Libertarians and the Noncoercion Principle

Great Debates
161

You guys can go on debating Libertarian if you like, but it seems to me he believes that ALL libertarian ideals should be adhered to whether they work or not. And we shouldn’t blend in any non-libertarian ideas, even if they work. It has to be 100% true-blue LIBERTARIANISM or nothing at all. He’s like a Christian fundamentalist who sees all other religions as coming from the Devil Himself and straying even slightly away from the exact, written Word is a SIN!!! And, of course, the Bible never contradicts itself like Lib’s version of Libertarianism contradicts itself.

Also, I still haven’t forgiven him for calling me a Marxist on Page Two. I’ll debate the other, small-l libertarians here from now on.

>< DARWIN >
__L___L

162

I once had many of the same objections to libertarianism that are raised over and over again in these threads; objections to both the foundations and to minutist details of its application to the real world. And, like many of those who continue to raise the objections, I said that many ideas libertarians have I agree with. In an effort to understand, I checked out the Free-market site that Poster_Lib keeps bringing up; it is an excellent resource for the answers to those questions that keep getting asked here. I have found a lot of my questions answered by reading the sources they point to. I haven’t agreed with everything, but at least I found the questions addressed. It occurred to me some time ago that intelligent proponents of libertarianism (or any other ism, for that matter) do not develop their philosophy over many years, only to realize, “Oops, we forgot about the problem of poverty. Maybe nobody will notice.”

For example, Jodih brings up the problem of public goods and the incentive not to contribute (Erratum also brought this up as the tragedy of the commons.) This was one of my objections, too. Here is one Lib~ view:
http://www.wits.ac.za/economics/Journal/governmetless.htm
Skip down to Part II: Issues of Co-operation and Justifications for the State. It is too long to C&P and I have trouble summarizing it. Agree or disagree, at least the problem is addressed.

There is still confusion over the terminology: is it libertarian “system” or “context” or “principle”…? I would say, it is a philosophy, in which the ethical principle is “non-coercion”. It has nothing to do with the form of government. (Poster_Lib is right.) Now since this philosophy doesn’t underlie our current system, I asked myself what philosophy does. I could only come up with Utilitarianism, in which the ethical principle is usually stated as “the greatest good for the greatest number”. IOW, the objective is to increase the sum total of happiness or goodness in society as a whole, even if to achieve it some members are made less happy. Mr. Spock was a utilitarian - “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.”

On the basis of that distinction, it occurred to me that of course Lib~ism “works”, if by “works” we mean “achieves its objective.” It simply has a different objective than utilitarianism. So as to the often mentioned problem of the poor, someone (sorry, I simply cannot find the post) stated it above quite honestly - they are screwed. To say that this means Lib~ism fails is only to say that it fails to achieve the utilitarian objective, which is not its own. Now if your ethic is utilitarian, this is a bad state of affairs, but to call it a failure is like saying your apple orchard is a failure because it doesn’t produce oranges, which you prefer.

The other sense in which this philosophy can be said to “work” is “can it be put into practice in the real world?” For individual elements of the typical lib~ agenda: of course. For the whole nine yards all at once: I don’t see how it could happen without such upheaval as to bring about its own overthrow. Poster_Lib’s “Libertaria” and the patchwork-quilt state: logistically impossible within the current limits of technology and human nature.

Of course, the more important question is not could we underlie our society and government with this ethic, but, should we? All I can say is that I have not adopted this philosophy; I am not a Libertarian. But I am finding that an increasing number of its elements fit better into my own personal philosophy than I would have ever expected.

163

I’m not anti-anything. I’ve investigated Libertarianism through threads, and links provided.

This is what I think.

The Libertarians think that starting over from scratch and growing (for lack of a better word) a new Government based on the anti-coercian principle would result in a superior form of government to what we have today.

Since nobody has any idea how this new Government would form, it’s impossible to argue against its merits.

The idea that this would somehow be better than our current government is largely an article of faith, and demonstrable not at all.

The idea of replacing our existing government which has been evolving for the last two hundred years to more closely approach the ideals of freedom and justice for all, for a nebulous and unknown form of government seems foolhardy in the extreme.

Sure it’s possible that Utopia might spontaneously arise, but history would indicate that perhaps other less palatable forms of government would likely dominate.

It took us two hundred years to get as far as we did. Personal freedom, a fair trial, and something approaching equality are now enjoyed by the majority of our country.

Perhaps some have forgotten how difficult it was to secure these freedoms as they propose a new form of Government that just assumes them.

Reform of our current governmental excesses is certainly a good idea, and some Libertarian ideas certainly might be applicable.

