# 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:** 8
**Author:** ![Hazel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e56c9b/32.png) [@Hazel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hazel)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2002, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lighthouses-and-giant-squids-a-debate-about-libertarianism/144251/141 "2002-12-23T19:25:21Z")
Gadarene, I think you were asking me to define “force” and “fraud”. I don’t see the need. I’m not proposing to change the existing definitions of such things as theft, murder, fraud, etc. The US has a lot of laws. When I am put in charge (when IS America going to realize that I should be in charge!?), I’ll retain some of these laws, I’ll modify some of them, and I’ll repeal some of them. I’ll probably pass some new laws, too. We already have laws against force and fraud. I’ll leave them in place. Why do I need to define anything? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2002, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lighthouses-and-giant-squids-a-debate-about-libertarianism/144251/142 "2002-12-23T19:26:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by gex gex \* > \*\*\*\*Libertarian/b], you didn’t answer my question. Or maybe you did, and you just didn’t answer the question that I asked. Anyway, I’ll try again. > > Bob The Child Pornographer (BCP) does not give his consent to be governed by anyone. He has 4 children. He forces his kids to pose for child porn. He then goes to New York and sells the pictures to those who have consented to be governed/contracted the protection of the Libertaria of New York (LNY). > > How does LNY react to BCP’s activities? How does LNY react to those buying BCP’s child porn? \*\* Since LNY has no jurisdiction over Bob, it has no authority to protect his children any more than the United States would have the authority to protect Bob’s children if he lived in Paraguay. The people who purchased the pictures Bob peddled are a different matter, however. The property that they possess is fraudulently produced and obtained, since the children did not give (and could not possibly give) consent that they be taken and distributed. It is not a matter that consent was required from LNY, but from the self-governing children (again, impossible). It is no different from the principle that robbing an old lady in LLA (Libertaria of Los Angeles) has not made you the new owner of her goods. You’re just a thief. If you are a citizen of LNY, then you may expect your fellow citizens to be peaceful and honest. Traffickers in fraud and possessors of bootleg goods seized by coercion are not honest. You may bring charges of coercion against those who possess and traffick Bob’s pictures. And if you won’t, I will. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2002, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lighthouses-and-giant-squids-a-debate-about-libertarianism/144251/143 "2002-12-23T19:29:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by KidCharlemagne \* > \*\*I don’t quite follow. I know deontic reasoning deals with obligations and permissions and is often used in debates about social issues but I’m not sure how it applies here. I can see that your inundated but If you get the chance can you explain? \*\* Thanks for recognizing my inundation! 🙂 For that alone, I’m happy to respond. The deontic assertion is that people _ought_ to be free to pursue their own happiness in their own way, not that that _are in actuality_ free to do so. Deontics applies here because the assertion is phrased deontically. Naturally, no one is dealing with that assertion. But still, there it is, right there in the OP. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2002, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lighthouses-and-giant-squids-a-debate-about-libertarianism/144251/144 "2002-12-23T19:35:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Gadarene \* > \*\ ***Lib:** > It does concern me, actually, because my welfare is in some manner tied to yours–especially in the longer term. What’s more, as the term gets longer and the goals broader, our self-interests converge: we both want a long, happy life; we both want to be secure in our homes; we both want our children to grow up being able to breathe the air outside. > > It’s no radical notion to say that our short-term self-interests often conflict with long-term self-interests. If I have that double bacon cheeseburger I’m craving today, it increases the chance of a future heart attack shortening my life. If, as a factory owner, I pollute because it’s cheaper to do so (and I’d rather have those extra profits in my pocket right now), the world’ll be dirtier later on. > > My point is that both short-term interests and long-term interests are, strictly speaking, rational–there’s nothing bad or wrong about someone who doesn’t look to the future…or who _only_ looks to the future. But as a society our individual actions, in aggregate, affect everyone–and there has to be **some** balance of foresight among the self-interested acts. That’s one of the functions of our tyrannical government (and honestly, could you stop calling it that? as highly sensitive as you are about perceived slights to libertarianism, you’d