In the Cops thread, Libertarian said, in response to a discussion about how traffic laws should be created:
I have a basic question about the defintions suggested by the link, above.
Let us imagine that I stand in front of a bank, wearing body armor, and begin to load a shotgun. Once loaded, I carry it at port arms into the bank, march to a free teller, and stop.
Have I initiated force within the meaning of the Libertarian philosophy?
That depends entirely on the wishes of the bank owner. If she allows you on her property to begin with, and if she allows you to carry your weapon inside, then you have initiated no force.
Very well. Then let’s leave me just outside the bank’s property. No force initiated at that point?
Suppose the bank owner was sitting in the back drinking a cup of coffe, and was not available to be asked if it was permissable to do this thing.
Bricker:
Well, who’s property are you now on?
Scylla:
I don’t care if she’s on Mars screwing Elvis Pressley. If you don’t know, don’t assume.
Just to play this out. Why would such a person be assuming. The bank has established itself as open for business, and people are welcome to enter.
Wouldn’t somebody walking in unarmed but fully dressed be assuming that clothing was permitted according to your rationale?
That person probably shouldn’t enter either without explicit permission to do so in a clothed state.
Scylla:
I know that it’s hard to get used to the idea of a property owner calling the shots with respect to her own property.
But these questions, as I understand it, are being asked in the context of libertarianism. The bank is open for business only if the owner says it is. And the only people welcome to enter it are the people welcomed by her. If she wants only Black Jewish Lesbian Republicans to enter, then most of us will simply have to select another bank.
I think I understand.
Unless eveybody walks around with their personal rules stapled to their foreheads, and every business has their own all-inclusive manifesto of conduct posted, then nobody can do anything at all without engaging in an activity or making an invalid assumption that could be misconstrued as coercive behavior.
Scylla:
I appreciate both your sarcasm and your point.
Let me ask you this. Would it be all right with you if, while you are away from home for a few days, I build a hut on your lawn and occupy it? If not, if you will not make an exception for your own property, then for whose property would you make an exception, and by what criteria?
I wanted to drive home the point that, in libertarianism, it is always the owner of property who calls the shots with respect to it. That said, most businesses are in business to make money, and would use simple common sense in their dealings.
Besides, posting rules would be of only marginal help. The owner may throw me off her property for any arbitrary reason. She might just plain not like me.
No sarcasm intended.
I see an innate problem that Bricker has directly tapped.
Unless there are generally accepted rules of conduct with the force of law and penalties for breaking these rules than no action can be undertaken outside of one’s property without potential impingement on anothers rights.
If such rules do exist, than they undermine the right of the property owner to do as they see fit within their domain. Catch 22.
In the above example, without such rules I would be justified in killing any squatters on my property if I decided to consider their presence an attack. Then I could hang their corpses from a tree as a warning to others.
It seems to me that there is an underlying belief in Libertarianism that we can all basically be nice and respect each other’s rights and property. I just don’t see that as possible. Put two people together, and one will be coerced.
I don’t know if this qualifies as an attempt at thread derailment or not, but I have a question about Libertarian philosophy that I’d like to get some answers from Libertarians about…
How do you deal with “tragedy of the commons” effects?
For example, let us suppose that the US transforms itself into a Libertarian Utopia, we abandon all taxation, and adopt a fee for service government. A citizen of Kansas, realizing that in order for a conventional enemy attack to threaten his personal safety, figures that the enemy is going to have to get through a lot of coastal states before getting to him, and says “heh heh, let all those coastal suckers pay for the army and the navy, and I’ll be just as safe!”. His neighbors all see the sense in this logic, and decide to stop their funding for the army and navy, too. This fad catches on everywhere, except in communities right on the coast. So now, the army and navy are supported only by people who live near the coast, and since they can only provide so much money, it is much smaller that it “should be”. An enemy, seeing the weak state of the army and navy, decides to invade and conquers the nation, turning it into a Socialist Superstate (just to annoy all of the hypothetical citizens who voted to turn it into Libertarian Utopia in the first place ;)). Every individual inlander made a “rational” choice by withdrawing his personal contribution to the military, but the collective action of all of these independent rational agents resulted in a net cost to the nation as a whole and to each individual. In essence, the result of each individual agent searching for the local maximum moved everybody (including themselves) away from the maximum.
Now, obviously, this example is somewhat exaggerated to make a point. However, Libertarians seem to flatly refuse any system in which people are required to engage in some collective responsiblity (such as taxes to pay for national defense). Why do you believe that there are no “tragedy of the commons” problems that will result from this?
Say I own a bank and I hate black people. I make a rule that says all black people will be shot at if they walk on my property. Is that fair Lib.?
