[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]
Xeno wrote:
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.
Did these terms and conditions affect people who lived and worked elsewhere?
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?
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?
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.
How many of our 288 million are too poor to afford $3.50 a day? (Be sure to consider their before-tax income.)
Thanks. You made my day. 
Gadarene wrote:
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.
Gadarene wrote:
Well, sure.
But that’s true anyway of the 200 nations on earth. Why is it disastrous when hypothesized, but tolerable when actual?
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?
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.
I thought Y was dead. 
Of course. He did pay. (Or will that change now? ;))
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!
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.
Oops. Gadarene had more:
And yet it works! How can that be? (US, Cuba, NK).
When did you become an adult, and how old are you now?
How?
Sure, you do. Because you wrote…
How many legal jurisdictions are there in, say, the United States?
Djbdjb wrote:
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.
Mighty Maximino wrote:
No. Not unless the property was stolen from its citizens.
Moot.
Yes.
No.
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.
Czarcasm wrote:
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.
I’m not familiar enough with that to answer you.
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.
Not unless you’re talking about private arbitration to which both parties having willingly consented.
In the Libertaria that I prefer, the arbiters are democratically elected.
Well, arbiters are agents of government. But for private arbitration, I guess it would depend on the terms that people agree to.
If nothing else, we agree on that!
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.
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.
Riboflavin wrote:
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.
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.
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.
Stricker van Gogh wrote:
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.
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
PS: And a have a great and merry Christmas, Lib!
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.
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?
(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.
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.
Lib:
You missed my post about economic coercion from yesterday. Let me repost it:
I’d said:
Lib replied:
My response:
Given your assertion that a threat is coercive force, I’m particularly interested in your take on this.
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.
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?
Me:
Lib:
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?
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.