I for one would not to live in the morally sterile, semi-feudal wild west. I see it full of starving poor moving gypsylike across the landscape. I see small societies banding together for self-defense along idealistic lines until they become nation states. I see war, poverty, totalitarianism, the monopolization of resources, and economic tyrrany.

If these things did not exist they certainly would arise as soon as I myself landed in Libertaria. I would set out to make myself absolute ruler of the country based on exploitation of their naive system. Without laws to stop me, I would certainly succeed once I reached a certain level of military and economic dominance. That is if course in the unlikely event that somebody else doesn’t beat me to the punch.

I would guess that most of the “fat cat tycoons” probably don’t give their money to the Libertarian party because they think that would be wasted money as the whole idea is unworkable and basically a crock.
The whole concept is inherently contradictory, unworkable, and as it’s been described here, unknowable.

I’ll take our current system over Government by faith any day.

164

Jab, you did say this, right?

For anyone interested, the link again is:

Free-Market

165

Gilligan:

Well put.

Some people say that libertarianism is not practical. And I say that’s right, if you’re not practicing libertarianism.

What is practical depends entirely on what you’re practicing. If you’re practicing tyranny, then libertarianism is very unpractical. But if you’re practicing voluntary relations among peaceful honest people, then libertarian principles are the only practical ones there are.

I’d like to think that, in Libertaria, the poor (what few there would be) would not be screwed, because they would be free from the coercion of the rich. As someone who grew up in a mountain shack with thirteen kids from several aunts, I am here to tell you that poverty, while a hard life, can be a noble and good life, and that good people, when free, can better themselves.

166

“Screwed” was a poor choice of words on my part. “Not given things taken from others in an attempt to alleviate their suffering” is closer to what I meant.

167

Over on Page Three, pldennison said:

[quote]
Libertaria does not have “borders” the way that the US has borders**

So what does it have? There are no clearly-defined borders with Canada and Mexico? People can come and go as they wish? How would you defend such a nation? How could you claim that Libertaria has been invaded and must be defended when you don’t claim any frontiers in the first place. Seems to me an army could walk right in or an air force just fly right over or a navy simply anchor itself right offshore and fly planes or missiles over or whatever else they want to do, because other nations would argue that Libertaia doesn’t really exist since it does not claim any borders.

That’s another reason I don’t think Libertaria would survive. If you don’t claim borders, what’s to stop other nations from claiming your land? And if Libertaria’s army is underfunded because too many citizens have decided not to renew their contracts, nor agree to contracts upon reaching the age of consent, it won’t be able to stop those other nations from holding onto their claims.

Again, pld said:

[quote]
the government is not interested in setting up arbitrary borders** Borders are not set up arbitrarily, they are set up by treaty, by mutual agreement of the countries concerned. Remember “54-40 or Fight?” After much anger, invective, and shots fired, we and Britain agreed on the US-Canadian border we have today, which is much further south than 54’40". Would’ve been nice if the dispute had been settled peacefully, but there you are.

>< DARWIN >
__L___L

168

Now all you’ve got to do is find some. (Good luck; they might be selective… ;))

Sometimes the ends are the only way of judging the means. Should I use a toothbrush or a circular saw? Depends on whether I’m brushing my teeth, or cutting boards for a bookcase.

Aha. So all we’ve got to do is get God or nature on tape as to what those rights are.

And if I and enough of my friends see your government as violating ‘the rights God or nature gave them,’ then we can come in, disrupt your system of government, and set things to rights, under our understanding of divine/natural rights.

Isn’t that mob-ocracy?

I have no problem with it. I was just trying to see how your system justified it. Yes, it would be coercive, but it would involve making a human judgment about which coercion was more evil.

But seriously, I thought that, under libertarianism, invading another country would be coercion, if it posed no threat to your country. Did I get you wrong?

169

Nurlman, I will get to your post next, but I have to address something here first.

Scylla said:

Scylla, this is wrong thinking. Harry Browne (the main “hopeful” in the vote for president this year) has stated that there is no way to tear down the government over night but a rational approach (especially on economic related issues) is to cut programs a program at a time. Not overnight.

It’s not starting a new government, it’s breaking apart what is in existance today until it gets to a point where the only reason the federal government exists is outlined by the Constitution. He understands the fact that people will need to be weaned (sp) off government.

Yeah, in an ideal world, we would start from scratch, but the fact is the federal government is too big and too large to shut it down and restructure everything without serious reprocussions on the country as a whole. He has addressed this in several of the Sunday night internet radio shows I have listened to. He would immediately shut down the tax system though. This would allow the programs to slowly shut down as the money runs out.
As for personal liberties, yeah those would become immediate. Issues like prostitution and drugs would no longer be considered illegal.