think you’d use less loaded language)–to ensure that long-term goals are being looked after. > > This is one of my bottom-line objections to your form of libertarianism: There’re only so many hours in the day, and my need to provide for myself in the immediate sense (working and eating) takes precedence over devoting myself to the longer term. I like knowing that there’s an infrastructure at least ostensibly devoted to (and accountable for) maintaining the larger societal necessities: an educated, engaged populace; a well-trained, responsive police force; a clean environment… \*\* You can eat your cheeseburgers all you want, but when you’re sick, don’t expect me to pay your doctor bill. But you cannot pollute my property even in the short term. That would be vandalism, and is no different than if you slung sewage onto my house. With respect to the aggregation of actions, it is the contention of libertarianism that people may be forced to be peaceful and honest, but beyond that their actions should be whatever makes them happy. People often complain that I speak about this abstract entity called Libertaria, and yet they speak of one called society. Society is not a rights bearing entity. It does not breathe. It was not born with a life, a mind, and a body. It doesn’t think. It doesn’t bleed. It doesn’t sweat, or yearn, or desire happiness. Just because a thing is anthropomorphised does not mean that it is human. ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2002, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lighthouses-and-giant-squids-a-debate-about-libertarianism/144251/145 "2002-12-23T19:38:19Z")
[Side note: **Lib** , could you address my post to **Neurotik** on page 2? The one I made at 7:19 EST yesterday evening? Thanks.] About competing arbitrators, I said: > [@](#): > > The difference is in complexity. Because different contracting governments will have different arbitration systems (correct?), you’re essentially substituting a pluralist system for our current federalist one. Which of these arbitration systems would decide whether a given act is coercive or not? **Lib** responded: > [@](#): > > Your premise might be suspect. There are roughly 200 nations on earth, each claiming independent sovereignty. Why hasn’t civilization as we know it ended? Whoa there, sparky. 🙂 First, show me where I predict anything like civilization as we know it ending. No need to take your opponents’ arguments into straw-man land. Second, the differing judicial systems of sovereign nations do not implicate each other in this way for one simple reason: territory. The Libertaria you propose, as you’ve mentioned many times, is unlike traditional city-states in part because the multifarious contractual schemes you envision arising out of the new context do not adhere to territorial boundaries. Kind of like the non-territorial federalism of–is it Switzerland? The Netherlands? So I could be governed by one contractual entity; my next-door neighbor could be governed by another; his neighbor governed by yet another; and the neighbor after that governed by the one by which _I’m_ governed. There’s no neat territorial division between the governments. That’s why there’s such an escalation of complexity. My fact pattern (questions underlined, **Lib’s** response in bold: _X kills Y in the apartment of landlord Z. X claims self-defense. X contracts with Arbitration R Us, Y’s decedents contract with Quis Iudicabit, and Z’s real property is governed under Z’s contract with 2 4 6 8 Arbitrate._ 1. In what court is the action for murder against X brought? **In whichever court was holding the consent of the victim, Y, which you have not specified.** Oh, wow. A bunch of things here. First, if jurisdiction depends on whose rights have been violated, then by calling Y the victim you’re already assuming a whole bunch of facts that actually need to be determined. Say Y’s arbitration system, as a matter of law, only considers self-defense claims where the actual incident is videotaped by a third party; otherwise, the arbitrators assume no self-defense occurred (cause it might be a tough thing to show–especially without juries, about which more below). By sending this dispute to Y’s court, you’ve already assured the outcome–no matter how clear it is, if you look at the facts, that X only responded to Y’s initiation of force. Second, we can assume that Y’s decedents contract with Y’s arbitrator in their capacity as Y’s decedents. Which raises another question: If Y is killed and has no provision that action may be brought by his decedents–or _possesses_ no decedents–will Y’s contracting government pursue the action itself? That is, is there a distinction between criminal and civil violations of the non-coercion principle? Third, and a follow-up: So action is brought in Y’s court because Y’s rights have been abridged by the murder. May Y’s decedents simultaneously bring an action in _their_ court for wrongful death? Have their rights been violated as well, since through the (apparent) initiation of force they have been damaged by the loss of a close friend or relative? 