Yeah, it would seem that way to me too if I ignored the clause “if you wish”, as you did.
Those who like communism may voluntarily form communes; those who like capitalism may voluntarily form markets; those who like anarchy may voluntarily withhold their consent to have their rights secured.
Why can’t a man with a laudable intellect get this simple idea?
VOLUNTEERISM
Sure, conflicts will arise. That’s the whole point of reading your contract and deciding whether you trust that your potential conflicts will be arbitrated fairly.
If your consent means so little to you, you may even elect to be a politician’s slave and waive all your rights to him.
No, they should not. Maybe they can unanimously agree on a few guidelines and maybe they can’t. If they can’t, then they’ll have to live with the one law and judge each case on a case by case basis. Unfortunately, that would remove the bit about knowing whether your act is acceptable or not in advance, but so be it. People will have to be prepared to defend their actions and have good reason for doing what they do.
Also, everyone in Libertaria doesn’t have to agree on something for it to be used. That is, if a group of people decide to set up a few rules amongst themselves, they can do it, but of course it would only apply to them. This has a lot of ramifications that I’m not sure are worth going into in this thread (e.g. different communities in Libertaria with different rules, etc…)
PeeQueue
(BTW, I never considered myself a Libertarian, as I never really read any of their literature. Don’t take me as an authority on the political party - I’m just winging this. Hmm, maybe I shouldn’t have said that - now no one will take me seriously…)
At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. — Matthew 11:25
Libertarian responded to my slaughterhouse question with:
These appear to be interchangable: “a community of neighbors whose own bylaws prohibit whatever activity they deem undesirable” is, for all practical purposes, a government.
In either situation, you’re suggesting that the “government”-- be it a City Council or a neighborhood association, should have the authority to control my use of my own property. Once you concede that, you concede that the non-coercion principle has failed. From the link describing that principle that started this thread:
Certainly, the “bylaws prohibit[ing]” my operation of the slaughterhouse that Libertarian speaks of would be a form of “seizure of my property” by the government. I think everyone will agree that if the government can tell you that you cannot use your property in a certain way, they have deprived you of a portion of your full property rights.
One last chance: is there any way that the non-coercion principle can be sustained while still allowing us to enjoy our respective property rights in my hypothetical?
PEEQUEUE – Here in a nutshell, is my problem with Libertarianism (at least this aspect of it):
Libertarianism requires unanimous consent for any form of governance. But it seems like people then say “well, an army for defense would be okay” or “some environmental regulation would be okay” or “some legal or judicial system would be okay.” Not without the consent of every single person, it wouldn’t be. It seems to me self-evident that absolute unanimity is a practical impossibility in the context of a society larger than, say, a handful of individuals. If you allow every single person to do whatever he or she wants (provided no coercion blah blah blah), what you have is anarchy. And a lovely anarchy, too; because if everyone is “peaceful and honest,” then there is no need for government at all. I think Libertarianism is simplistic, naive, and obviously unworkable. I’m not surprised to find that, as a political system, it has never worked in the past; frankly I don’t see how it ever could.
[qupte]If they can’t, then they’ll have to live with the one law and judge each case on a case by case basis. Unfortunately, that would remove the bit about knowing whether your act is acceptable or not in advance, but so be it. People will have to be prepared to defend their actions and have good reason for doing what they do.
[/quote]
Who decides whether it’s “a good reason” or not? A judge? Where did he or she come from? Nominated or elected by the people? Not unless they unanimously agree, apparently. And who is to say that an individual will agree to be bound by the decision of the judge? Where is the enforcement mechanism? And how do you employ that enforcement mechanism without infringing upon the non-coercion rights of the people?
Punishment is itself a form of coercion (obviously) and is generally administered without the consent of the punished. Can a person agree to be coerced (ie, punished if found to be in the wrong) in advance? If yes, I assume that consent cannot be revoked, can it? I mean, I can’t wait until a tribunal I have agreed to submit to finds me in the wrong and orders me punished to then say “I withdraw my consent to this tribunal, I withdraw my consent to be punished,” can I?
