Amazingly, I believe “trolling” does not mean “badgering” to the rest of us. “Trolling” is generally considered to mean “posting wildly inflammatory things just to get get a response”; it’s most often used in reference to blatantly bigoted and unsupported remarks. I don’t think RT could be considered a “troll” by that defintion. This is a fun little dust-up going on right now, though. 
I hope I’m not participating in an ambush. I am very curious as to how Libertarian views might be actualized in a society.
I have waited patiently, lest I be accused of trolling, but I have yet to see a responsive answer to the question of the “donut”, or more generally, the question of restrictive control of any necessary resource by an unprincipled subset of the population.
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*
You have jodih’s answer and here’s mine:
I think I have the right to visit any public property I care to, provided I obey the laws. (You can debate whether or not “public property” should exist if you like. I myself have nothing against the concept of public property.)
I also have the right to visit any commercial property I care to, provided I obey the laws. No owner has the right to forbid me because of my skin color because I cannot help having this particular skin color. It’s not my choice to be this color. And there is nothing wrong with any skin color, anyway. However, the owner CAN forbid a member of, say, the KKK from entering because that person chose to be a member of the KKK and the KKK has demonstrated, in the past, to be violent and unreasonable.
The owner can also forbid anyone who is a health risk from entering for his own protection and for the protection of anyone already on his property. (I leave it to medical science to decide who should be quarantined.)
The owner cannot forbid any members of any religious group from entering unless they plan to commit some violent act because of their religious belief.
As far as taxes go, it would be nice if they weren’t mandatory, but if they were not mandatory, do any of you seriously believe the government would collect even one*-tenth* of the revenue it needed to perform even minimal services?
All that stuff is what I believe. If there are any places that are in conflict with what I just stated, let me know where these places are so I can avoid going there. And I don’t know if my philosophy is anti-Libertarianism or what. In fact, I don’t care what name anyone cares to slap on it. Just because you can name it doesn’t mean you understand it.
I apologize if I repeat anything already said here, but if I don’t post it, I lose it. (Goddamned public library computers!) And this thread is growing so long so fast, I’m having trouble keeping up with it!
>< DARWIN >
__L___L
Hey, Libertarian:
How’s about some credit where credit is due? I’m still waiting for a satisfactory answer on that one, BTW 
Yet to be reconciled with the reality of the dark for a moment, I go on wandering from dream to dream.
Hmmm, now that I think of it, I also received a less than satisfactory answer to my question about the commons (i.e. government owned resources). Perhpas I expected too much of my conversational partners, since I did not think it necessary to state that I did not believe thaose lands would cease to exist under a libertarian system of government. Let me elaborate:
Land owned by the government requires upkeep and maintenance. It also requires guarantee of access if it is to be useful to the population. It is certainly conceivable that a libertarian populace would not choose to pay these prices. What happens to the land then? Can it be sold? If so does it require unanimous consent? Many government lands contain natural resources of considerable wealth. Some of these are presently sold, often at outrageously low prices. would a libertarian system continue such practices? How would a libertarian system determine price, customer, etc. If we posit that those lands are indeed commons, shared property of the entire citizenry, any sale is overwhelmingly likely to coercively separate an individual from his legal property.
These are a few of the concerns which a reasonable person might want to have addressed when discussing common property under a libertarian system of government. While I feel properly grateful for teh reassurance that land and property will not instantly cease to exist under a libertarian system, I would be more impressed if some of these questions were anwered.
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*
I asked:
To which Lib answered:
I am really trying to be patient, because I don’t want my criticim of your philosophy to be taken as an attack on you. “Who decides what?” Who decides when it is possible to use deadly force in defense of property rights, and when it is not. Or maybe it always is? The “predicate,” as you call it, is the hypothetical presented by Scylla. That is the “interpretation” to use. Of course, the very existence of “squatters” means we’ve left the rarified air of the land of “peaceful, honest people,” but I anticipated an answer presented in the context of that hypothetical, and I still await it.
