# Lighthouses and Giant Squids: A Debate about Libertarianism **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 21, 2002, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lighthouses-and-giant-squids-a-debate-about-libertarianism/144251 "2002-12-21T19:03:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2002, 12:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lighthouses-and-giant-squids-a-debate-about-libertarianism/144251/181 "2002-12-24T12:15:10Z")
[aside] **Libertarian** , you’ve acquitted yourself very well in this thread. I am _extremely_ impressed by the improvement in style. I don’t mean you’ve converted me, and you probably never will, but the change in tone does wonderful things for debates. It allows me to hear what you’re saying, rather than just the _way_ you’re saying it. [/aside] ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2002, 12:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lighthouses-and-giant-squids-a-debate-about-libertarianism/144251/182 "2002-12-24T12:19:43Z")
Xeno wrote: > [@](#): > > Well, I’m a bit suprised that you can’t spell some of these out yourself, knowing as I do that you have performed self-critical evaluation of your own notions of historical lessons. This case is different. You can’t ask me to “spell out” _actual events_ in the same way that a hypothetical may be extrapolated from a principle or event. > [@](#): > > But be that as it may, I’ll give you one of the most glaring abuses; the company store concept. If you don’t want to research this nifty money-making idea, here’s the gist of it. A coal company would operate a general store on company land, ostensibly for the daily needs of the workers and their families. The company would, where permitted by law, pay miners in “scrip” instead of cash, redeemable only at the company store, where prices were sure to be higher than market. Where this practice was not legally permissible, they would distribute wage advances and store orders (effectively the same as scrip). Lest the miner think his family had a choice on where to shop, in most companies trading at the store was compulsory and store credit was pushed and deducted immediately from wages; families of workers who were injured or unable to work and who could no longer pay their running debt to the store could be evicted from the company homes which were the only housing available to mine workers (commuting in from outside of mine property was not feasible). > > All of these terms were specified conditions of employment. Did these terms and conditions affect people who lived and worked elsewhere? > [@](#): > > A government can regulate – I could’ve sworn you’ve spoken knowledgeably regarding OSHA and MSHA before, Lib, as well as the various forms of price and wage controls. Do you mean that the government can take over effective ownership of the means of production? Yes, it can. But what have been some of the unintended consequences when this has happened? > [@](#): > > Surely you must be overwhelmed with the task of replying to all of us, Lib, so I’ll refrain from responding to this blithe fantasy until you’ve had a chance to figure out, from a 19th century immigrant coal miner’s perspective, how to secure investment capital and open a competing company, including the necessary item of procuring mining rights ownership “down the road” –probably currently owned by the same bastards from whom you’re attempting to reclaim your stolen property through collective bargaining (and who have already established that ownership through their ability to “occupy and defend it”). All the while your family is poaching game and eating grubs while living with the other mining families in tents and caves because you’re striking. You probably own no mule or wagon and have no prospects elsewhere. If you take your family on the road, you risk starvation and/or predation, and can only hope that you can beg or steal for provision on your journey to some hoped for dream of bare subsistence living –which of course you eventually realize is the condition you have while working for the coal company, so you end up crawling back to work along with most of your fellows, long before the company faces desparation. Well, gah. 😃 Why are we talking about the 19th century when this is the 21st? In the 19th century, people routinely built their homes with their bare hands, worked and scraped to get minimal nutrition from their land, and fought constantly with Indians, squatters, and outlaws. Compared to a lot of people, your mineworkers lived in a utopia. But that aside, if investment capital was so scarce, where did the mine owner get _his_? > [@](#): > > I dare say there must’ve been. Although the company already operated an exclusive shit shoveling service in their town, so these entrepeneurs (those radical individuals I mentioned earlier in the thread) must’ve taken their shit-shovelling selves elsewhere. Okay. So the company owned every square inch of every object, trinket, business, and signpost in sight. Those people weren’t living in a town; they were living in a factory. And the ones who left were pretty brave and smart in my book. > [@](#): > > Well, no. The government gets no income from those too poor/unpropertied/foolish/unaware to contract with it, and therefore does not provide its “protection” to them. How many of our 288 million are too poor to afford $3.50 a day? (Be sure to consider their before-tax income.) ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2002, 12:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lighthouses-and-giant-squids-a-debate-about-libertarianism/144251/183 "2002-12-24T12:20:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Desmostylus \* > \*\*[aside] > **Libertarian** , you’ve acquitted yourself very well in this thread. I am _extremely_ impressed by the improvement in style. I don’t mean you’ve converted me, and you probably never will, but the change in tone does wonderful things for debates. It allows me to hear what you’re saying, rather than just the _way_ you’re saying it. > [/aside] \*\* Thanks. You made my day. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2002, 12:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lighthouses-and-giant-squids-a-debate-about-libertarianism/144251/184 "2002-12-24T12:28:49Z")
Gadarene wrote: > [@](#): > > Huh? There are two characteristics of a public good: jointness of supply (everyone can use it simultaneously without interfering with each other’s enjoyment) and impossibility of exclusion (you can’t exclude anyone from having access to it once one person has access to it). Can you tell me how “compression” is at all responsive to the idea of air as a nonprofitable public good? Oh, okay. I thought you meant something that’s possessable. By what you say, existence is a public good, too. But if you can’t contain it to possess it, then you can’t own it. For air, undifferentiated from the air supplied by nature, you’d have to figure out a way to tame air molecules so that they don’t move out of your container. Compression does that, but apparently, you meant the atmosphere. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2002, 12:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lighthouses-and-giant-squids-a-debate-about-libertarianism/144251/185 "2002-12-24T12:40:51Z")
Gadarene wrote: > [@](#): > > Different arbitration systems will have different rules, right? I mean, they’ll all operate under the non-coercion principle, but the ways in which they arbitrate will be different? Their rules of procedure will be different? Well, sure. 🙂 But that’s true anyway of the 200 nations on earth. Why is it disastrous when hypothesized, but tolerable when actual? > [@](#): > > Which brings up another point: if X’s government has a contractual duty to retaliate against X’s aggressors and Y’s government has a contractual duty to retaliate against Y’s aggressors, then isn’t every dispute involving mutual aggression between between subjects of different contractual governments essentially an act of war? Y punches X in the nose and X kicks Y in the balls–Y’s government may now retaliate against X, and X’s government may now retaliate against Y. At which point–the retaliation–further harms occur to both parties at the hands of the other government, and we go round and round. It _can_ be an act of war if each arbitration determines culpability in the other. But again, why is that a horror in the hypothetical, when in actuality pursing Osama bin Laden is not just okay but laudible? > [@](#): > > That is so fucked up. Really, all that’s fucked up is the presumption that _every_ moment of human interaction will be the most horrible, the most complicated, the most absurd, the most inexplicable, the most ridiculous, the most unprecedented, and the most inconceivable set of circumstances devisable by man. 🙂 > [@](#): > > By the way, how is Y’s government “anal” to require videotaping before considering a claim of self-defense? And how is Y a fool? It helps him. He’s the victim, the action is brought in his court, and now Y is guaranteed to be recompensed. I thought Y was dead. 😕 > [@](#): > > So if Y dies without any assets or decedents, his contracting government will nevertheless bring action against X for murder? Of course. He did pay. (Or will that change now? ;)) > [@](#): > > They aren’t complicated? No, not really. Murder’s a pretty simple thing. But whether someone is guilty of murder–well, that should take a little time to find out, shouldn’t it? Each trial, even in the simple circumstances here–I can’t even imagine what it would be like if corporations sued and countersued each other for fraud!–would still require the retention of attornies, the deposition of witnesses, the filing of briefs, the use of time and resources from each of the governmental systems in which each claim is being litigated. It’s utterly redundant. Are you suggesting that corporations don’t sue each other for fraud? (By the way, a corporation in Libertaria is not a rights-bearing entity.) And what would you need an attorney for? There’s only one law! 