Lib: Thanks. Hey wait - you’re not calling me a child are you?? jk
jodih:
I think that the Libertarians pre-suppose three things in a society (Libertarian, please correct me if I’m wrong). These things were mentioned earlier - external defense force (army), internal police force, court/justice system. There’d be no point in joining Libertaria if it didn’t provide these things - these are the reason government exists at all.
A system like that is not anarchy by any definition of the word. I don’t see how “everyone is peaceful and honest” in a system like that either, otherwise why would you need those three things at all? I honestly don’t follow your argument, and I don’t see how it concludes that “Libertarianism is simplistic, naive, and obviously unworkable.” Also, saying that something has never been done does not speak to its feasibility in any way at all.
The thing is, you would never have to worry about Libertaria, because since you obviously don’t want to belong to it, you would never be forced into it. I think that if a system like this was set up somewhere, you might find there’d be a sizable number of people wanting to join (of course that is just my opinion with no facts to back it up whatsoever).
Oops didn’t see your second post. Once again - punishment is not coercion if you follow the definition above (which I tried to explain out before). To use your terminology, punishment is responsive force, as opposed to initiative force.
Once again, I think that a jury of your peers would be the best choice for who determines “whether it’s “a good reason” or not”. I think a judge would be useful as a moderator, and maybe he could be elected, or then again maybe he wouldn’t be useful or elected. If you wanted me to design the justice system for Libertaria, I might say forget about having a judge and just have the people argue their case to the jury. Hmm, I’m not sure - I haven’t made up my mind about the judge thing yet. Is it really that important?
PEEQUEUE – “Presupposing” the existence of a police force, army, and judicial system, does not answer the question of where such systems come from, and under what authority they function. You are assuming that you can achieve the unaninimity necessary to create those systems in the first place; my question is how such systems are created, and how they are supported, if you can’t achieve that unanimity. You also have not addressed what happens to those systems if the unanimity breaks down. Are they then decomissioned? What if I, a citizen born in Libertaria, decide as an adult that I do not want to support the army. Do I have an obligation to do so anyway? If not, we are back to an army being supported only by those who volunteer to support it; I frankly don’t see how that could ever work.
Well, yes, it is. Because the government exists only with the absolute and repeated consent of the governed to every single little detail. The first time a person doesn’t like one decision – any decision – made by the government, he or she can refuse to ratify or follow that decision – even if it’s having an army, police force, and justice system. What if I, as a citizen born in Libertaria, decide not to submit to a jury of my peers. Do they still have the right to try me? Under whose authority?
I should have been clearer. Libertarianism does not presuppose that everyone in the world is peaceful and honest; it presupposes that everyone in the Libertarian society is peaceful and honest.
What if a person who is lazy or cheap decides not to pay for the army? He lives near the border, yes, but he knows that his neighbors are paying for the army and that, if the society is ever invaded, the army will have to defend his land because of its location. Therefore he takes the benefit of society but contributes nothing to it. His neighbors, in turn, see that he is not paying for it, and decide they won’t either. If enough people do this, then the army falls apart because not enough people pay for it. Libertarianism presumes people will not act in this way; that they will recognize that the greater good of society will adhere to their greater good eventually. I think people tend to see the immediate benefit to themselves as indivduals and go with that.
Actually, I think it does. We’re not talking about an invention of something entirely new; we’re talking about a philosophy that has been around for quite a while. Not only has it never worked, it’s never even been implemented, to my knowledge. I think it’s fair to ask, why not?
Oh good. Then we’ve been living in a libertarian government all along. Libertarian, obviously you no longer agree with the bylaws of our community. I suppose, using your reasoning, I could now castigate you for being so inept in choosing your neighborhood. Instead I think I will wish you the best of luck in relocating to an area where all of your neighbors will share your ideas.
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*
The system (internal, external police forces, courts) does not disappear when one person decides not to agree with its existence. What happens in a Libertarian society is that person decides that he doesn’t want/need/like the system, and leaves the system. Remember, it’s voluntary. The police forces no longer protect him and he no longer has any rights in the courts. Rather stupid of him, but it’s up to him - maybe he did it because he liked some other government better and they will protect him. Or maybe he figures he can protect himself.