1. X is injured in the fight with Y, and asks for arbitration to recover from Y’s estate the cost of his damaged bridgework. In what court is that action brought? **Arbitration R Us** _Now_ d’you see why I’m calling your system complex? Two claims arising out of the same transaction or occurrence (Civ Pro flashbacks), and they’re being brought in two different courts under two different bodies of law. And when Z is brought in, that’s a third court. All of the administrative paperwork is duplicated (or triplicated, or worse), all the manhours–hell, all the costs! In a “fee-for” system like Libertaria this is _especially_ problematic. You still have to stump for the initial costs of defending a suit, right? Tell me again how this doesn’t place a greater burden on the poor than our system today? Remember _Gideon v. Wainwright_? One of the wonderful things about our present judicial system is how claims and counterclaims have become increasingly streamlined and consolidated. All claims arising from one transaction or occurrence will be brought in one action–or at most two, if there are civil and criminal claims. Your explosion of different arbitrators would blow this to smithereens. So impractical it makes my head hurt thinking about it. > [@](#): > > What I said was that the arbitration aspect of a libertarian utopia differs very little from the process in the current context with respect to whether insufficiently peaceful and honest people may be easily identified. I disagree. We’ve got laws that go into greater specificity than “initiation of force or fraud” when determining when someone is not peaceful or honest. We’ve got a single federal system under which claims are governed, with volumes of attendant caselaw speaking to almost every legal contingency. We’ve got, in most cases, the guarantee of a jury trial whereby the facts needed to determine peacefulness and honesty can be agreed upon. > [@](#): > > That said, I would be interested in your take on a similar fact pattern: X kills Y in the apartment of landlord Z. X claims self-defense. X is a citizen of the United States, Y’s decedents are citizens of Cuba, and Z’s real property is governed under Z’s citizenship with North Korea. > > What are the answers to the questions you listed? My answer is that I don’t know enough about North Korean law _to_ answer. In that hypothetical, the citizenships of X and Y are completely irrelevant, since the murder takes place in North Korea; to the extent that it matters that they are foreign nationals, then the case may be governed by international law, about which I _also_ know too little. 🙂 The difference, as I stated above, is that today’s laws are territorially based. And by the way, don’t think for a second that international law itself–cases where you really do have to choose between competing national forums–isn’t a sticky, blurry mess. It is. And I’d rather not mirror it in my local judiciary, if it’s all the same to you. 🙂 My question: > [@](#): > > Deciding whether X killed Y in self-defense necessarily involves a finding of facts. Are there (or can there be) juries in Libertaria’s arbitration scheme? **Lib** : > [@](#): > > Not in Libertaria because of its law (“Every citizen shall be guaranteed freedom from coercion.”) Forcing people to be jurors would be coercive. Um… Are arbitrators responsible for finding the facts, then? ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2002, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lighthouses-and-giant-squids-a-debate-about-libertarianism/144251/146 "2002-12-23T19:45:29Z")
**Hazel** : I wasn’t asking you to define “force” or “fraud.” I was asking whether in your scheme–as in **Lib’s** –_only_ instances of force and fraud are proscribed. Because there’s a lot of nasty stuff out there–I named some–that can easily be characterized as neither force nor fraud. Is insider trading illegal in your framework? Is cruelty to animals? Is designing a defective product (whether through negligence or not)? Is knowingly creating attractive nuisances on your property? If yes to any of these, is it because they can be characterized as force or fraud, or because they’re something outside of force or fraud which should nevertheless be prohibited? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2002, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lighthouses-and-giant-squids-a-debate-about-libertarianism/144251/147 "2002-12-23T19:45:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Fenris \* > \*\*😃 > > I assimilate! > But I’m still unclear on one part: “Who gets to pick the arbiter?”. Am I understanding correctly that the arbiter is picked by the alleged victim? If so, I’m gonna set myself up as the most popular arbiter around, finding ONLY for the alleged victim. What recourse, if any, does the alleged perp have in that case? Does the government step in at some point? > > (And I’m terribly disappointed that you took the word of the Grannies over mine. I’m hurt. Truly. 😉 ) > And let’s tweak it a little: let’s say I have _also_ contracted with the government and I contend that the grannies are whacking me with friviolous lawsuits. Do I counter-sue for fraud (fake lawsuits)? And do _I_ then get to pick the arbiter, since I’m the victim of the Grannies cruel harassment? > > Fenris \*\* You don’t pick arbiters like you do tomatoes. You’ve consented to arbitration in general. When I say that so-and-so’s arbiter hears this or that, it is merely in keeping with the context of how the question is framed. People are positing tiny little Libertaria’s with populations of 5. But my Libertaria is a large country (lots of people like it!) and I get whatever arbiter has my docket. But with respect to your tweak, yes, you may charge the grannies with coercion if you believe that you have been falsely charged. That would be a fraud. ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2002, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lighthouses-and-giant-squids-a-debate-about-libertarianism/144251/148 "2002-12-23T19:48:17Z")
**Lib:** > [@](#): > > I wasn’t sure whether you were asking that of me or Hazel, so I will err on the side of not be accused of evasion. If the squatter refuses to leave by every kind of force that you have tried, from nicely asking to physical eviction, then yes, you may shoot him. I’d never accuse you of evasion, **Lib**. I’d say it much nicer than that. 🙂 In response to your response: But…the squatter hasn’t initiated force. At all. Not even through threats. How are you justified in shooting him? Or is the force he’s initiating the weight of his ass on your land? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2002, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lighthouses-and-giant-squids-a-debate-about-libertarianism/144251/149 "2002-12-23T19:57:21Z")
**Lib:** > [@](#): > > People who get themselves vaccinated will be protected from the diseases; people who don’t will risk infection. You can take this as my response to your dismissal of society-at-large as a concern, as well. I’m a factory owner. I’m looking to expand my operations, and need to hire one hundred new employees. Half the people who apply for the jobs were never educated; they can’t read or write at a sufficient level to be useful. The other half who apply for the jobs were never vaccinated. They’re too weak to work. I don’t have an acceptable pool of prospective employees. I can’t expand in the way that I’d like to. **It is in everyone’s interests that as many people as possible are educated, informed, healthy, civic-minded, and prosperous so that they may be good employees, consumers, citizens, and neighbors.** ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2002, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lighthouses-and-giant-squids-a-debate-about-libertarianism/144251/150 "2002-12-23T20:01:51Z")
> [@](#): > > Pollution is a form of trespass and vandalism, and is strictly prohibited in Libertaria. _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? ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2002, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lighthouses-and-giant-squids-a-debate-about-libertarianism/144251/151 "2002-12-23T20:03:05Z")
> [@](#): > > I think we need a law that prohibits coercions like trespass and vandalism. I think we have one. ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2002, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lighthouses-and-giant-squids-a-debate-about-libertarianism/144251/152 "2002-12-23T20:10:30Z")
**Lib** : > [@](#): > > That depends on what you mean by foreseeable. If he just frightens you because he is weird, then the problem is yours. But if he threatens you with harm, then the problem is his. Why? A threat is not an injury. > [@](#): > > Not necessarily. An explicit threat is a coercion. “Give me your money or your life,” is one example. That’s extortion. I’m talking a gibbering loon looking wildly about saying “I’ll kill you I’ll kill all of you dirty motherfuckers I’ll kill you.” Alternatively, I’m talking about someone saying, “I’m going to kill the President.” May we arrest him before he tries, in Libertaria? What if he says, “I’m going to kill the President next Wednesday”? What if he says it while purchasing a rifle? Why is an explicit threat of this sort a coercion? And if it is not, at what point does a plan to coerce become coercion? > [@](#): > > If he’s not demanding anything of you, then he’s just a nut. If he is using his knife to keep you off his property, he is behaving ethically. But if he is using his knife to reach over his property line and abridge your own rights and property (like your body for instance), then he is a coercer. Even if he’s not touching you with the knife? Even if he’s just waving it near you? > [@](#): > > Note that Dewey’s question was about a mental illness wherein the man is a danger to himself. I know; mine was a different question, thanks. ---
**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 23, 2002, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lighthouses-and-giant-squids-a-debate-about-libertarianism/144251/153 "2002-12-23T20:14:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > \*\*You don’t pick arbiters like you do tomatoes. You’ve consented to arbitration in general. When I say that so-and-so’s arbiter hears this or that, it is merely in keeping with the context of how the question is framed. People are positing tiny little Libertaria’s with populations of 5. But my Libertaria is a large country (lots of people like it!) and I get whatever arbiter has my docket. \*\* Ok, now I’m confused. Per L. Neil Smith (who much of my exposure to the theory and practice of Libertaria comes from) arbiters _are_ a private concern, not a government agency. In