Of course, all this is assuming that as an ordinary citizen I have access to enough information and equipment that I can determine what I think an acceptable level of arsenic would be and then check to see if my neighbor is exceeding that level.
Which reminds me of the old joke about the economist trapped on the desert island:
Me:
Lib:
Begging the question. Really. How does a threat constitute “force”?
And if you meant to say that coercion is any initial action such that a person is compelled into nonvolition, then good. I’m glad you agree with me about economic coercion.
Lib, you’re frustrating sometimes. Given that my premise is that he is a threat to me, that clearly wasn’t the distinction I was drawing. I was countering your supposition that he was issuing a clear extortive threat: “give me your money or I’ll kill you.” Rather, he’s just a crazy guy who is foreseeably a danger to others, but who hasn’t harmed anyone yet. You’re saying you may take him to arbitration in that case, even though no force has been initiated?
Me:
Lib:
Your glibness is unbecoming and a bit smarmy. Those are three specific circumstances in which the foreseeability of the potential assassin killing the president is greater and greater. Let me put it this way: The Secret Service sees a man pointing a rifle at the president from the schoolbook depository. Are they justified in using force to subdue him before he’s fired a shot?
How long, on average, do you envision an arbitration lasting? Is this something that would be concluded in an hour or so, or would it take longer? Let’s say the president hears that some guy is threatening to kill him and brings the matter to arbitration? How lengthy is the arbitration process, start to finish?
Tell me if the following statement is by definition true: ______ is coercive if it compels you to act against your will.
Me:
Lib:
Assuming facts not in evidence. He’s not on your property. He’s on his own, and yours is adjacent.
n.b. “him,” Lib. Him.
That’s a good one. I like this one: two economists are walking down the street. One notices a $20 bill on the ground and exclaims, “Hey! There’s a twenty dollar bill on the ground.” To which the second economist replies, “It couldn’t be. If it were, someone would have picked it up already.”
http://flag.blackened.net/intanark/faq/index.html
Um, unfortunately this site commits the No True Scotsman Fallacy. For info on anarchism from a credible source try this FAQ.
Me:
Lib:
In other words, they must wait until one of their children is hurt or killed before taking action against the man. Fine.
Could the parents argue that the presence of the trap on the man’s property is coercive because it forces them to keep an eye on their children every second of the day? Have you heard of an attractive nuisance?
From that link:
The doctrine imposes upon the property owner either the duty to take precautions that are reasonable in light of the normal behavior of young children–a much higher degree of care than required toward adults–or the same care as that owed to “invitees”–a higher standard than required toward uninvited, casual visitors (licensees).
So unless the man invites the children on his property–even knowing “the normal behavior of young children”–he bears no liability?
Ohferfucksake. You’re not that obtuse; you’re really not. It doesn’t have to be a bear trap. It could be an empty pool. It could be an old refrigerator in his backyard.
So let me ask my question again, omitting reference to the pesky bear trap (for, while I appreciated your research into the laws of traps, it was completely irrelevant to the point I was making):
Here, under the boot of statist tyranny, we have laws that deal with unusually dangerous things–like an empty pool or an old refrigerator or what have you. 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?
That is a reasonable ethic. I’m not sure it defines libertarianism. I would think that most -isms claim this to be their goal. Hell, I bet even Pol Pot thought he was making the world a better place. Indeed, I would imagine that quite a few people would say that the current U.S. political & economic system is a fairly good approximation to such an ethic.
For future reference:
Any policy debate rests on four basic arguments, they’re called Stock Arguments. They are harm, inherency, plan, solvency. One must show that the status quo is causing a harm and that, absent the plan, the harm will not go away. Then a plan must be offered, and it must not cause greater harm than the status quo. Finally, the plan must solve the problem.
Although building your case on the necessary stock arguments would make your OP quite long, it would make the discussion more coherent and meaningful. That’s not to say that in its current form it isn’t fun, interesting, or rewarding. Just a heads up.
That definition of ‘excessive force’ is worthless; any force qualifies as excessive force under it (pick some non-use-of-force for the ‘some other force’). Please provide a meaningful definition of excessive force, one that can be used by someone other than you to determine whether a given use of force was excessive.
