Libertarians and the Noncoercion Principle

Great Debates
181

If you propound a government on Pure Libertarianism, sure. No argument whatsoever.
The fact that Libertarian idealogues haven’t realized that their pure philosophy is unworkable is probably the main reason that they’ve never caught on with a wide population base.

Public Property, such as parks and museums can be mutually, democratically agreed upon within the community of individuals, from the municipal to the federal.

Parks set aside land for individuals and groups to enjoy; museums to preserve history and promote culture.

Neither of these “coerce” or “force” anything on the individual.

Look at it from a necessity/luxury point of view:

Police and Fire Depts. are a necessity for a community; even if the sheriff is Barney Fife and the Fire Dept. is also the local V.F.W. Auxiliary, these are necessities.

Public Water and Sewage works are a necessity, for health reasons.

Paying for such services requires funds; whether these funds are raised from sales taxes, property taxes or whatever, if the method of fund raising is mutually agreed upon and non-coercive, then it is within the working Libertarian’s philosophy.
A town museum, on the other hand, is a luxury. Paying for it with pulic funds, when the public doesn’t want a museum, and threatening to arrest any taxpayer that refuses to pay taxes because they don’t believe in a town museum is coercive; confiscating their property and arresting them is use of force.

These examples can be extrapolated up to the Federal level; the war on drugs for example. If you smoke pot, it’s no skin off my nose. Toke away, it doesn’t hurt me none.

But when you get cancer, or are so brain-addled that you can’t work anymore, don’t expect public funds to pay your hospital bills or welfare. You chose your course of action.

Having a public health care system, or welfare system, is okay as well, when it is mutually agreed upon by the tax-paying society; having the government decide that it knows what’s best for the masses and enacting these agencies without the consent of the governed is not.

In the case of the tobacco companies, it was shown that they knew, and conceled, evidence that smoking was more harmful and addictive than they let on. They willfully and knowingly manufactured and promoted a dangerous product to the public, and suppressed evidence. Suing them to pay for public health costs is okay, by the practical Libertarian.

What I imagine is a tax system that has a minimum mandatory that covers the basic services: military, postal service, law enforcement, public utilities. Since everyone in a society benefits from these services, everyone should pay their fair share for those services.

Practical Libertarians have no problem with this.

Public Assistance, Public Health Care, Social Security; these may be elective taxes, paid at a fixed percentage of your income if you choose to participate![.

If you do not, you have no entitlement to those services.

If Donald Trump wants my land, and I refuse to sell, and he buys up all surrounding land and cuts off my water supply, he has initiated force by severing a necessary utility that I have paid for; he has initiated unlawful force.

The utility company has an understanding witht he community that public utilities have a right-of-way, if the public decides that that is in the best interest to the community. So if I buy property that has a telephone pole on it, I cannot chop down that utility pole because I don’t like it on my property; such things would be included in a binding legal contract between me (when I initiated the land acquisition) and the utility company, two seperate legal entities. Practical Libertarians have no problems with this.

In other words, the architecture of America probably wouldn’t look that much different that it would today, but the Government would have far less Executive power to mandate what is and isn’t; those powers would be four-square in the hands of the Legislature. Executive fiat would just about disappear except in time of emergency, with such times being clearly delineated.

In other words, Bill Clinton would be totally screwed if he couldn’t issue Executive Orders to bypass Congress.

The power of the Executive Branch of our Fedreal Government has grown exponentially since The War Between The States, with F.D.R. being the worst criminal of this ilk. If Hoover was criminally negligent in doing nothing to stem the Depression, F.D.R. is just as guilty of doing anything and everything, even things ruled blatantly unConstitutional.

The only two moderators of our Executive Brach today is the unspecified Fourth Brach, the media, as an outlet of carefully edited public opinion, and the armed citizen willing to defend liberty at any cost.

God help us.

<FONT COLOR=“GREEN”>ExTank</FONT>

182

Hear! Hear!

I have also been sickened by what I have seen demonstrated here by some of the posters. It’s difficult for me to believe that a particular few have any other purpose than to gnash and snarl.

Thanks for your contribution. :slight_smile:

Gilligan

You are a breath of fresh air.

You can stand tall without standing on someone. You can be a victor without having victims. -Harriet Woods-

183

Also: as TechChick states, many Zoning Boards are political appointees, with no vested interests in the communities or neighborhoods that they supposedly represent.

Zoning Laws are not, in principle, initiation of force; they are an agreement, in principle, of what should be placed where to promote a clean, healthy workable community.

Erecting slaughterhouses in a residential area is not clean or healthy; it poses a public health risk and devalues the property of others.