Smith’s books, he proposes private arbitration firms and both parties agree upon a mutually acceptable one. I think that’s unworkable. Are you suggesting government run arbitration? If so, no problem. If not, I don’t see how the mechanics of the system work and I’d appreciate further elaboration. Thanks! Fenris ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2002, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lighthouses-and-giant-squids-a-debate-about-libertarianism/144251/154 "2002-12-23T20:16:53Z")
I asked: > [@](#): > > Or what if someone in a residential neighborhood sets a bear trap on his lawn? Surely that doesn’t count as the initiation of force. Do his neighbors have to wait until one of their children or pets is caught in the trap before taking any action? **Lib** responded: > [@](#): > > I need clarification on your question. What were the neighbors doing allowing their children on the man’s property? Did the man invite the children? What were the circumstances? Due respect, but why does it matter? A man places an open bear trap on his lawn, a few feet from other people’s property. All his neighbors have small children and pets. An accident is foreseeable. Do the neighbors have to wait until a child is hurt or killed in the trap before taking action? (And yeah, I’m perfectly willing to stipulate that the child in question would be trespassing of his own volition. So the owner of the bear trap could bring an action against the dead child’s parents for that. Which brings me back to a question no one’s answered yet: whither negligence and strict liability in Libertaria? Here, under the boot of statist tyranny, we have laws that deal with unusually dangerous things–like a bear trap. These laws hold the owner of the dangerous thing strictly liable for any harm that befalls others as a result of the thing, even if the owner took reasonable care. I’m assuming this wouldn’t be the case in Libertaria?) ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2002, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lighthouses-and-giant-squids-a-debate-about-libertarianism/144251/155 "2002-12-23T20:18:33Z")
I’m leaving the ocean stuff for someone else…the dialogue has become inane and fruitless for both sides, I think. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2002, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lighthouses-and-giant-squids-a-debate-about-libertarianism/144251/156 "2002-12-23T20:20:30Z")
Gadarene wrote: > [@](#): > > [Side note: Lib, could you address my post to Neurotik on page 2? The one I made at 7:19 EST yesterday evening? Thanks.] Would you be a dear and repost it for me, please? I’m like one-against-twenty here, and it is all I can do to keep up. I will surely have missed something even though I’m trying not to, and someone will scream that I evaded or avoided them. Thanks for your consideration and understanding. > [@](#): > > Whoa there, sparky. First, show me where I predict anything like civilization as we know it ending. No need to take your opponents’ arguments into straw-man land. No strawman, merely a rhetorical exaggeration. There is the audiatur et altera pars underlying most anitlibertarian arguments that the application of libertarianism will necessarily result in instability. > [@](#): > > Second, the differing judicial systems of sovereign nations do not implicate each other in this way for one simple reason: territory. The Libertaria you propose, as you’ve mentioned many times, is unlike traditional city-states in part because the multifarious contractual schemes you envision arising out of the new context do not adhere to territorial boundaries. Kind of like the non-territorial federalism of–is it Switzerland? The Netherlands? So I could be governed by one contractual entity; my next-door neighbor could be governed by another; his neighbor governed by yet another; and the neighbor after that governed by the one by which I’m governed. There’s no neat territorial division between the governments. That’s why there’s such an escalation of complexity. Yes, but that’s because I entertain and allow argumentum in extremus. It is remotely _conceivable_ the libertarian cultures could evolve in that way, but I don’t believe they would. People will naturally assemble and gravitate together for common purposes, particularly if the market is free and noncoercive. An actual Libertaria will in all likelihood be comprised of contiguous land. But I have been told before that, for libertarianism to be “practical”, it must work in the most extreme cases (although it is seldom allowed that such failure indicts a non-libertarian system). Even then, though, the government does not claim ownership of your land or that of your fellow citizens. That’s not its business and frankly it is not set up to administer land stewardship. There’s no diplomacy. No immigration laws. That sort of thing. > [@](#): > > Oh, wow. A bunch of things here. First, if jurisdiction depends on whose rights have been violated, then by calling Y the victim you’re already assuming a whole bunch of facts that actually need to be determined. Say Y’s arbitration system, as a matter of law, only considers self-defense claims where the actual incident is videotaped by a third party; otherwise, the arbitrators assume no self-defense occurred (cause it might be a tough thing to show–especially without juries, about which more below). By sending this dispute to Y’s court, you’ve already assured the outcome–no matter how clear it is, if you look at the facts, that X only responded to Y’s initiation of force. Fascination. Your “simple fact pattern” is quickly morphing into the Gordian Knot from Hell. 