Here’s what he said to WorldNetDaily about taxation:

“The Constitution does permit the federal government to tax incomes, but the 16th amendment may be the worst political mistake ever made in America. However, I do not want to replace the current income tax with a flat tax or a sales tax. The idea that we become more free by rearranging the burden of big government, or by moderate reductions in the current tax rates, is a sleight-of-hand trick promoted by politicians. I want to reduce the federal government to a size by which national defense and the judiciary can be financed solely by the tariffs and excise taxes already being collected – ending the need for any tax on incomes. I also want you to be free of the Social Security tax – completely and immediately – by selling government assets to finance retirement accounts with private companies for today’s retirees.”

170

Great, the biggest fire sale of all time. Government assets, our landmarks, our institutions, our collective fucking culture on sale to the highest bidder. The government will be lucky to get 10 cents on the dollar.

Did you forget that we have trillion and trillions worth of use treasury certificates, that people bought from the us in good faith.

Some of these bonds last 30 years. DO you really think there’s enough money to take care of all the social security and pensioners after this? have you thought about what taking that much money out of the economy will do?

Do you have even the roughest numbers to support this ridiculous assertion? I’d call this idea half-baked but that would be giving credit where none is do.

10-1 says your candidate is well aware that this is absolutely impossible. He makes these statements to garner attention because the election is passing him buy. In the wild event that he achieves some degree of nationwide popularity you’ll find he becomes increasingly moderate.

If he ever gets elected his ideas will slowly fade in the legislative process as he claims he’s making significant headway and achieving remarkable reform. In the end nothing will have changed.

This is the nature of politics. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Apparently some of us at least will get fooled again.

Sorry to be so harsh, but I spent a lot of time investigating this on the assumption that I must be missing something, since several intelligent people were espousing this belief that seemed so unworkable.

It turns out I wasn’t missing anything after all. It’s a great and admirable philosophy for individuals, but that’s it.

171

I couldn’t even make it through the first page without feelings of overwhelming disgust.

People can play “what if” for every form of government, for every conceivable scenario, regardless of possibility, probability or plausibility

Ture Libertarianism, just like True Democracy and True Communism, is unworkable; it is a philosophy, used as a basis for devising a more just society.

Hence a reasonable, middle-ground compromise must be arrived at. This has yet to happen within the Libertarian community. The crux of the problem is that the definition of reasonable may be (Hell! It is!) dfferent from Lib’s to Bricker’s to Scylla’s point’s of view.

Today, in our current society of law, I have every right to move, or have removed, unwanted people off of my property. If they are squatters, or just someone I invited over and now wish them to leave because we had an argument, it’s no different.

Leaping immediately to deadly force, lacking any credible, direct threat to myself or my property, is unwarranted. I think any Libertarian would agree. First actions would be to let the unwelcome interlopers know in clear and unambiguous language that they are [no longer] welcome, and must vacate immediately.

If they refuse, that is an initiation of force upon me, via my property, which is wholly owned by me. If I were a renter, then I would be constrained by the policy of the land lord, via my renter’s agreement, or lease.

The next logical step, in an urban or suburban environment, is to contact authorities to have the unwelcomed people removed. In a rural environment, where law enforcement may be some time in responding, I am justified in taking reasonbale precautions, such as calling my children in from outside, loading a weapon, and waiting and watching to see what the trespassers are doing.

If they attempt to stop me from summoning the authorities, that is the next level of initiation of force on their part. As I am the property owner, or the legal tenant of that property, and the trespassers have twice initiated force against me, in an escalating manner, I am now justified in using the threat of force in enacting my lawfull will that they leave my property or lawfull abode.

If they are signifigantly larger or more powerful than I, or outnumber me, I am justified in threatening *deadly force.
This is as true right now, today, as it would be in a Libertarian-principled society.

Where the two diverge is that today, if I resorted to force (be it a garden hose, a dog, mace or even threat of deadly force), I might face criminal and/or civil actions for defending my property; not so in a more Libertarian society.

Societies band together to provide communally what cannot be provided individually:

this includes protection from predators, be they of the four- ot two-legged variety. Locally, this is a police force; nationally, a military.

this includes a community fire protection team, to help one another douse fires that may be threatening the community, and thus every individual in that community.

this includes public utilities like water, trash pick up and sewage, as clean water and clean, safe disposal of garbage, trash and raw sewage benefits the community, and thus every individual in the community.

Paying for these communty services by enacting some form of taxation is not contrary to libertarianism, just True Libertarianism.

