explicitly stated that it is not better for everyone. With respect to your huzzahs over giant corporations and their assets, if that is your end, then cronyism is your best means — business and government working in partnership to enrich one another. The result of your system is that you have concentrated most of the nation’s wealth with government. The assets of all corporations put together pale in comparisons to the assets of government. And you have no logical basis upon which to assert that a free market would not fair far better than a coercive one.
Please note that I am not from the US myself, so some of your specific examples (e.g. the Patriot act, or specific jurisprudence about the duties of police officers) may not apply to me. Which is not to say, of course, that my country does not have its own examples of laws written to protect the government from its citizens.
However, I assume that a smart libertarian government would also include some disclaimers and “the arbiter’s decision is binding and you agree to accept it” clauses in its contract. Given the importance of contracts in libertarianism, this would offer them a considerable amount of shielding from the consequences of bad arbitration. There would be the possibility of competition between governments on who has the most reasonable citizen’s contract, but it may not be easy to find an arbiter who is willing to take full personal responsibility for every case where another arbiter later decides that his ruling was unfair.
Dewey Cheatem Undhow has written several responses to your points, by the way, so I’m not going to repeat those – if you can’t or won’t see them, that is your choice, of course.
I’m following your conversation with treis with great interest, though. If you ever get around to working out a concrete example of what the citizen’s contract for your ideal libertarian government would actually look like, please let me know!
Since we’re just supposing, let’s suppose that the third arbiter dismisses the whole thing as the obvious pissing contest that it is. I mean, if you’re smart enough to concoct it deliberately as much ado over nothing, then what fantasy are you concocting that pins utter obliviousness onto other thinking men? Is your skill at seeing through A and B’s game a special one that only you hold? Or is it the case that you get to make up fantastic stories about Giant Squids, and I have to patiently address them all? If the latter, then we’re done. If you get to make up things, then I get to counter with made up things. Meanwhile, your own system is real, and once you’ve reached the end of your rope, you’re dead.