Scylla said:
The thing you don’t understand is Libertarians very much believe in non-violent behavior unless life threatening circumstances exist.
In the case of squatters on my property, this is considered a violation of my right with respect to my property. In this instance, I may call the police to have the offenders removed from my property.
These people aren’t jailed because they didn’t commit a violent crime, but are tried in front a jury. They may face community service but again, since the act was not violent they can not be jailed for it.
…
I said:
I need to amend that to state, the majority of Libertarians believe in non-violent behavior. Just like any belief or political philosophy, there are those that have their own ideas.
Having agreed-upon standards of conduct widely known to the general public would seem to me to be of immeasurable help. But wait! Those would be laws, wouldn’t they? And, as a libertarian, you would only have to follow them if you felt like it, or if you signed a contract before-hand agreeing to abide by them – so get out your pens! Not only do you need to post every single rule applicable to your establishment, you need to sign an actual, paper contract agreeing to the terms of your social interaction, or else you’re on your own.
And while TECHCHICK has the cops on the phone, keep in mind that these are private police, who will only come if you’ve paid for their service before-hand. If not, you’re SOL, because expecting every person in society to actually chip in for a public police force (without the explicit prior approval of every individual) violates the rights of the individual.
Jodi
Fiat Justitia
I see that, but in the really real world in which I live, an invasion of property can present quite a danger. I personally have lain on the ground while bullets from tresspassers on my property who thought I was a deer went “THWIPT THWIPT THWIPT” through the brush around me.
How am I to know the squatters are nonviolent. They have already demonstrated that they don’t respect my property. Why should I assume they have any more respect for my life?
They have violated my domain, and if the law says I am forced to deal with them noviolently than that law is coercing me into a potentially dangerous situation based on the actions of others. If its my property and I can do what I want, then I will tell you that I don’t want the police on my property, and prefer to deal with it myself. If I can’t do this than I am again being coerced on my own property. I am reacting reasonably in response to a direct violation and implied threat which I can deal with as I see fit.
If I can’t do this than I’m coerced one way or another. As a libertarian I would loathe violence as I mowed the SOBs down with a machine gun to protect my property and safety.
Supposing I do call the police, and pay a fee based on service, then these squatters have coerced a fee out of me which I did not wish to pay. In short they have stolen from me again.
Then again, there’s this why can’t we all just be decent and get along assumption which seems to be an underlying assumption.
Erratum:
I frankly see nothing utopian about hard work, no guarantees of success, and taking responsibility for your own actions. If you want your sarcasm to have any effect, I recommend something less stale than a “Libertarian Utopia”. When you have ameliorated your own dystopia, perhaps your bite will not be all gums.
With respect to your “tragedy of the commons” question, I turn it back to you. Should the nations of Europe that surround Luxembourg extort a tax from it? Should Canada pay a tax to the United States? Do the Okinawans owe the Japanese?
You seem to think the only danger facing people are nuclear missles and invading armies.
You also seem to think that people are ineffably stupid. These morons who all decided they would defend themselves from your Socialist Utopia are the smae people you now trust to elect your legislators for you.
Occam:
You may exclude anyone from your property for any reason whatsoever. Otherwise, it isn’t yours, is it?
Jodi:
You seem to be arguing the case for tyranny. Do you consider your consent to be irrelevant? Would you mind being gang raped if the law allowed it?
Scylla:
You seem to be agonizing over the fact that you find both calling the police and evicting the squatters yourself to be unacceptable. What is it you prefer to do?
Your assumption that libertarianism posits everybody being nice is baseless. If we thought that, we would not favor a government to protect us from bullies.
Rather than put myself in a dangerous situation by attempting to evict the squatters, or incurring expense by calling the police, I would like to shoot the squatters for the reprehensible property disrespecting, invading rabid dogs that they are.
Not that I would like the violence, you understand, it’s that they’ve forced my hand.
And supposing they shoot you first?
Iam confused about the “tragedy of the commons”. I have always thought the phrase referred to the development of feudalism in Europe, particularly in Britain. The “commons” were fields which villages had long shared in a communitarian way. All citizens were granted free access to these fields and owned whatever crops they produced. With the rise of feudalism, hereditary lords claimed ownership of these lands and teh villagers became serfs, working someone else’s fields and no longer retaining ownership of what they produced.
Actually, there is a somewhat analagous idea in the federal ownership of property in the United States. In particular, the federal government maintains national parks, protected wilderness areas, historical monuments, etc. which are preserved for the citizenry and to which all citizens have equal access. Would these area disappear under a libertarian system? Also, what about access? If I choose to buy all the proprty surrounding your house and prevent traffic from leaving or arriving, what right does the government have to interfere with my absolute control of my demesne?
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*