Libertarians don’t want no government. They want one that does what it was initially created for, and no more. That is, to protect them - to provide a safe environment in which everyone can succeed or fail on their own merit. If you don’t want that, then you are an anarchist, if you want more than that, you can still be a libertarian, as long as you don’t want to force people to accept more than that.
I think this is going around in circles. Most of this stuff has been discussed before. I don’t think I have the time or energy to lay out every little detail about the theoretical Liberteria, or what will happen in every possible scenario between people. I’ll try to answer the major questions, but really, all of this can be done a million different ways, I’m just picking one at random.
My first paragraph above speaks a little to this, but I will try to give a more specific answer. You were wondering what happens if someone decides they don’t want to support the army/police/courts. I would suggest that they have decided they no longer need those things and are no longer under their protection. Therefore they are screwed if anything happens to them, unless they have found another government to protect them. Or maybe to join Libertaria you have to sign a contract stating that you will pay X dollars over a certain period of time to support the military. If you stop paying, you are in breach of contract and subject to whatever penalty the court decides. And then you are on your own, as in the earlier scenario.
OK, let me guess, now you are going to ask - what if this person is in the middle of the country and doesn’t care about the borders? Well, Libertaria is a package deal - no army > no police. No police means that you are unprotected from burglars, murderers, etc. Stupid if you ask me. Say you don’t care about that either, as you can defend yourself. Well then, fine. I don’t have a problem with that. If you don’t need Libertaria’s benefits then why would you join?
PeeQueue, your wisdom, your deep understanding, and your ability to convey it clearly is humbling. I don’t mean to awe shucks you to death, but the simple beauty of truth, as you express it, is breathtaking.
Thank you on behalf of thinking men everywhere.
Spiritus,
No we haven’t. If we have, then we could all secede. But we can’t. So we haven’t.
But aside from that, Lib’s larger point was that the neutral nations of Europe benefit from the highly militarized powers surrounding them, especially in light of the fact that most of them are members of NATO; yet nobody proposes they be forcibly taxed for this externality.
At least I think that was his point.
AFAIK, the only way to be a “citizen born in Libertaria” is to be born to parents who have contracted with that government to receive services for which they pay. Libertaria does not have “borders” they way that the U.S. has borders. I assume that, upon reaching the age of majority, you are not obligated to contract yourself with the government–you are free to do so or not.
Would you volunteer to support it?
I also assume that citizens cannot simply breach their contract in the middle of a contract period. That would be a fraud.
I don’t think it does; not the way I understand it. It presupposes that anyone who chooses to be nonpeaceful and dishonest is punished appropriately.
I think if Individual A (and B, and C, ad infinitum) has signed a contract with the government to pay $X (or whatever the medium of trade is) for services 1, 2 and 3, then suddenly decides not to pay while under that contract, he is in breach. If the contract expires and Individual A doesn’t want to renew, that’s his business.
Well, you certainly don’t want your government simply assuming/taking powers you didn’t grant it, do you? If the citizens want the government to take on such-and-such a power, it will; and if anyone decides they don’t want to be part of it any longer, they don’t have to. I believe Lib has also mentioned the possibility of competing governments, which seems sensible to me, insofar as the government is not interested in setting up arbitrary borders and controlling the use of your land.
I believe Lib has also mentioned a Chief Arbitrator, who, you’ll be amazed to discover (since you keep throwing out this red herring of absolute unanimity) is elected by popular vote.
About that, I would just like to say that you do, and whenever you want, by giving consent to whatever government you believe to be in the best interest of your safety and happiness. (Have you ever read the D of I?)
It just so happens that I would choose an arbitration system.
But Lib, this community was founded by volunteers. They created a compact (the US Consstitution) which enumerated bylaws for governance. The ability to seced was decided upon by the chief arbitrators of this system (the Supreme Court). The decision was that neither states nor individuals have the right to unilaterally terminate the “contract” of government. Now, I will cerainly allow you to draw the obvious distinction that the citizens alive now were not party to the initial contract and it therefore should not be inding upon them. There are, of course, many consequences to that view. In particular, it seriously weakens your idea that problems will e avoided by people forming communities bound by by-laws to prevent abusive use of personal property. Such a community would by definition be put at risk every time property pased to an heir.
jk