😃 > [@](#): > > And you didn’t answer my question: does this place more of a burden on the poor than our system today (which, per Gideon, guarantees that indigent defendants in criminal trials will be appointed attorneys at no charge to them)? Well, now, Gadarene. You didn’t answer my question either about the United States, Cuba, and North Korea. Forgive me, but I’m a little bit sensitive about charges of evasion, particularly when I’m opposing a dozen people at once. No, I don’t think there is any extra burden on the poor. They pay the same thing the rich do. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2002, 12:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lighthouses-and-giant-squids-a-debate-about-libertarianism/144251/186 "2002-12-24T12:44:30Z")
Oops. Gadarene had more: > [@](#): > > How are those circumstances exceptional? It’s exceedingly simple: three people, three alleged coercive acts arising from one incident. Real life is a hell of a lot more complex than that. And yet it works! How can that be? (US, Cuba, NK). > [@](#): > > As an aside, this latter bit isn’t true. I’m in law school right now–it’s not a “good chunk” of my adult life, and we’re not learning “the most elementary aspects” of our laws; you get a sense of how the legal system as a whole functions, you learn about the areas that most interest you, and you’re taught how to argue, how to read, and how to write as a lawyer. There’s no rote memorization of reams of statutes and caselaw. I could care less about estates and trusts, for example, and I promise you I’ll never need to know a single thing about them. When did you become an adult, and how old are you now? > [@](#): > > Personally, I’m in favor of repealing the restrictions on most of the above. It can be done without reducing the system to a single overabstracted law. How? > [@](#): > > Mirror your what? I don’t understand your statement. Sure, you do. Because you wrote… > [@](#): > > Intranational law is nowhere near as messy as international law. I’m saying that you can’t justify replacing intranational law with the messiness of Libertarian law by pointing to the messiness of international law. Intranational law as it stands suits me just fine. How many legal jurisdictions are there in, say, the United States? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2002, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lighthouses-and-giant-squids-a-debate-about-libertarianism/144251/187 "2002-12-24T12:49:02Z")
Djbdjb wrote: > [@](#): > > Libertarian, I did not understand some of your counter-example on AIDS and colds. I think you were saying that the benefit of a vaccination was entirely captured by people self-protecting against sickness. But there are (and if my example is not quite right, I think there still could be other) examples where certain persons could not be vaccinated due to other health effects. In these cases, the only way to protect such a person is for other people to be vaccinated. > > Consider: I think you would accept that for someone to knowingly breathe smallpox particles onto another person is initiation of force. However it is possible, because of the physical nature of the virus, for neither party to be aware that it is happening until too late. You’re right about the initiation of force. And as a rights bearing entity who has been guaranteed freedom from coercion, I alone am responsible that I am protected from force that is not coercive. Just as I should not assume that the dark figure approaching me in an alley late at night is my good friend, I should not assume that other people are disease-free. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2002, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lighthouses-and-giant-squids-a-debate-about-libertarianism/144251/188 "2002-12-24T12:52:31Z")
Mighty Maximino wrote: > [@](#): > > Can Libertaria North’s army conquer the property of LE’s civilians and obtain title to it through force? No. Not unless the property was stolen from its citizens. > [@](#): > > If so, who owns it? Moot. > [@](#): > > Are they limited to just seizing Chuck and his property? Yes. > [@](#): > > May they kill the entire civilian population of LE and destroy all they possess? No. > [@](#): > > During warfare, would it be permissible to enslave the population of LE and force them to work in the salt mines, or would there be some kind of “rules of war”? It is not permissible to enslave anyone against their will unless they have coerced. The rule is either to restore the victim of coercion or else ro retaliate on his behalf. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2002, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lighthouses-and-giant-squids-a-debate-about-libertarianism/144251/189 "2002-12-24T13:08:53Z")