The community can meet to hear evidence and decide appropriately. Forums and referendums can be held in larger communities (which, IMO, is what should be done in South Carolina concerning the Confederate Flag; enough! Let The People Decide!).

In a practical Libertarian society, murder is the initiation of force to take someone’s life away from them; it is just as criminal, and punishable, under the laws that the community has enacted. Police, enacting the will of the community, can serve warrants to search for and obtain evidence, as spelled out in the Bill of Rights.

They cannot show up with blank warrants, as the DEA and ATF has been known to do; they cannot simply sieze or place liens on property just because you are under suspicion of illegal activity, as the DEA, ATF and IRS have been known to do; they cannot invade your privacy with illegal wire taps and surveillance, as the DEA, the ATF, the FBI, the IRS and US Marshall Service has been known to do.

Failing to find their evidence, if any exists, they cannot harass you, or leak misinformation about you, to the press, as they have all been known to do. Don’t belive it? Ask Randy Weaver or David Koresh.

Ooops. Too late. Koresh is dead; and they missed Randy by a hair, and got his wife instead. Some executive agency, headed by a bureaucrat, acting under executive orders, has seen to it that gun-toting, child-molesting, right-wing Aryan-Nations religious freaks are kept in their place.

And when The People have decided, in due process of law, that their [Weaver/Koresh] killers should face criminal charges, the executive powers that hold the reigns of powerful forces decided that, No, that’s not going to happen.

Force has been initiated, by the Government of, for and by The People, against The People.

<FONT COLOR=“GREEN”>ExTank</FONT>

184

Apologies for the large font. Have no idea how that happened!

You can stand tall without standing on someone. You can be a victor without having victims. -Harriet Woods-

185

Scylla said:

This is not a garage sale, these are assets that can be productive thereby I would imagine that Browne (and the current owners of this property, you and I) would not accept less than the market value.

Lib, I have to ask you on this one as I am not sure how to handle this question. I assume, but don’t quote me as this being a Libertarian side. Since bonds are in essence a “loan” to the government they are voluntary in nature thereby are required to be paid back based on the initial contract that a bond was entered into. No different than a loan to buy a car. Browne’s “administration” would have to and has stated would be required to ensure that the financial promises are kept until those promises are met.

As for social security, why am I paying 7.x percent of my income now? This is not going towards my retirement this is going towards those that are retired now. The government can’t be a steward of our money because they have no stake in the final outcome.

Possibly the means by which protecting current Americans who benefit from SS is to place it in the hands of private ownership with what money is there. The wealthy, although just as entitled to this money could request that the money that otherwise be sent to them every month be left in the fund to be invested for those that really need it. Not force them, but ask them to consider the option. Again, this will help wean the people off the system.

For us younger folks, the amount that we currently contribute to SS along with whatever other means they have to invest in their future is now in their hands. It now becomes the responsibility to look after your own life and not up to the government but you, it’s up to you to be responsible for your own life.

Browne is a revered economist, his theories and practices in economics (investing, etc.) are well known and highly praised in the financial world. His past has been proven to be a financial “wizard” so I doubt highly that he is simply vying for attention.

This is a possiblity, I don’t know the man personally so I can’t say he wouldn’t go this route. However I do believe that if he comes half close to what he says he stands for then this country will be far better off than it stands now. Hopefully bringing into light what benefits the country will have and thereby forging a road for the people towards a more Constitution friendly government.

I would like for you to tell me that you personally know this man and tell me that his nature is such that he would do this. As I have stated before, it is sad to me that people have such little faith in other humans. If you are that disgusted and that negative about politics then maybe you need to rethink your political views and do what I did for 7 years, not vote, not get involved till you find something (other than harping in miniscule amounts on other’s political ideas) that makes sense to you

Obviously we Libertarians have brought out some frustration with you because what you have taken apart and ripped into little shreds and attempted to explain you, refute to the fullest. If you ask a question and you don’t like the answer you have proven yourself to vehemently oppose with little more than an emotional response.

I believe that most of us (other than pulling out my hair) have been very patient in responding to your questions. The thing is you are being harsh and I honestly believe that it’s because we aren’t giving you the answers you want to hear. Now I am being harsh, but you don’t seem open to any of the ideas even though you claim to have researched this.

Scylla – I spent 7 years in a quandry because I knew the system we have is failing us in many ways. I spent that time in quite reflection over how I wanted to see change and thought much about why I wanted these things to be changed.

In my pursuit, I found an article about the Libertarian party which I kept for many months because something in that article screamed out at me. I did a lot of research on political views and came to the conclusion that the Libertarian party best reflected my beliefs as to how a government should be run.

Rather than focusing on the smallest of details, why not look at some of the broader issues? Sometimes it makes sense to start large.

