Man Lib, you sure know how to make a guy feel welcome 
PeeQueue
Oh good, we’re back to the patchwork state. So if a bunch of geographically non-contiguous landowners formed a government, they’d have to cross the property of intervening landowners for self-defense, police services, and so forth. Now THAT should be interesting. Especially because not everyone would be on the same term of contract, I’d reckon, so people could drop out of a government of contiguous landowners in a way that broke up the state into disconnected pieces.
Now in some larger Libertaria with various smaller governments like this inside of it, you’d have changes in governing philosophy here and there, mini-states that set themselves up to conquer nearby states, and so forth. Damn, that would be fun to watch. I wish they could try this somewhere - maybe Nevada would work.
What government does one have if one doesn’t own land? This seems to be one anomaly of the libertarian system: in a world that increasingly is less, rather than more, dependent on where you are, libertarians seem to have land at the basis of everything. Kind of a medieval throwback, IMO.
OK, so if I decide to become my own government the next time my contract with my existing government ends, I can do that.
Now let’s say a family does that, and the father decides to kill his wife and spend all day screwing his 4-year-old child. This is against no law, as I understand it. Or does the larger Libertaria - in which these mini-Libertarias exist that people join or not, as they see fit - have any overarching structure?
Almost certainly. Did you have a particular contract in mind?
PEEQUEUE says:
Okay. So what happens when a large percentage of people decide not to support a service that is manifestly for the good of the entire society, such as an army? Then we have an underfunded army that does not have the strength to defend the territory it is obligated to under its contract. And, remember, as RTFirefly pointed out, that might be a huge patchwork of homesteads spread far apart, since each individual has the option of opting out of any part of the government he doesn’t agree with.
The problem, of course, is that some of those services – notably the army – must be offered to everyone (everyone in a particular territory, that is) regardless of who paid. If I am trying to defend a town against invaders, for example, I don’t have the luxury of allowing the invaders access to the houses of those who did not pay for protection while keeping them out of the houses of those who did.
Well, that is the obvious follow-up.
Why? If you make it a “package deal,” aren’t you coercing me into taking services I don’t want as a condition of providing the services I do? That doesn’t sound very Libertarian.
Then Phil comes back – Welcome back, Phil!
I suppose a tariff is a tax on goods and services, Phil, not a direct tax levelled by one nation on another. If one nation has the ability to directly tax the other, the second nation is not sovereign.
That’s because, as sovereign nations, there’s no mechanism for taxing them. Don’t you think the rest of Europe would if they could? Moreover, neutrality is not the same as demilitarization; Switzerland is neutral, but it has an army, and not one made up of volunteers, either.
It’s kind of hard to tell, isn’t it?
Okay. Do I also have the right to receive those services when I am too young to contribute and have no way to pay? This is the old “orphan with no friends” question.
So I can be an anarchist living among my neighbors. Maybe have a couple communists next door, and a fascist down the street. And it’s only a matter of time until the communists, or the fascists, impose their idea of good government on my Libertarian neighbors who, due to underfunding and geographic spread, have no ability to defend adequately defend themselves.
I said:
To which you ask:
Do I live in one of those houses in the town under seige that my neighbors will have to defend in order to defend themselves? Then, no. Why should I? You’ll provide that service for me, for free, because you have to. Or, in the alternative, you’ll get justifiably pissed at my failure to pull my weight and stop paying also, and we’ll both be sitting ducks. Or, in the other alternative, you and my other paying neighbors will advise me that this is a service that must be provided, and that obviously benefits me, and require me to pay my share.
Who decides what the period of the contract is? Can we make it “for life”? Can we say “You choose to live in Libertaria, and therefore you will be expected to chip in for an army, police force, and justice system for as long as you live here”? How is that different than the system we live under now? Lib says it’s because we “can’t secede;” it seems to me that you couldn’t lawfully secede from Libertaria during the period of your contract, either. Who decides how long Libertarian contracts last? If I decide to opt out, can I later (when danger seems more pressing) opt back in? Why or why not?
Again, how does this differ from our system? And it seems to me that the nonpeaceful and dishonest could only be punished if they have agreed in advance to be punished. By which I mean this: How can I drag my communist neighbor before the Libertarian court (or arbitrator) without his permission? He’s not a Libertarian; he hasn’t agreed to abide by that system.