Czarcasm wrote: > [@](#): > > If you could respond without the seemingly mandatory insults, I have another point to raise. I do realize that you and I don’t get along. But I just want to tell you that I respect a lot of things about you. I’ve seen your webpage, and you have a beautiful family that you must be just bursting with pride over. That alone tells me that you are a man deserving of respect. You also are a very good moderator. You are fair and even-handed. Even when I’ve thought you weren’t, I’ve come to realize that you really are. > [@](#): > > Would the form of arbitration that Libertaria uses be anything like the arbitration that is used by major corporations today? I’m not familiar enough with that to answer you. > [@](#): > > Would judgements be binding without chance of appeal? An “appeal” of a sort may be made by charging the arbiter with coercion if you believe that he has misrepresented your case or decided on any basis other than the facts and the principle (the Noncoerion Principle). If he is found guilty, then you are absolved. > [@](#): > > Would both sides have to swear not to publicize the outcome? Not unless you’re talking about private arbitration to which both parties having willingly consented. > [@](#): > > Would the public have a chance to put some arbitrators in office, or would the large corporations with the large bankrolls be sponsoring them? In the Libertaria that I prefer, the arbiters are democratically elected. > [@](#): > > Can someone freely examine the cases of all the arbitration companies to see if patterns of abuse can be found in certain corporations, or will the corporations be protected by the walls between said arbitration companies? Well, arbiters are agents of government. But for private arbitration, I guess it would depend on the terms that people agree to. > [@](#): > > Arbitration in this country usually favors the corporation, even if the arbitrator is “independent”, because the arbitrator knows where the next job is coming from if she/he rules in the corporation’s favor. If nothing else, we agree on that! 🙂 > [@](#): > > What are the safeguards in Libertaria that give the individual real power in arbitration proceedings, and what chance does an individual have to find out if a corporation has a pattern of abuse? Well, for one thing, the owners of corporations (corporations are not rights-bearing entities) pay exactly the same amount to be governed that you do. So, there is no economic incentive for judgments in their favor. Second, there is no way, since there is no legislature, to benefit the corporations with special laws and privileges that skew jugments and exempt them from considerations that would apply to you. And finally, an arbiter is just as subject to the law as you are, and so you may charge him with coercion if you believe that he has acted and judged in bad faith (fraudulently discharged his duties). Is it an airtight guarantee? No, of course not. But so long as money can be exchanged for legislative favor, effectively skewing judicial outcomes with judges who are protected from liability for their judgments, I don’t stand a chance in hell against the corporation in some cases. I like my chances better in Libertaria. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2002, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lighthouses-and-giant-squids-a-debate-about-libertarianism/144251/190 "2002-12-24T13:09:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by xenophon41 \* > \*\ ***Lib** , please forgive any nastiness in my previous post. Reading it now, it looks kinda snarky to me, and that was certainly not appropriate. I’m sorry. \*\* You should know that the amount of slack I give to you is, well, you could use it to bungy jump from Mount Everest! 🙂 No offense was taken, my friend. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2002, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lighthouses-and-giant-squids-a-debate-about-libertarianism/144251/191 "2002-12-24T13:19:19Z")
Riboflavin wrote: > [@](#): > > Ok, so fill me on on what the one law of Libertaria is again. I don’t recall anything about ‘excessive force’ being mentioned at all in what you said would be the only law in Libertaria, but I’m probably misremembering. And be sure to define what you mean by ‘initial force’, ‘responsive force’, and ‘excessive force’ if you use those terms. The law is “Every citizen shall be guaranteed freedom from coercion.” Initial force means first force. Responsive force means force that counters initial force. Excessive force means force that is greater than some other force. For example, if a man has stolen your car, you are entitled to get back either your car or the equivalent in property if your car is gone or has been destroyed. But you are not entitled to get back more than that. Nor are you entitled to use more force than is necessary to get it back. But if the man abjectly refuses to return your car and is willing to fight to the death to keep it, then you may kill him to get it back. > [@](#): > > Who gets to determine whether my attempts were ‘reasonable’ and whether the force I used was ‘excessive’? If your previous assertion that I have nothing to fear from Libertaria if I do not initiate force is meaningful, then you must have some objective standard for ‘reasonable attempts’ and ‘excessive force’. You decide for yourself what is reasonable by consenting to be arbitrated by a government that, in your view, is most likely to effect your safety and happiness. You don’t like the way Libertaria interprets coercion? Then either govern yourself, or perhaps Freedomia is more to your liking. Hell, for all I care, sign up with Authoritaria. 