186

Tank you stated:

Zoning and laws…the two words in this statement (although you and I have some similar beliefs) are two words that scream force.

You lived in the county I live in so you are familiar with eastern El Paso county. You may recall that a lot of people that prefer to have nieghbors far away live in this portion of the county in addition, the population for the most part is extremely poor and their homes are less than “pretty.”

The country government recently forced zoning laws on that portion of the county because more and more developers are building on the land out there. The developers decided that it is in their best interest that the area be cleaned up so as to raise their property values. They went before the county government and suggested this to become a reality.

Not only is this unfair to those that have lived out there for years, their little piece of the American dream, it was never considered up for vote by those with whom the property affects.

In essence this has become a zoning law for the developers to make more money rather than an issue for people to make up their own minds what should be done for the area.

This is force again, because the majority of property owners voices weren’t able to be heard.

187

Oh and by the way, the reports out of the area were such that the majority of land owners out there were extremely opposed to the zoning of eastern El Paso County…I need to make that clear :slight_smile:

188

Hear, hear!

Lord knows I’ve got far too much paperwork to deal with already, and I’m just talking away from the office. If we had to handle everything individually that government does for us now, we wouldn’t have time left over from the paperwork to have a life. If choosing a long-distance calling plan is a pain in the neck, how about choosing between competing contracts for everything from police protection to mail delivery to road access?

Being free from government, only to have to perpetually reinvent the wheel for myself, seems a pretty lousy tradeoff to me. Government, even when it’s working at far from its potential, works for the average citizen, in the sense of making our lives workable.

Thank God there’s a ‘nanny state’ that, for the most part, keeps our food and water safe - rather than me having to calculate risk-benefit tradeoffs every time I buy a can of food at the grocery store: ‘let’s see - this brand of soup is 7% more expensive than that one. But I hear that the cheaper one might be cutting corners on keeping the e.coli out…’ No, it’s worth paying taxes to not have to go through that every time I go to the grocery store.

Ditto when I buy or rent a car, buy a plane ticket, or do a thousand other everyday transactions. ‘Big’ government makes life as we know it possible. I’m all for it. :slight_smile:

189

Scylla -
I made the comment about utilitarianism underlying our current system, but I didn’t say it should be replaced; libertarians say it should be. Also you are wrong about what utilitarianism is; it does not mean “what works”. It is specific philosophy of ethics that has its roots in 18th century England.

It seems that the critics here of “contract” government are making an unstated assumption; correct me if I am wrong. That assumption is that a libertarian government must contract out its services piecemeal. For example, “what if nobody wants to pay for national defense?” I see nothing in the libertarian literature that requires this division of services, although there are of course individual libertarians who like this notion. I think it would be possible for a libertarian government to offer to people who, for whatever circumstances, live within its geographical boundaries, a package deal as follows:

"We will provide the following: police and fire services, courts/arbitration, sanitation services, (plus whatever). As an added bonus, we provide you military protection from foriegn invaders.

If you would like to purchase this package, here is a fee schedule based on your ability to pay.

If you choose not to purchase, we will still provide you with the military protection stated above, as it would be impossible not to provide it. However, you will get none of the other services from us. You are free to purchase them from others if you want individual services from the package.

If you choose not to purchase this package, no action from this government will be taken against you for that choice. Note this well, though: your actions against people who did purchase it will be met with the same government action as anyone else. Crimes are tried under the jurisdiction of the victim, not the criminal.

*Special children’s clause - All children under the age of X will be provided with those services noted above that are appropriate to them, without requiring their contractual consent or payment."

190

“That assumption is that a libertarian government must contract out its services piecemeal.”

And that assumption is based on the Non-coersion Principle. If you require people to pay for something they don’t want in order to get something they do want, you are coercing them to pay for the thing they don’t want. Personally, I think that could be justified. Libertarianism, in its pure form, does not. Do you disagree with that assessment? Our current government offers a “package deal”, and most Libertarians seem pretty unhappy about it.

191

I’ll have to let a libertarian say whether or not they agree with that assessment, but personally, I disagree with it. A condition on a sale or contract is pretty common. If I’m selling eggs by the dozen and don’t let you buy just one egg, I would hardly say I’m coercing you.

You are correct about libertarians not liking the current package deal offered, but that’s for two reasons: 1) the package is too big and expensive, and 2) there is no option not to buy it.

192

The other reason your “package deal” is a bad move from a Libertarian perspective is that it prevents market forces from working. Say, for example, that you have an efficient police company that offers a package deal with trash removal, which is sucks at. No startup trash removal company (which could offer better service and give consumers more for their buck) is going to be able to compete because it would also need to be a police company (and there are almost certainly huge economies of scale with police protection). Basically, you are creating artificial barriers to entry. Since many governmental services are going to be natural monopolies (where it is simply more economically efficient to have only one provider), widespread use of “package deals” is basically a request for anti-competitive practices. Just imagine what kind of “package deals” you could choose from if Microsoft were your police provider :D.