I don’t see this in your definition of coercion or in the definitions of various types of force you listed above. Please detail for us how you arrived at the conclusion above starting from your one law of Libertaria and the definitions of the terms that you have provided. Also, I am not clear on how one determines what is ‘more force than neccessary to get it back’ - where is the objective standard for determining this in one of the definitions of the terms in the one law of Libertaria?
That contradicts what you earlier said. If I really have the right to decide for myself what is reasonable force by only consenting to be arbitrated by a government of my choice, then Libertaria has no right to determine whether the force I used defending myself against a consenter to Libertaria was ‘excessive’; only the government I choose should make such determinations. So, which is it - do I get to pick which definition of reasonableness to use, or does initiation of force by a citizen of Libertaria cause me to be governed by Libertaria without my consent?
The point is that the choice is not mine according to what you’ve said in this thread. Libertaria does not govern me only by my consent if initiation of force by a citizen of Libertaria subjects me to Libertaria’s laws.
Note that this is not some kind of giant intelligent squid example, it’s a fundamental problem with ‘government only by consent of the governed’.
Me:
Lib:
How is that not exactly the same question I answered last time around? These arbitration systems will be interacting on a daily basis in a way that national judicial systems do not–especially in litigating the same sets of facts with the same parties in different forums under different rules. That almost never happens today; it would happen all the time (every time you have a claim and counterclaim) in Libertaria’s system.
Because the situation I posit could occur any time citizens of different contractual governments–who’ll likely be living in close proximity–get into any altercation whatsoever. What the hell does Osama bin Laden have to do with anything?
Once again: show me how my hypotheticals are tortured and implausible to any degree, let alone the in extremis vision you paint? I’ve stayed far away from giant squids.
Me:
Lib:
Y’s decedents on behalf of Y’s estate. But last time I introduced them into it, you were confused the other way. Mind answering the question about the market for victim-friendly arbitration systems?
Me:
Lib:
If this is the case, then why were you quibbling over my saying that Y would be recompensed? Would “avenged” have been a better word?
Me:
Lib:
If you don’t think people would need attorneys to argue their side during an arbitration–especially under the ambiguity that is The One Law, you’re seriously blindered.
And amend my interjection above to “I can’t even imagine what it would be like in Libertaria if corporate CEOs were to sue and countersue each other for fraud!” Meaning murder is peanuts when it comes to the paperwork and resources etc. that would potentially be duplicated by different courts litigating different claims involving the same parties and the same set of facts.
Me:
Lib:
I absolutely answered that question. The fact pattern took place on North Korean property; action would be brought in North Korean court subject to North Korean law. Not tangled at all.
You’re begging for that Anatole France quote, aren’t you? 
I didn’t ask if there was any extra cost to the poor. In a simple action involving a single claim and a single counterclaim, a person is required to pay for arbitration in two different courts. Will this take a greater proportion of the resources of a rich man or a poor man? Especially when counsel is not guaranteed?
Me:
Lib:
Um…because real-life intranational rules bear no relation to your arbitration spaghetti factory. I’ll ask again: how are those circumstances exceptional?
Counting from age of majority, I’ve spent sixteen percent of my adult life in law school so far. It’ll be thirty percent when I get done, which percentage will decline from there. By the time I’m fifty, my time attending law school will have constituted nine percent of my life. My time in the bathroom probably will have constituted more.
Also, I take about twelve credits a semester. Let’s say that for every hour I spend in class, I spend two outside of class (almost certainly an overestimate). So in a given week, thirty-six of my waking hours are spent on law school related stuff. So–quick calculations–when in law school, I’m spending thirty-two percent of my waking time studying law. Meaning that since I’ve become an adult, roughly five percent of my time has been devoted to actually studying law. A good chunk indeed.
Why were we talking about this? The point is that law school’s not as you paint it.
Me:
Lib:
How? Repeal the portions of the criminal code prohibiting prostitution and the use of marijuana. Repeal the restrictions on wearing seatbelts while driving. Do it piecemeal. Get specific popular consent on each of the measures you propose. What’s wrong with that?