I asked:
To which Lib answered:
So, apparently, defense of property does not equal “coercion,” even when it results in the deprivation of your opponents rights. That leads us directly to my question:
To which Lib replied:
No, actually, it’s not. If we define “coercion” as “the initiation of force,” as the link does, then we are left with no definition applicable to a group of peaceful squatters who come in and occupy a space owned by another(with no use of force) but are met with a clear use of force (employed by the lawful owner) to compel them to leave. Their actions do not fit under your definition of “coercion.” Moreover, the definition does not answer the question of justifiable force. If I, a thief, am walking down the street and you, a cop, stop me and by force repossess stolen property from me, you have coerced me (ie, used initial force against me). The question is whether, and when, the use of such coercion is justified and, if so, who decides whether and when it is justified. That’s the question I’m trying to get an answer to.
I’m glad we can agree on the origination of rights, at least; many here would disagree with us, but screw 'em.
Jodi
Fiat Justitia
I’ve been a Libertarian for a number of years even though I greatly disagree with much on their platform. The Libertarian Party is extremely naive, often to the point of ignorance, when it comes to military, fiscal, and immigration policy. I tend to agree with my party on just about everything else from privacy to space exploration.
The freedom from coercion is at the heart of the party’s philosophy. I think most people here are trying to box Libertarian into dishing out simplified answers to complex questions. We need to examine how the present government is using force and then discuss how we can remove the chief sources of coercion. I doubt any libertarian is willing to claim that he has the right to shoot a black man who walks into his barber shop to get a shave and a haircut, totally disregarding the prominately displayed “NO NIGGERS!” sign hanging by the barber pole. I also have no right to walk out and shoot the squatters on my property. I can tack a little not on their shack giving them permission to reside there or to leave within the hour. If I want them gone, they must go. If they do not leave, I should have every right to rationally escalate my use of force. The logical first step is to call the local police to escort the trespassers off my property. We’re talking about the rational use of self-defense.
I don’t share Libertarian’s fanatacal view of property-as-me, but it is very important to give the individual the complete right to his mind, body, and belongings. Our current government does NOT give us this right.
Yet to be reconciled with the reality of the dark for a moment, I go on wandering from dream to dream.
Spiritus, you have hit another one of the failings of the Libertarian platform. “Protecting the Commons” is a necessity which libertarians can not fully provide for.
I have been a proponant for a flat 5% Federal income tax (corporate & personal; each State may tax 0-10% in addition) for some time now. This would generate sufficient revenue to provide for national defense, our environment, and other matters which effect all of society. If you do not pay your 10% tax you will be treated like the above squatters and escorted by the army to the nearest border.
I vote to disarm the IRS immediately - in my opinion it is unconstitutional for them to have their own private army - they should do nothing but collect and count tax revenue.
Yet to be reconciled with the reality of the dark for a moment, I go on wandering from dream to dream.
I agree that (at least initially) there are cases where funds will need to be collected for police, military, etc. However, I have a problem with income tax collection and its incredible intrusion on what should be private affairs. Why did we ever give the government the right to track every single penny we earn? Free citizens should be able to trade goods and services between themselves without leaving a paper trail a mile wide.
If anything, it would seem most appropriate to assess per capita charges and property taxes. The first would pay for all shared resources. The second would pay for defense (since those with the most property have the most interest in police/defense).
Of course, we’d then see the occasional millionaire quietly stockpiling gold bars so as to pay less property tax. I haven’t quite figured out how to deal with that (since forcing a public accounting of net-worth would be akin to the intrusion of an income tax).
SAKE says:
A Libertarian and a realist! I may have more in common with you than with Libertarian who, as a theorist, doesn’t seem to acknowledge the shortcomings of “pure” Liberatarianism. But I stil have some problems, even with your iteration of it. (Perhaps you are not surprised. )
But would you agree that sometimes coercion is a necessary evil, such as when the police escort the squatter off your property? If yes, and if you define “rights” as solely as “freedom from coercion” (as Lib does), then you posit a system where the government is justified in violating the rights of the public on occasion.
He can make his answers as complicated as he wants. I, for one, am not looking for “Libertarianism in 30 words or less;” I am looking for comprehensible answers to what seem to me to be insurmountable problems.
But, as I have said before, you are therefore positing a justified use of force – and initial force, at that, which is coercion under the Libertarian definition – in the name of property rights. I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with that, necessarily, but that is what it is.
To split a hair, it is defense of property, not of self, which is why, under the system we have now use of deadly force is not justified.