193

Good point, and I think the poster Libertarian answered it this way: these services wouldn’t be provided by government entities, but would be subcontracted to private entities. The government itself would be more like a management team: doesn’t perform any services, but through it, services get provided. Presumably the subcontracted private entities would be chosen on the basis of their quality and efficiency, although I don’t see how that system would avoid the obvious abuses any more than our current system does.

194

That’s an excellent point.

No one can guarantee that a government will not become corrupt, but it seems to me that a libertarian government, whose sole charge is the security of its citizens, gives less opportunity for corruption than does a government with a hundred-thousand hands in a couple hundred cookie jars.

There’s an awful lot of money (about $2,000,000,000,000.00) in housing and transportation projects, subsidies of every description, grants and loans, foreign aid, space exploration, cross-media advertising and propoganda campaigns, and so on. The Department of Education, which has never issued a diploman, sucks up money like a Hoover and blows it out like a fan. The Environmental Protection Agency’s headquarters building in D.C., was recently featured on 20/20 for its dubious distinction as one of the most environmentally dangerous buildings in the country, eats money like a whale eating plankton. And the list of abuses goes on and on. The dam being maintained in a dry lake bed. The million dollar outhouse with potties that don’t flush. You know, the stuff John Stossel reports about every week.

If power corrupts, then it seems reasonable that corruption is reduced only when power is limited.

195

Well said Lib < grin >

196

Main Entry: util·i·tar·i·an·ism
Pronunciation: -E-&-"ni-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1827
1 : a doctrine that the useful is the good and that the determining consideration of right conduct should be the usefulness of its
consequences; specifically : a theory that the aim of action should be the largest possible balance of pleasure over pain or the
greatest happiness of the greatest number
2 : utilitarian character, spirit, or quality
I fail to see the distinction. “that which is useful,” “that which works.”

Sounds the same to me.

Harry Browne is not a “Wizard Economist” I didn’t realize you could achieve the rank of Wizard in the economic field.

Do you need a PHD for that?

Apparently not, Harry Browne dropped out of College after two weeks.

Mr. Browne is an ivestment advisor. He is not an economist. I have read one of his books. He writes simplistic primers for neophytes to the investment community. His work is… Well, It’s not that it’s not factual or anything… it’s just not very serious.

Has anybody come up with anything on what the Libertarian party proposes to do with our 30 Year debt?

Without taxes, I wonder how it will be payed.

Does anybody feel that selling off our heritage might not be the best idea?

Does anybody really think the u.s. would get fair value for it’s assets if it sold them off. Who do you propose as the buyer?

What’s with the abolishment of fiat currency?

When I bring up real questions and objections to Liberrtarianism, what I get is a dodge.

“Well what do you propose instead?” I haven’t proposed anything.

“I believe that most of us (other than pulling out my hair) have been very patient in
responding to your questions. The thing is you are being harsh and I honestly believe
that it’s because we aren’t giving you the answers you want to hear. Now I am being
harsh, but you don’t seem open to any of the ideas even though you claim to have
researched this.”

I have been patient in my attempts to understand this as well. I am not being harsh because “I’m not getting the answers I want to hear.” I am being harsh because I am not really getting any answers! I am getting contradictions, evasions, poorly thought out and frankly demonstrably false assertions. When I point out these problems, rather than an attempt to reconcile your viewpoint with the facts, what I get is a claim that you are privy to my motivations! This is absurd.

197

John Stossel is not exactly what I would call an athority on anything.

Lib said:

“There’s an awful lot of money (about $2,000,000,000,000.00) in housing and
transportation projects, subsidies of every description, grants and loans, foreign aid,
space exploration, cross-media advertising and propoganda campaigns, and so on.”

Do you have a cite for this?

198

It was on CNN Radio News on WBT in Charlotte. They said the president planned to send congress a budget totalling nearly two trillion (American trillion) dollars.

199

The hillarity of that remark is brought home by this one:

Have you read anything that you’ve been linked to?

See, you just don’t like the answers, and then accuse people of dodging you. If you would bother to click a couple links, you could find out for yourself such plans as auctioning federally seized property, and others.

I don’t think Cecil ever intended his ignorance fighting campaign to mean that you could never leave his site or learn anything outside it.

200

Thanks Lib. I was wondering what was meant by “in” these programs. Don’t forget the military either, that’s a third of that 2 trillion.

I certainly agree that our government is prone to excess.