Lib:
Several. Rarely if ever do different courts litigate different claims regarding the same parties and the same set of facts. The system’s deliberately set up that way.
FF:
I’d be interested in Lib’s answers to your questions.
Me too.
And Lib, apologies for any snarkiness in my tone. It’s not meant personally, and I hope you know that.
That’s really good!
Okay, I guess you’re right. I seem to want many of the same changes that the libertarians want, but I’m not really a libertarian. Maybe I’m a fellow traveler or something: a fellow traveller who would only go part of the way.
Come to that, so am I, Hazel. I know what you’re saying.
That Anatole France quote, by the way:
Heh.
Fenris wrote:
Conflict can lead to confrontation sometimes, if that’s what you’re getting at, but it doesn’t need to. My religious beliefs conflict with my neighbor’s, but we get along. My sexual preference conflicts with Esprix’s, but I stand as his champion, ready to defend him if he is attacked. My local government’s laws conflict in some ways with those of a neighboring town that I often visit, but we’ve never fought a war.
You might say that that’s different because those entities don’t have (or at least are not allowed) the sort of sovereignty that is allowed by federal-level government. And yet, there are nations that trade peacefully with other nations whose ways conflict.
Moreover, difference in ways is not the only root of conflict. There are people whose ways are very similar, but they fight nonetheless. And this can happen among nations, too. The Soviet Union and Red China were arch enemies even though they both were based on communist ideology. True, they interpreted communism differently, but even that difference never led to war between them.
Once again, I do not believe that everyone in Libertaria will be peaceful and honest, let alone perfect. If I believed that, then I would join Chumpsky in advocating anarchy. The whole point of government is to suppress coercion and facilitate peace and honesty since people might naturally be coercive.
Let me start from ground zero. Suppose there is no government at all, and you are defrauded by Mr. Smith. Assuming you are not a pacifist who is willing to be a throw rug, what will you do? Will you not insist on your rights? Will you not want what was stolen from you by fraud restored?
Even more to the point, are you concerned about Mr. Smith? Are you reasoning that he must have had an unhappy childhood, and that therefore the devil made him defraud you? He couldn’t help himself, and so you should understand his plight? Probably not.
In all likelihood, you are wrangling with mixed emotions. On the one hand, as a compassionate person, you might have some sympathy for Mr. Smith. But on the other hand, as a man with responsibilities and a good sense of stewardship, you understand at the core that what he did was not right, and that you should be made whole.
What do you do? If he is weaker than you, both mentally and physically, then you can march into his home and trick him or forcibly take your property back. You rightly reason that he has forfeited his own rights in abridging yours.
But in all likelihood, he is not weaker than you mentally. Otherwise, you should have seen through his con game. So it is not likely that you will be able to trick him to get back your property. And there is a good chance that he is stronger than you physically. Otherwise, without any government to protect people’s rights, he might likely have sized up the circumstances in accordance with the principles of Sun Tzu — you little, me big, you lose.
Now, suppose that you had another recourse when Mr. Smith defrauded you. Suppose you had an entire army at your disposal, one in which you have invested your money and your consent. Suppose you had an agreement with that army that when you are defrauded, it will retaliate on your behalf.
The situation changes drastically in at least two ways: (1) Mr. Smith is much less likely to defraud you since your army’s guns are a mighty disincentive, and (2) you are in an excellent position to respond if he does defraud you.
But what if Mr. Smith also has an army at his disposal? Well, that matters if — and only if — Mr. Smith’s army is both (1) the sort that will disregard ethics, and (2) is stronger than yours. In other words, his army must be willing to fight on his behalf even when he is the one who has initiated force or fraud, and it must be capable of defeating yours.
Now, if those things both hold, then there is no circumstance in which you will ever retrieve your property short of Divine interference or blind luck. But that is true anyway, even in the real world. If you are a Kuwaiti who happens to be defrauded by an Iraqi, do not expect Saddam Hussein to recompense you of his own free will.