😃 To govern means to protect. You said Y was killed. So Y’s government is the government that is concerned. It must use whatever means it promised to use, requiring whatever proof it promised to require, to do whatever it promised to do — which, if it is libertarian, we can assume was to retaliate against Y’s aggressor(s). And for the record, it is you, not I, who assume the outcome, since it is you, not I, who amended the fact pattern in order to assure it. I can simply respond that Y was a fool to consent to be governed by such an anal government, and modify certain parts of the hypothetical myself. If you get to, I get to. 😉 > [@](#): > > Second, we can assume that Y’s decedents contract with Y’s arbitrator in their capacity as Y’s decedents. Which raises another question: If Y is killed and has no provision that action may be brought by his decedents–or possesses no decedents–will Y’s contracting government pursue the action itself? That is, is there a distinction between criminal and civil violations of the non-coercion principle? An excellent question! No, there aren’t. Coercion and crime are synonyms. > [@](#): > > Third, and a follow-up: So action is brought in Y’s court because Y’s rights have been abridged by the murder. May Y’s decedents simultaneously bring an action in their court for wrongful death? Have their rights been violated as well, since through the (apparent) initiation of force they have been damaged by the loss of a close friend or relative? They may bring charges of coercion if they believe that their rights (or property) have been damaged. But not otherwise. > [@](#): > > Now d’you see why I’m calling your system complex? Two claims arising out of the same transaction or occurrence (Civ Pro flashbacks), and they’re being brought in two different courts under two different bodies of law. And when Z is brought in, that’s a third court. All of the administrative paperwork is duplicated (or triplicated, or worse), all the manhours–hell, all the costs! In a “fee-for” system like Libertaria this is especially problematic. You still have to stump for the initial costs of defending a suit, right? Tell me again how this doesn’t place a greater burden on the poor than our system today? Remember Gideon v. Wainwright? You can’t measure justice by convenience, at least not ethically. But you’re mixing up the metaphors here. The cases are brought in separate governmental systems. There is no triplication because each action is different. And they aren’t very complicated. They are all charges of coercion. > [@](#): > > One of the wonderful things about our present judicial system is how claims and counterclaims have become increasingly streamlined and consolidated. All claims arising from one transaction or occurrence will be brought in one action–or at most two, if there are civil and criminal claims. Your explosion of different arbitrators would blow this to smithereens. So impractical it makes my head hurt thinking about it. What is practical depends on what you are practicing. If you are practicing streamlining for the sake of expedience, then you are rendering justice itself impractical. And when that has been accomplished, we may just as well throw in the collective towel. But again, you’ve posited an argumentum ad extremus wherein you have pulled together the most exceptional circumstances possible with multiple overlapping jurisdictions, and even _still_ the concept of who is beholden to whom about what is not hard to grasp. > [@](#): > > I disagree. We’ve got laws that go into greater specificity than “initiation of force or fraud” when determining when someone is not peaceful or honest. We’ve got a single federal system under which claims are governed, with volumes of attendant caselaw speaking to almost every legal contingency. We’ve got, in most cases, the guarantee of a jury trial whereby the facts needed to determine peacefulness and honesty can be agreed upon. But you don’t _base_ your laws on peace on honesty. That’s why you have literally millions of them, and why a brand new attorney has spent a good chunk of his adult life just learning the most elementary aspects of them. Your system often couldn’t care less about peace and honesty, and I don’t mean that with any disrespect, it’s just that they are based on superior knowledge; i.e., I know what’s best for you better than you do. Therefore, you may not grow, sell, or smoke pot. You may not exchange a blow job for money. You may not hold a sweepstakes that is a gamble. Your rail straps must conform to my specifications whether they will fit your rails or not. The medicine you need must meet my approval even if it takes ten years and you die first. You must wear a seat belt because if you get hurt, I’ll make all the other people pay for it. And you may not marry your lover because you are both the same sex. And on. And on. And on. And on… There are a bazillion prohibitions and regulations that have nothing to do with either peace of honesty. > [@](#): > > And by the way, don’t think for a second that international law itself–cases where you really do have to choose between competing national forums–isn’t a sticky, blurry mess. It is. And I’d rather not mirror it in my local judiciary, if it’s all the same to you. And yet you do not blush at asking me to mirror mine! 😃 > [@](#): > > Um… Are arbitrators responsible for finding the facts, then? Yes. ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2002, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lighthouses-and-giant-squids-a-debate-about-libertarianism/144251/157 "2002-12-23T20:21:32Z")