Who decides what matters affect all of society? Does education? Does social welfare? Who decides what programs are deserving of Libertarian support (such as defense) and which are not?
But of course, practically speaking, we cannot do that. We are not empowered to tote the lazy and/or stupid and/or rebellious or otherwise undesireable to the border and dump them out, anymore than Mexico or Canada could do so to us. Which, in my opinion, is another failing of Libertarian theory; there is no provision made for those who do not contribute to the system voluntarily but who drain the system’s resources.
Which army are you talking about? The IRS is not an armed force. You’ve lost me here.
MEARA says:
The sticking point, of course, is the “etc.”
By which I assume you have a problem with income tax, period. It seems to me an obvious corrollary to taxing income that citizens be expected to prove, in some fashion, how much income they really made. But I am not prepared to argue that income taxation is the best way of providing for necessary social services, as I am by no means convinced that it is. I am convinced, however, that some society-wide assessment is necessary for those services, and that such an assessment should not be – cannot be – collected only from those who volunteer to pay it.
Jodi
Fiat Justitia
I have been at work and ice skating with my niece so I haven’t been able to keep up with this thread. It’s ballooned so much it’s hard to keep up with.
Scylla said:
My answer is sort of based on the Constitution. You have a right, if you feel you and your family are in life danger, yes, you have that right.
If you don’t report it and the police have found out about it, you are still presumed innocent until proven guilty by a jury of your peers if they find evidence that the act of killing a person or persons was considered murder and not out-right self defense. Most people if they felt they were in danger of loosing their lives and shot a person would be smart enough to report it immediately to the police, try not to assume stupidity of all humans.
You can refuse, but if the police department determines probably cause that you committed a violent act, they can go to a judge and request a search warrant. Determining probable cause can be a tricky issue as the abuse of it is evident in today’s society.
======
In reading through much of this thread, I see a repeated view that all humans are hell bent on being violent under less than violent circumstances. I disagree with this view even if it was meant to try to make a point.
We still have these basic principles at the core of our society as it exists today. The problem as I see it is not that Libertarianism is wrong (as one poster wrote) but a philosophy by which to run a government and live your life. What the Libertarian Party stands for is a free people in a free society.
There will always be “mean” people in a society, that’s a given. But what really is the tragedy here is our freedoms are erroded with every law that is enacted. The average human is a good human, and if one assumes that all people are inherantly bad, then that’s the problem of the person that assumes this and forgets their are a lot of wonderful people in our society, even if they are socialists, moralists, etc.
Spiritus Mundi: “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.”
The “Tragedy of the Commons” is a description of a case in which self-interest has negative global effects, even though it looks positive from the perspective of each actor. The usual formulation is a system in which all members of a village are free to graze their sheep on a “common”. Assume that you start in some “steady state” situation in which each farmer has one sheep on the common. One of those individual farmers thinks about the situation and says “hey, if I put an extra sheep on the common, that’s good for me – even though each individual sheep will have less grass to eat overall, and each sheep will be worth less, I’ll have two of them, so on the whole I’ll be better off. It’s better to have two sheep at 90% (because with the reduced grass supply, all of the sheep on the common suffer) than one sheep at 100%!” Now, it isn’t just one guy who makes this analysis – all of the farmers make the exact same analysis from their own perspective. The result? The common is overrun by sheep, overgrazed, and is now worthless for everybody. Each individual farmer made the “right” decision in terms of what would benefit him the most, but when everybody made the same “right” decision, they all got screwed!
When I used this phrase, I was attempting to describe all problems of this general class – the “correct” decision made by each actor results in negative returns. The Prisoners’ Dilemma is similar to that, as well (if you aren’t familiar with that, I can explain that, too).
While the literal “Tragedy of the Commons” is framed in terms of communally owned property, I assumed that the Libertarian response (and the perfectly correct response, given their philosophy) would be to dismiss the notion of public property altogether. That is why I provided my example of military defense. Environmental protection might be another example. It is the general class of problems in which “self-interest” is counterproductive that would seem to me to be the bane of a Libertarian society.
RTFirefly: “And Erratum’s point needs addressing. … Erratum’s question is one that goes to the heart of the problems people see in libertarianism.”