😉 The point is that the choice is yours. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2002, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lighthouses-and-giant-squids-a-debate-about-libertarianism/144251/192 "2002-12-24T13:21:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Chumpsky \* > \*\*Somewhat true, although to get closer to the mark, I would substitute “ruled” for “governed,” and would point out that anarchism also denies Men the right to be enslaved. > > However, anarchism is not anti-government so much as anti-state. There is still government in anarchism, just governance by the people through direct democracy. The people **are** the government. \*\* But a man _ought_ to have the right to be enslaved if being enslaved makes him happy. And governance by democracy can by tyrannical. Suppose the majority decides that gang rape is okay. The minority has no recourse. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2002, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lighthouses-and-giant-squids-a-debate-about-libertarianism/144251/193 "2002-12-24T13:24:09Z")
Stricker van Gogh wrote: > [@](#): > > I doubt I’ve convinced you, but that’s okay. I’ve spoken my piece. Whether or not you agree with it, I hope you understand it. And I think that’s about all I have to say. No, you haven’t convinced me, but I respect your views and I’m not asking you to change yours. All I’m asking is that we all respect the views of everyone who is peaceful and honest, and let each person decide for himself what he will do with his consent. ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2002, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lighthouses-and-giant-squids-a-debate-about-libertarianism/144251/194 "2002-12-24T14:18:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > \*\*I’m suggesting that peaceful honest people ought to be free to pursue their own happiness in their own way. > > If L. Neil Smith is happy hiring his own arbiters, then let him. If I am happy consenting to be governed, then let me. If Chumsky is happy being a part of a libertarian socialist community, then let him. If Gadarene is happy being told what to do, then let her seek out a Nanny to govern her. And let Fenris do what makes him happy, so long as he initiates no force or fraud in his dealings. > > Let peaceful honest people pursue their own happiness in their own way. \*\* Spiffy, but what if each of their ways conflict? I mean, that’s what the question’s about. And just because people are peaceful and honest doesn’t mean that they can’t be stupid and pig-headed too. Heavens knows they are here and now (I present myself as case in point, from time to time 😃 ) The “peaceful, honest people” line doesn’t resolve the issue unless you’re postulating that everyone in Libertaria is, in addition to being peaceful and honest also perfect. In which case, you _are_ talking Libertopia. So if Mr. Smith thinks I’ve defrauded him and I think he’s defrauded me and he wants private arbitration and I insist on government arbitration of the type you implied what happens next? In your response to **Riboflavin** , you wrote “But if the man abjectly refuses to return your car and is willing to fight to the death to keep it, then you may kill him to get it back.” am I to understand that Liberteria’s method of resolving disputes comes down to gunfights??? On a completely unrelated note, what about severely mentally ill adults, who for their own safety should be institutionalized. They’re not capable of giving consent, and I know that “for their own good” is a no-no for Libertarians. How does Libertaria handle an adult who is, say…schizophrenic but refuses treatement? BTW: I agree with **Desmo** and wanted to add that I appreciate you taking the time and energy to answer this avalanche of questions! 🙂 Fenris ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2002, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lighthouses-and-giant-squids-a-debate-about-libertarianism/144251/195 "2002-12-24T14:29:25Z")
PS: And a have a great and merry Christmas, **Lib**! ---