If you don’t want to contribute to your fair share of community expense, you should not live in a community. Today, there are millions of Americans who opt out and move to remote locations, install septic tanks, drill their own wells, build their own roads and all the various stuff an isolationist must do to live outside the constraints of society.

They are unfairly portrayed in the media as some kind of lunatics, as gun-toting racists and facists, and the government routinely enacts coercion and force against these people for having the temerity to leave the socialist utopia of wealth redistribution we have created in this country with byzantine tax laws.

Ruby Ridge and Waco are jut the most visible examples that you may have heard of.

Libertarianism allows for the principle of community, and joint community services and property and such. By living in a community that has benefits such as public services (and the benefits of a developed economy, allowing for employment opportunities) an individual has, either knowingly or not, entered into a community contract with every other individual in that community, permanent or transient.

If a simple sales tax isn’t sufficient to raise municipal funds, the next least intrusive form of collective taxation should be tried; volunteerism should be encouraged in both fire, police, militia and military, for as each citizen benefits individually from these community services, each citizen should, at some point, render service voluntarily to the community.

The bottom line is that in the libertarian mind-set, “less is better, and the least possible, or necessary, is the best”.

<FONT COLOR=“GREEN”>ExTank</FONT>

172

Ex tank:

You make some sense, but alas, the conversation has moved from where you stopped reading.

Your theories of what Libertarianism should be do not generally agree with what has been posted or linked to in this thread.

173

Several people have said this, but why is it that true democracy, or true communism wouldn’t work?

174

Apologies for the bolding (I did proofread, apparently unsucessfully), and I should learn the patience to read every page and every post, as Sake Samurai’s post covered some of the same ground as mine did.

But word parsing a complicated philosophy like Libertarianism with multiple, improbable “what ifs” is…is…asinine. That’s the only word I can think of, failing flames, to adequately describe a silly dissection of a relatively straight forward philosophy.

Kudos to Lib for having the patience to gut it out and put up with this level of silly foolishness.

One of my dad’s favorite sayings when teaching a difficult subject to difficult pupils is “I’d rather light candle and show them the way than curse their darkness”.

But if I (or someone else) is taking the time to explain something on good faith, then the pupil should be willing to listen and make a good faith attempt to hear what we are saying. If, when we are done, you find you disagree, SAY SO! And explain why.

Don’t nit-pick and parse everything we say in a disingenuous attempt to discredit us and what we say.

::end of rant::

<FONT COLOR=“GREEN”>ExTank</FONT>

175

Let’s see: “in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity” ? I think we can agree on that. :slight_smile:

176

Well, Libertarian, who is the primary spokesman for libertarianism hereabouts, seems to be describing it as a hypothetical system of (non)government, rather than as a philosophy. However straightforward it may be as philosophy, we’ve rather naturally been asking how it would work ‘on the ground’ as a practical political system. Most of us have concluded that what Lib describes hasn’t a prayer.

He’s brought all the ‘silly foolishness’ on himself. No subject is too far from libertarianism for Lib to turn it into a debate over libertarianism. For instance, earlier today, I came up with an extended definition of Christian humility. He chose to claim that my definition was a restatement of the Noncoercion Principle.

Since it’s become increasingly difficult to get into any discussion in GD without its turning into a debate over libertarianism as interpreted by Lib, we get to these sorts of discussions. If he wants people to listen respectfully, he shouldn’t be the SDMB equivalent of a street-corner evangelist, insisting on dragging you into his rap whether you want to be there or not. And this being virtual reality, you can’t just avoid his street corner. :frowning:

Despite what I’ve said here, I’m not looking for cheap-shot rebuttals, and I doubt that Scylla, Erratum, Jodi, or any of Lib’s other critics are, either. We believe there are fundamental flaws in Lib’s…well, whatever it is, since we can’t agree on what it is…and are trying to scrape away the confusion to reach the point at which we find out whether the flaws are genuinely as gaping as they appear to us to be.

That’s completely legitimate, and given what I’ve described, I think it’s quite necessary.

177

Ex Tank:

If you read this whole thread you will see that I have done precisely that.

I asked questions (which I had a fairly difficult time getting answered,) checked the provided links, and rendered my opinion, after careful thought. I’ve read all of the Libertarian thread and have done my best to understand.

What I understand is that the Libertarians do not agree what their philosophy is. While the idea of noncoercian is a nice one, you can see how once you get more than a couple of people together it’s likely that some will be at odds with others. Most of the questions have been concerning how is this rather basic dilemma to be dealt with.

In all fairness there has been no real attempt at an answer. This is because “They don’t know” since a Libertarian government will evolve along its own path.