> [@](#): > > I would appreciate your spelling out what you believe to be abuses since you know them off-hand, rather than asking me to plow through entire websites to find them. 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. 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. > [@](#): > > That said, I’m not sure what it is you want exactly. If as you say there existed a context in which the workers could assemble freely, bargain collectively, shut down company operations by refusing to work, establish competition in peace, and seize back their property that was stolen — what more can even government do than that? 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. > [@](#): > > It is hard for me to understand how a complete loss of income source with no bailout by government and no ability to stop an entrepreneur from securing investment capital to open a competing company that treats workers decently has no effect. One day, the mine owner is a wealthy fop; the next he is a desparado in a ghost town looking down the road at his thriving competitor. How does he continue to prosper? 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. > [@](#): > > Was there not among them even _one_ person to whom the thought occurred that, “Hey! If I opened a shit shoveling service, it would be better than this.”? 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. > [@](#): > > Why [would a contracted gov’t limited to the non-coercion principle be more beholden to and dependent on those with the most property]? Government’s income is the same from them all. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2002, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lighthouses-and-giant-squids-a-debate-about-libertarianism/144251/158 "2002-12-23T20:29:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Gadarene \* > \*\ ***Lib:** > I’d never accuse you of evasion, **Lib**. I’d say it much nicer than that. 🙂 > > In response to your response: But…the squatter hasn’t initiated force. At all. Not even through threats. How are you justified in shooting him? > > Or is the force he’s initiating the weight of his ass on your land? 🙂 \*\* It looks like you’ve missed out on discussion about the most basic and essential elements of libertarianism. Rather than ask you to search them out, I’ll encapsulate them for you here. But I warn you that (especially if you are predisposed with nonlibertarian assumptions and presumptions) they might sound a bit strange out of context. You are defined by your property. You are your life, your mind, your body, and all other property that you have acquired peacefully and honestly using your life, your mind, and your body. If you have created something with your mind, like a poem, for example, it is yours and is a part of you. If you have bought something with money earned by the toil and labor of your body or mind, then what you have bought is a part of your rights. If you have exchanged something that you own for something else, then you have redefined what you are. In libertarianism, rights and property are synonyms, and rights accrue to property ownership. Thus, a man who is squatting on your land is usurping your rights. He is claiming as his own that which you ethically possess and that to which you are ethically entitled. It is no different than if he were squatting on your head. ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2002, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lighthouses-and-giant-squids-a-debate-about-libertarianism/144251/159 "2002-12-23T20:33:22Z")
**Lib:** > [@](#): > > Name me a nonprofitable “public good” that concerns you, and I’ll hypothesize how it might come to be established. Me: > [@](#): > > Air. **Lib:** > [@](#): > > Compression. Me: 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? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2002, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lighthouses-and-giant-squids-a-debate-about-libertarianism/144251/160 "2002-12-23T20:33:46Z")
I’m going to break off again. No, not because I’m abandoning the debate, and not because I’m evading anything, and not because I fear I might see a question that will shake my “faith in libertarianism”. I’ve just been at this for 3-1/2 hours, and it’s still piling up. I want to see some other threads and spend some time with my wife. Later. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lighthouses-and-giant-squids-a-debate-about-libertarianism/144251.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lighthouses-and-giant-squids-a-debate-about-libertarianism/144251.md?page=9)