**Author:** ![Fatwater\_Fewl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/4491bb/32.png) [@Fatwater\_Fewl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fatwater_Fewl)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2002, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lighthouses-and-giant-squids-a-debate-about-libertarianism/144251/196 "2002-12-24T16:10:47Z")
Gaderene, I don’t call myself a Libertarian or anything else. And I don’t presume to speak for Lib. I’ve simply taken an interest in this thread and it seemed I could supply some response to your posts. Lib, feel free to tell me to butt out, if I’m muddying things. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Gadarene \* > FF: I guess whether it’s essentially an act of war depends on the answer to this question: When Y’s government uses force against X as a response to X’s force against Y, will X’s government view this as an initiation of force against X, thereby obligating them (per their contract with X) to respond with force against Y’s government? And will Y’s government see _that_ as an initiation of force against them, allowing them to respond in kind? Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems you’re assuming that the first thing a Libertarian government would do in such a case is use force. Why must this be so? Now, I ain’t necessarily got faith that people are going to act wisely, or with restraint, but I don’t see why in a situation where people are giving their express consent to be governed we have to assume that neither they nor their government won’t. Why don’t we assume that arbitrators from one Libertaria present their case to arbitrators from the other Libertaria and see what happens? And only assume war if all else fails? > [@](#): > > And even if you can renege on your peacefulness and void your contract, whether or not X initiated force against Y is a question to be decided in arbitration. If X’s government would decide the question differently than Y’s government (the latter says force was initiated by X; the former has different rules of arbitration and concludes, from the facts they find, that X started it), then we can’t even agree on who was the initiator, and therefore whose contract should be voided. (I don’t know if you can renege on your peacefulness. I was asking. How about it, Lib?) Again, let’s assume that both X’s and Y’s governments make every reasonable effort to determine who initiated force. The reason I’d assume that is that both have citizens other than X and Y to whom they are contracted to provide protection from coercion. I don’t see the damages resulting from a war over something like this as being a way to provide that protection. > [@](#): > > The initiation of force is not so clearcut a thing that all reasonable arbiters would decide the same set of circumstances the same way. Bob sleeps with Frank’s wife. Frank finds out about it and punches Bob in the nose. Who’s initiated force? Bob sleeps with Frank’s wife. Frank walks in on them and punches him in the nose. Who’s initiated force? Bob kicks Frank in the shins. Frank responds by blowing off Bob’s head with a shotgun. Who’s initiated force? > > (This Frank’s a violent guy.) Frank has initiated force. Bob and Frank’s wife seem to be two consenting adults. Of course, if there are conditions upon the marriage between Frank and his wife that stipulate that neither of them shall engage in extramarital sex then Frank’s wife has initiated fraud. So why did Frank hit Bob? He seems confused as to who actually injured him. ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2002, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lighthouses-and-giant-squids-a-debate-about-libertarianism/144251/197 "2002-12-24T17:25:59Z")
Lib: You missed my post about economic coercion from yesterday. Let me repost it: I’d said: > [@](#): > > At its most basic, economic coercion is in part being forced to take a job–any job–on the terms of an employer in order to eat. At a level more relevant to xeno’s point, economic coercion is in part being forced to take a job with undesirable, unsafe, or unhappy conditions in order to eat. > > The force here is not being initiated by any specific individual–except, abstractly, those who withhold charity, but there’s no fault there–but by the law of property itself. And lest you mistake me–the law of property is a very, very valuable thing. Coercion and all. Lib replied: > [@](#): > > Could you rephrase that without a passive voice construction? When you say that so-and-so is “being forced”, forced by whom and how? My response: > [@](#): > > Actually, I can’t rephrase actively. Like I said, no specific individual is initiating the force. But it’s perhaps less difficult than you think to understand: If I, a peaceful and honest person, have no money, no food, and no charity, I am compelled to work so that I might eat. The perpetual urgency of the need for food compels me. My lack of money compels me. The law of property compels me. > > In order to get money to eat (and sleep and provide for my family), I must accept terms of labor that I would disdain if I were wealthy. These terms might range from the undesirable–cleaning toilets–to the unsafe–handling hazardous material. But it’s enough to say that the moment I accept a job I would not otherwise undertake were it not for my need of money and food, I am being coerced. Grok me? > > There’s a famous 1930s article by Robert Hale entitled “Coercion and Distribution in a Supposedly Non-Coercive State” that lays this out nicely. I’ll quote from its most pertinent passages if you’re still unclear what I mean. Given your assertion that a threat is coercive force, I’m particularly interested in your take on this. ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2002, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lighthouses-and-giant-squids-a-debate-about-libertarianism/144251/198 "2002-12-24T17:37:27Z")