That’s why I was puzzled when met with Libertarian’s reactionary defensiveness and retreat into empty rhetoric rather than an explanation of his position.
Libertarian: “I am here answering the questions on a five against one basis as fast and as honestly as I can.”
You did not answer my question (and, by my reading, there are quite a few other open questions as well). You seem to want to assume an adversarial position with everyone, and deflect people from the central issues rather than addressing them clearly, openly, and honestly.
I don’t understand. Libertarianism seems to move towards fewer laws. Would the Constitution remain under a Libertarian state?
That wouldn’t be consitstent at all, because eminent domain would still be a factor. The government could take land for the greater good.
Just to clarify – my “etc.” includes a minimal set of services necessary to protect civil and property rights (e.g. police, courts, military, roads), but not such things as public education, medical care, and such, which I believe should be privately funded. Those without the means to afford such services should be helped through private charities.
On a more personal note:
I understand that there will be those who refuse to contribute to such charities and keep all earnings to themselves. However, I refuse to believe that the sum of individual conscience is less than the collective. This system will force the individual to take responsibility for himself and his fellows instead of relying on a government to take his annual contribution and cure all ills (absolving him of any further duty).
At the risk of sounding naive and idealist, there is a difference between a gift freely given and a forced contribution. Under a libertarian system, the individual has a chance to be so much more than the average citizen today. He accepts more responsibility for himself and those around him and freely chooses to contribute what he can to society.
When our children are young, we force them to do the right thing. When they are grown, we set them free so that they can exercise their own morality and grow as individuals.
Right now, as a nation we are forcing so much morality down the throats of our citizens that many are forgetting that it’s supposed to come from within. We need to set them free – to return that responsibility to the individual and give people a chance to show that they can think for themselves.
So is it “to each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities.”
jodih said:
Here’s my take on it:
In this case the rights of the property owner exceed those of the squatter because the squatter has taken upon his/herself to trespass. This is not really coercion (from a police standpoint) in the dictionary term, you can’t coerce a coersee (is there such a word < giggle >)
Freedom from coercion no longer becomes an issue if you step on another’s rights. These are basic and natural laws. If you want to look at it this way, then if a man is raping a woman (the ultimate in coercing another) and another man comes along and forces the man off the woman, this is not coercion, this is protecting a woman. In the case of the police entering the property (called upon by the property owner) and removing the trespassers I can’t see this as coercion.
The Libertarians see personal liberty as rights given by God or nature, just as Lib described. The moment you violate those rights I have not only the right to defend those rights, I also have the responsibility to do so in a manner that fits the situation.
Hmm… no. That might be the moral ideal, but the actual code would be “to each what is freely given (or what he provides for himself), from each what he chooses to give”
Communism! Blasphemer! 
The problem, as I see it, meara, is that we’ve already tried private charity as the way to go and it didn’t work too well. The workhouses and orphanages of early Victorian England were the fruit of precisely such a system and, in the end, they were generally agreed to be spectacular failures. You say:
Again, this does not address the problem of the tragedy of the commons (rather inverted in this case), which would go something like this: I decide I do not need to contribute to schools or hospitals because I’d frankly rather go to Disneyland, and because, hey, my fellow citizens will all make their contributions and mine will not be missed. If enough people do this, then the necessary services would not be funded. The difference, in my opinion, is that social democracy provides a safety net if personal charity is insufficient. Libertarianism removes that net entirely and then takes it on faith that charity will make up the slack. I don’t think that would happen; historically, it never has.
Jodi
Fiat Justitia
Scylla said:
YES, exactly, everything that you are guaranteed in the Consitution remains in tact. What the Libertarians see and can prove is that we don’t live by those “inaliable rights” today.
I can give you numerous instances where the right to search and seizure are violated in this society. I will give but one right now.
In Denver, just last month or so, the police department received a tip that a house was being used as a distribution point for drugs (another Libertarian issue all together) unfortunately, the caller either gave them the wrong address or the dispatchers reported the wrong address.
The police entered in a no-knock raid. The man who feared for his life had a gun, the police shot and killed him. All because of an annonymous tip. The actual house was located next door.
The illegal search and seizure law was violated. They had no probable cause, based on an annonymous tip that they did not look into to verify the facts at hand.
An innocent man lost his life because the system failed him.