Don’t you see any problem in that? What if the contract is for, say, five years. Enough people sign up to get an army organized and paid for. Five years go by and nothing happens. Enough people then refuse to “renew” that the army is seriously compromised. Then invaders approach; suddenly everyone wants to pay for the service again (because NOW they perceive danger), but they have not been paying to maintain the army (weak as it is) all along. Do you let them back in, or not? This is leaving aside the obvious problems of trying to muster an army at a moment’s notice, as opposed to having a standing one, which requires a consisent underwriting.
I’m not talking about t
Lib - as you’ve pointed out above, Libertarianism “allows you, if you wish, to give sober thought to your family’s future, and settle in a community of neighbors whose own bylaws prohibit whatever activity they deem undesirable.”
Life in the real world doesn’t allow you to settle in a community that’s exactly the way you want it to be, but it allows you, I’m sure, to find one that’s a damn sight closer to your ideals than the Tyrannical States of America that you so despise. So why don’t you?
This isn’t me saying “get lost,” “love it or leave it,” or any of those wonderful sayings. But given your advice to others, I’m genuinely curious: are there countries that come closer to your libertarian ideals than this one - that you could move to and buy property, and they’d not tax you much and leave you alone?
If so, why aren’t you on the next plane? And if not, why are you so hard on this country, if it’s the most libertarian country in the world, in your opinion? I mean, if this place is terrible, but everyplace else is worse, either this place has to be OK, or the whole human race is totally fucked up, by your standards. Just wondering.
Damn. First one free-market fundie turns me from an economic conservative into a liberal populist. Then another one has me speaking up for America. Go figure.
My friends say I should act my age, what’s my age again? - Blink 182
Me, too! Kinda surreal, isn’t it?
Jodi
Fiat Justitia
I am ready to pull out my hair.
I have been away from this thread for a couple of days now and can’t seem to get through all the posts (got through halfway on page 3) when I sit here and see what is happening here.
Many of you are making it out to be that, in no uncertain terms, the Libertarian view is based on anarchy, this is wrong thinking. Libertarians hold strong the views of the Consititution and those unaliable rights guaranteed by such.
THERE IS A GOVERNMENT! Can I make that clear enough?
The difference between what is being argued here and what is Libertarian philosophy is the fact that government has limited ability. We work on the basic premise that the individuals rights are just as important as the collective rights.
Indigent children may or may not suffer, that is up to the community but not forced by a govt. body. Children can suffer with wealthy parents just as much as with the poorest of parents. If you honestly thought a child was in danger wouldn’t you think that someone would take it upon his or herself to see that that child is cared in a basic manner? I know I would.
Property rights are outlined in the Constitution. If you or the government forces me to give up my property (land or otherwise) then I have the ability to take back my property.
Nurlman brought up another “suppose this were to happen” scenario:
Good question. I live in a suburb and I would assume that the majority of people on postage stamp size lots would have a lot to say about that. What if this were out in the country, though without a neighbor within shouting distance? Then the issue almost becomes null and void.
I would gather that the collective could and can request of the offending property owner that he leave. Nothing like asking someone to respect your home – that’s just the right thing to do.
Okay so the guy refuses. Again, assuming that this property is in an area such as I live in, I highly doubt that the neighbors would agree that a slaughter house is appropriate. I 'spose you could request that the govt. get involved but not practical yet. Since my neighbors and I have more money because income taxes are no longer and issue, we could collectively buy the neighbor out. Heck, why not we might want a small park for our kids to play in.
Okay, so the guy again refuses. I spose after a reasonable amount of negotiating then it’s time to take action. If he is selling his slaughtered animals to the local grocery store, then boycott and get out the word as to why you are boycotting the buyer of this meat. It’s tainting your property.
If this doesn’t work then okay, then it’s potentially time to request the jury system to enter into the factor. It’s not a crime per se, but a potential violation of the rights of those around that particular property. You provide evidence on the fact that your property is being subject to coercion because you can’t get a wink of sleep since the cries of poor animals are being slaughtered 24 hours a day. But YOU have the burden of proof here, not the slaughter house owner.
Okay, so my response isn’t exactly what you thought it would be. Again, Libertarianism isn’t about anarchy it is based on a minimal govt. The nice thing about it is, things of this nature would be taken on a case by case basis if it escalated (sp?) to the point that a jury needs to be involved. Your peers would decide the outcome not the government since the government can’t make laws pertaining to your property and its proper use.
The answer isn’t easy as this scenario is an extreme case. However, if the slaughter house is creating ills that encroach on my land I can therefore immediately request a response from the local authorities.