> [@](#): > > Why is it that you presume that fully half the population will be uneducated and that the other half will be unvaccinated? I don’t. I presume–in order to show the existence of societal externalities–that, in my hypothetical, half _of the available labor pool_ are undereducated and half unvaccinated. I’ll make the general proposition that those people who are unemployed have a lower educational level and a lower income (thus less able to afford vaccinations) generally than the rest of the population. > [@](#): > > It is in everyone’s interest that some people collect the garbage, work in the sewers, serve food to the rest of us, and be productive so that they may be good employees, consumers, citizens, and neighbors. But this makes no sense. The second half of the statement in no way follows from the first. Both halves are _true_, of course. One more try: I’m a department store owner. Would I prefer that the population at large had greater or fewer people with sufficient disposable income to purchase my products? ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2002, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lighthouses-and-giant-squids-a-debate-about-libertarianism/144251/199 "2002-12-24T18:02:40Z")
Me: > [@](#): > > All pollution, Lib? Not even the nanny-state of Authoritaria takes that position. You realize that by prohibiting pollution, you’ve just crippled Libertaria’s industry, right? > > Put another way: how do you define what is an acceptable level of pollution? Lib: > [@](#): > > I covered that in the post you quoted from. You must have missed it in your haste to respond. If you take your extremism to Libertaria, you will find that you are crippling only yourself. By insisted that not even a molecule of pollution waft your way, you will be hauled into arbitration the moment you exhale. When you are then removed from the society, more reasonable people will prevail. I didn’t miss it; it’s nonresponsive to the question. I’m not talking about unreasonable people who insist that “not even a molecule of pollution waft [their] way.” I’m asking how you determine an acceptable level of pollution. At what point is a factory’s pollution level coercive or constitutive of trespassing/vandalism? Is it okay if people are exposed to 10 parts per million of benzene? What about 1 part per million? Who makes this vital determination? What’s the standard? When the pollution level presents a significant risk to human health? When “the economic effects of the standard bear a reasonable relationship to the expected benefits?” _Industrial Union Dep’t v. American Petroleum Institute_, 448 U.S. 607, 667 (1980) Who decides? It’s not a black and white issue, **Lib**. This isn’t Goldilocks–the choices aren’t simply “too little pollution,” “too much pollution,” and “just the right amount of pollution.” It’s a sliding scale–some level of pollution will have bad effects now, some level will have bad effects later, and some level will _probably_ have bad effects later, but we can’t say for sure. Which level do you choose? How do you choose? These kinds of questions are tackled by the EPA and OSHA nowadays. How would you replace them? How do you figure out the acceptably noncoercive ambient level of ozone? ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2002, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lighthouses-and-giant-squids-a-debate-about-libertarianism/144251/200 "2002-12-24T18:09:57Z")
> [@](#): > > By insisted that not even a molecule of pollution waft your way, you will be hauled into arbitration the moment you exhale. When you are then removed from the society, more reasonable people will prevail. I’m unclear about the arbitration process described here. On what basis can other people bring action against you because you’re unhappy with the level of pollution? How are you coercing them? And, more to the point, how is it that you may then be removed from society? Frankly, this scares me. As I said, the “zero molecules of pollution” demand is a fiction, but I can easily see me reasonably disagreeing with my polluting neighbor over their level of pollution. If they say that 50 parts per billion is an acceptable level of arsenic to be leaching into my water, and I say that anything higher than 10 parts per billion puts me at unreasonable risk of future harm, the arbitrator can _remove me from society_ if he thinks theirs is the more reasonable standard? Yee-ouch. I don’t like Libertaria at _all_. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lighthouses-and-giant-squids-a-debate-about-libertarianism/144251.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lighthouses-and-giant-squids-a-debate-about-libertarianism/144251.md?page=11)