Well, I KNOW! The one that is bigger, stronger, has more money, or is most charismatic is gonna whoop ass on his smaller opponent.

As to whether we will have things like police, army, centralized government, fire departments, or a constitution is still up for debate depending on who you talk to.

One thing for sure. There will be no community property. Our heritage will be sold off to the highest bidder. Perhaps Bill Gates will buy the Constitution or the Statue of Liberty. I wonder who will get the Smithsonian. There will be no parks. You will probably not have the right to travel (oh you’ll have the right, just not the ability.) In short your freedoms that you enjoy today are likely to be severely reduced as a whole new era of Robber Barons plays Monopoly with our country until the rich are set up in their own nations, and the poor starve.

That’s just for starters. It probably won’t take very long for China to look at our half-assed disjointed, headless and helpless country and just take it over.

Hell, in the state we’d be in Cuba could do it. And we’d deserve it.

YOu may think I’m being harsh, but I have studied this self-contadictory boondoggle. It is a philosophy for individuals, not societies.

Hell, I think I could come up with a better idea off the top of my head. Government by Pokeman Ranking. At least it would be consistent.

178

And another thing:

Somebody said that our current government is based upon a utilitarian ideology “what is best for the most people,” and that it should be redesigned according to the noncoercian principle.

Hello? Utilitarian means what works. By the very definitions of what’s being argued here, a Government that actually functions is not desirable. It doesn’t have to work as long as it doesn’t coerce people.

I will go redesign my utilitarian car along libertarian lines now, ok?

I think it’s unfair that the brake pedal coerrces the brakes into slowing the car. The brake pads should be able to decide on their own.

Do not tell me that it is any different with a Government.

It is not. If it doesn’t work it get’s replaced. I mean come on! This is not advanced political theory here!

We are specifically espousing a Government designed not to work. The BEST we could hope for is Feudalism to arise from the ashes.

179

Nurlman:

You questioned the Libertarian view and where I step in and state the fact that a jury trial may be in order.

Although this is not PURE in the sense of Libertarianism philosophy, it is a reasonable assumption that if one must remain non-violent you therefore ask the opinion of your peers. In this sense, the trial by jury helps remain in the lines of non-coercion, you aren’t forcing the slaughter house owner to shut down and possibly loose income but asking a jury what should be done so that all rights remain in tact.

Again, the burden of proof remains on the neighbors to prove that this slaughter house is creating a situation where their rights are being compromised. And yes, it is much like what happens today except the laws regarding your land are not zoned by some elected panel that may not even represent the people with whom these laws affect. (We have had such an isntance here in my county.)

The jury may come to the conclusion that the slaughter house owner could attempt some improvements thereby letting him assume his slaughter business that allows the other residents to remain happy in their homes as well.

In my thinking of trial by jury in this case, again I can’t stress enough that the burden of proof is upon the other neighbors, call this mediation rather than a government involvment. It’s a means by which to protect the rights of the slaughter house owner and the rights of those around them.

See I told you “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.”

180

techchick68, what happens if the jury does shut the slaughterhouse down. And then the next day, a new slaughterhouse opens up, and is taken to court again, and the jury shuts it down again. And then the next day, a new slaughterhouse opens, and the process repeats. The people who keep serving on the juries eventually say “This is stupid! We’re not going to waste everybody’s time in court arbitrating this ridiculous slaughterhouse case day after day!”. They go to the town square and post a big notice that says “no slaughterhouses on main street”, or whatever. Haven’t they just enacted a de facto zoning law? How is that different from the system we have today? (Actually, the hypothetical probably doesn’t even need the second or third precedent, because the slaughterhouse-entrepeneur is probably aware of the precedent of the first one) Your complaint seems to be that town councils are too slow to update zoning to reflect the will of the people. I fail to see why the solution is “outlaw zoning and demand that everything be decided on a case by case basis, even when we know what we will decide for a wide class of cases”.

It seems to me that Libertarians are in general saying “throw out your current government, you can accomplish the same thing with lots of individual contracts”. Why would I want to waste my time negotiating bilateral contracts with everybody under the sun when virtually everybody wants to same general clauses in their contracts (e.g. “don’t dump poison into the river”, “don’t be a public nuisance with your property”, “don’t block other people’s right of way”, etc.)? If we look at government as a proxy that we’ve hired to negotiate these contracts for us, aren’t we achieving all of the contract negotiation that would be involved in a Libertarian society, only without lots of personal involvement from me? Maybe you think that your proxies aren’t negotiating the right deals from your perspective, but I fail to understand why you (or, if not you, then other Libertarians, like Libertarian) think we should scrap the proxy system altogether.