BTW, if this were done in today’s government, the government wouldn’t even give your neighbor the benefit of the doubt and declare his land in violation of existing laws and possibly throw the guy in jail. This is not a violent crime, this is a nuisence (sp) factor, should he be jailed for being a pain in the ass? Should he be fined for such acts? I don’t think so unless his acts create a health hazard to those around him. But then again I am speaking in terms of my nieghbors living within spitting distance of my window.
unaliable as I stated was part of the Declaration of Independance, not the Constitution. None-the-less it is part of why our system was created as it was intended…
( I need a better editor than myself sometimes, sheesh )
And what is the U.S. doing about that happening right now in Somalia?
At least by what we advocate, the wife could secure the protection of a libertarian government for herself and her child.
Yeah, yeah, I know. But what if she is a deaf mute who is blind and retarded…
:rolleyes:
No, Lib. The wife is dead. And since the man is contracting with his ownself as his government, he tries himself for her killing, finds extenuating circumstances, and releases himself to his own custody.
And his local government is totalitarian, with himself as the dictator, so he declares sex with his child to be not only legal, but mandatory.
techchick - there seems to be a divergence of views as to what the larger libertarian entity would look like - including the question of its very existence.
Lib, Phil, and others seem to be saying: suppose Nevada became a libertarian state. Nevada itself would get out of the business of governing; it would sell off any public lands, including roads and rights-of-way, and disband its police force, courts, and National Guard units. People owning land in Nevada (I’m still unclear what renters and the homeless would do) would form governments of whatever sort they wanted to, with whomever they wanted to. These governments would agree to handle police/defense on a cooperative basis, hire others to handle those functions, or whatever - their government, their choice. Each group of people calling themselves a government would decide, by their own rules, what sort of government they were, from anarchist to totalitarian, and what the rules for joining and seceding were - whether you could join or leave any time at all, whether you had to sign a contract for a certain number of years, or whatever.
(Lib, Phil, and anyone else - correct me if I’ve misstated your position!)
techchick, you seem to be implying that there would be an overarching Government of Nevada, if Nevada became a libertarian state. (Again, do I understand you correctly?) If I understand you (and them) correctly, that’s a fundamental distinction. What’s true in one such Libertaria wouldn’t necessarily apply to the other.
My friends say I should act my age, what’s my age again? - Blink 182
Techchick:
(Sorry to have to address you directly, but this thread has spawned a lot of sub-debates that are more noise than signal.)
Your response on the slaughterhouse analogy was helpful. To summarize what I think the operative parts are:
The first option-- peaceful picketing and a boycott-- seem to be within the non-coercion principle that this thread started with, and would be a suitably libertarian reponse to the incursion.
Invoking a court system troubles me, though, just as Liberatarian’s response about “neighborhood bylaws” did. In either case, my right to operate a slaughterhouse on my property is subject to the opinions of a group of people–neighborhood government or court system-- who theoretically should have no right to control what I do on my land.
It appears to me that the only real solution to my hypothetical in a libertarian society is exactly the same as it would be in our current system: that the government would have the ability to control how I use my property for the greater good of the neighborhood. The solutions I’ve seen are merely vague references to what we already have: “neighborhood bylaws” is just another term for current zoning laws; the court system now allows citizens to sue their neighbors for nusiance. The libertarian model, as described here at least, actually gives you less of an ability to control me, because I would appear to have the ability to opt-out of the neighborhood group and decide not to be bound by their bylaws, or even reject the court’s jurisdiction over me-- an act that the pure libertarians in this thread would suggest I have the right to do.
Is there any way to distinguish the libertarian model from the current system we have now? (At least as it relates to the kinds of property rights we’re describing here.) Or do we just have a fundamental difference about how large the controlling government unit should be-- city-wide or neighborhood-wide?
Yes, but what government was she contracted with?
So far, you’ve put everything in your scenario into the contexts of anarchy, totalitarianism, and general overall madness. Am I correct? I haven’t heard you meantion anything yet at all that pointed to the libertarian government having any jurisdiction over anybody in your scenario; I mean, you did say they split didn’t you? And surely you didn’t neglect to consider her consent as well, did you?
I can only say that, were I his neighbor, I would have done everything in my power to help save his wife and child. Oh, but wait, you are characterizing the wife as a misogynists dream, a dolt who goes along with whatever her murderous husband requires of her.
So, I am left with the child.
Probably, what I would do at this point where you have your scenario is organize a posse of volunteers to rescue the child, or else hire it done.