Thus, so long as you are governed (read: protected) by a sufficiently powerful force, then it makes no difference what Mr. Smith wants — arbitration by a private party or no arbitration at all. All that matters is what you want. You are the victim. And you have the ethical entitlement to use whatever means necessary to restore your being.
Call upon your government, and leave Mr. Smith to do whatever he will. If your government is ethical, it will make every attempt to restore you. If his is ethical, it will make no attempt to stop responsive force against Mr. Smith. (Remember that ethical government guarantees freedom from coercion only, and that coercion is initial force.)
Forget about Mr. Smith’s concerns, and consider whether you would rather have a government who will mass troops on the border when you are flim-flammed by a Mexican cop on the take and held in jail, or whether you would rather have one that will tip-toe daintily while your family pleads to a deaf bureaucracy for help.
Think carefully. It’s awfully bleak in those prisons.
And finally, these.
People who are incapable of giving meaningful consent are the responsibility of their parents or guardians. If they initiate no force, they are of no concern to Libertaria’s government. But if they do, then their consentors by proxy are held accountable.
In Libertaria, parenting is a very serious responsibility, and if you decide to risk the coercion of creating a life, then you must accept the risk that a daunting responsibility might ensue. (There is a previous post in here somewhere that goes into more detail about the parent-child unary contract and how producing a child is itself a coercive, though mitigated, act.)
You risk that your child might never become a “legal adult”, defined in Libertaria as a person who is capable of giving meaningful consent. In that case, you are responsible for him his whole life, and if you die, then his subsequent guardian is responsible. No one else is obligated to rescue you from the consequences of your free and willful decision.
Does that sound severe? Yes, it does. Is it fair? In my opinion, it is. Why should you be burdened if I decide to give no more thought to producing a child than I do to buying a new car? Place upon me, not you, the burden of my own decisions.
Thank you.
Unfortunately, this is the end of it. I won’t be able to spend several consecutive hours posting for at least the next several weeks. I will have to participate on a much more part-time basis, visiting various threads where I don’t have to tackle quite so much opposition, or where I care much less.
I put off several days of work in order to host this thread, and now it is critical that I catch up. My goals were these: to explicate the libertarian philosophy’s essential underlying ethic; to show that libertarianism, while not necessarily the preference of everyone, is at least defensible; and to demonstrate that I myself have matured enough that I can discuss the matter with dispassionate exposition.
In the course of, what, twenty years or more of study, I’ve pretty much seen all the questions and heard all the protests. I’m not a foolish man. I hear what protestors say. And yet my own Libertarian leanings, entertwined as they are with my other worldviews of Christianity and Objectivism, are as rock solid as ever. Why? Because they are meaningful, practical, and appropriate to me.
Do not misunderstand when I say that I have heard it all. That is not to say that I have learned nothing from you people. Nor is it to say that, upon presentation of some new and compelling argument, I will not change my mind. I believe that I have demonstrated time and again that, in fact, I will concede an argument and acknowledge error. Examples on this board alone are numerous if anyone cares to hunt them down. I no longer insist, for example, that .99999… is not equal to 1. I no longer hold that a negative cannot be proved. And I no longer believe that atheists are incapable of establishing a reasonable morality. And there are many more.
God go with all of you, and if you wish to continue debating among one another, that’s fine. (Perhaps you might like to play devil’s advocate and argue the libertarian case. :)) Otherwise, the thread can sink and let other, probably more generally popular topics rise to the top.
Thanks to everyone who participated in the discussion. Kudos all around for exemplary debating skills and rhetorical temperament.
Merry Christmas, Lib. You did very, very well.
Thanks, Libertarian. And have a Merry Christmas.
Gaderene, I think this answers my questions to my satisfaction (for the moment, at least [I seem incapable of non-qualification these days]:
Well…I can’t say I’m not disappointed that you never responded to my post about economic coercion, Lib, since I’d asked you several times to do so.
And I’ll probably start a few OPs with some of the more recent posts of mine that you won’t be answering.
But it was a good debate. (If not a great debate. 
) Thanks for the time you took on this thread; it was appreciated.
(FF, I’ll respond next post.)