By the way, have I asked what the U.S. is doing about that same thing right now in Africa?
Lib: “have I asked what the U.S. is doing about that same thing right now in Africa?”
So your answer is that in a Libertarian society, the wife’s government should have protected her, but you then want to blame the U.S. for not protecting people who aren’t contracted with the U.S.? Isn’t the non-action in Africa a more Libertarian way for the U.S. government to act?
“So far, you’ve put everything in your scenario into the contexts of anarchy, totalitarianism, and general overall madness. Am I correct? I haven’t heard you meantion anything yet at all that pointed to the libertarian government having any jurisdiction over anybody in your scenario;”
That’s because you have described the Libertarian government as a bunch of different local governments, which differ according to what people contract with each other. Therefore, in the examples given, these “local governments” are under what you have described as a global Libertarian government. If that’s not what you meant by a Libertarian government, then please say so. The problem is that everybody else sees obvious problems with these systems (such as government by murderous the murderous husband), but you claim it is a form of tyranny to not let that guy establish that government on his own land.
What Erratum said.
I would add that it would make little sense for a couple sharing a single property to contract with different governments, or for one of them to contract with a government, but not both. After all, if that government has been contracted with to provide defense, law, etc. to the property and some of its residents, it would probably cost little more to contract with it for protection of the remaining residents.
That said, I’m assuming the wife didn’t expect to be killed, and joined her husband, completely voluntarily, in deciding that their family should be a government unto itself, with power shared between them in whatever manner they had traditionally shared power in their marriage to that point. So the husband is the sole surviving member of the wife’s government, giving him the power (as far as I can tell) to try and acquit himself of her murder.
Please see my summary at the top of the page, where I turn Nevada into Libertaria. Am I interpreting you correctly? My scenario is based on that interpretation. Correct me as necessary.
Again, I’m trying to verify whether there is a ‘THE’ libertarian government, or just whatever governments that people choose to contract with.
Again, she consented to be a partner in a one-family government.
:rolleyes: I wasn’t characterizing the wife at all. Once you’re married, you will have plenty of opportunities to kill your wife in her sleep without any warning, even though I’m sure she isn’t a dolt. In marriages that are going down the tubes, it’s typical for one spouse to trust the other, long after that trust is extremely misguided. I don’t need to assume anything but a husband with a black heart.
So you’re admitting it’s not illegal for him to be having sex with the child, and you’re having to take extralegal action, yourself, to rescue her - violating the sovereignty of another government’s territory, as I understand it.
Isn’t that against the NP?
Like I said three pages ago. It’s the Wild Wild West!
Even Lib said he’d “get a posse.”
Can I play? I wanna be a desperado!
Well, you’re right. The U.S., like any six hundred pound gorilla, will do as it damn well pleases. But that wasn’t my point.
My point was in asking why the Fabianists expect Libertaria to do something that they don’t expect even a government that they can comprehend would not do.
As far as I can tell, all that has been established here in that regard is that that could be one possible outcome of a spontaneous order.
But I am not the one with the ends fetish; my fetish is with the means. I just believe that, if you do things the right way, a right end will result.
I would certainly agree with that.
But you seem to find it a sensible thing to draw weird hypotheticals about people who reject libertarianism, and then holding libertarian government responsible for their travails.
I guess I can see where a habit of pinning responsibility on “society” instead of on people the who make their decisions could do that to a person.
I don’t see how you get that. You’ve described him as an anarchist. I’m going to rescue his kid. If he resists me, I’ll kill him.
How will he acquit himself?
Okay, thanks. I missed that in all the flurry. You antilibertarians can sure type fast if nothing else.
As I’ve said before, I don’t think you can really overturn a nation-state without great upheaval and distress that might outway even the tyranny of the nation-state itself. I think a libertarian collective must be built from scratch by volitional volunteers.
Well, gosh. Inasmuch as libertarian government is based entirely on the consent of those it governs, isn’t that a pretty easy dilemma to clear up? I mean, how could there be a ‘THE’ libertarian government unless every person on earth always gave it their consent?
Well, then neither do I. And that’s why I would rescue his kid.
How delightfully paradoxical! How can anything be illegal for an anarchist?
Maybe you just don’t understand the NP. It isn’t about governments, but about people. People have the rights God or nature gave them, no matter what any government says about it.
It is hardly coercive, at least in any reasonable ethical sense, to rescue a little girl from an incestual rapist.
Do you think that would be coercive?