Lighthouses and Giant Squids: A Debate about Libertarianism

[Fenris]

*Originally posted by Gadarene *
**Dewey: I hope Lib doesn’t mind me taking a crack at a couple of those as well (Lib, let me know if I’m misrepresenting your view in any way).

#1: If you can purchase it, you can own it.**

But wait…

Let’s assume that suddenly poof we become Libertarian tomorrow at 6:00 AM Mountain Time.

There’s all this water in the oceans that no-one owns.

How does it get parceled out? Who decides? For me to purchase it, I have to purchase it from someone. Who?

Fenris

[KidCharlemagne]

*Originally posted by Fenris *
**But wait…

Let’s assume that suddenly poof we become Libertarian tomorrow at 6:00 AM Mountain Time.

There’s all this water in the oceans that no-one owns.

How does it get parceled out? Who decides? For me to purchase it, I have to purchase it from someone. Who?

Fenris **

The Great Water Grab of 2002.

[Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow]

*Originally posted by KidCharlemagne *
**The Great Water Grab of 2002. **

Sort of Far and Away meets Waterworld, eh?

[Gadarene]

You’ve heard of the Oklahoma Schooners, right?

[Gadarene]

Also, I realize that “if you can purchase it, you can own it” begs the question a bit. And I’m not sure what libertarians–or Libertarian–have to say about the notion of public goods. Maybe you can’t purchase the ocean just like you can’t purchase the air we breathe. Or…maybe you can purchase the air we breathe. Being an unreconstructed statist who believes in the idea of the commons, I’ll defer to Lib on the question.

[xenophon41]

I think I agree with just about everything about Lib’s philosophy except for the base definitions of coercion and consent (iow, except for the fundamental limits).

It’s rather pointless, I think, to quibble over the meanings of “peaceful” and “honest” when Lib is the first to admit these are hardly descriptive of the whole of humanity. Libertaria does not hinge on people being either peaceful or honest.

Nor is it productive (IMO) to quibble over ownership, or over rights accruing therefrom, or even over public property since Lib has elsewhere stipulated that collective ownership, even as supervised by a contracting government, is not only possible but expected.

But unless the definition of “coercion” includes all forms, including the obscenely effective blackmail of economic coercion, then protecting peaceful honest (or otherwise) people from coercion is a sham.

Unless the definition of “consent to be governed” includes participative consent, it is far too forgiving of criminality. --I have consented to be governed by the United States federal government, by the government of the state of Georgia, and by the local boards and entities in accordance with whose ordinances and rulings I must operate. I did not do this through any explicit acceptance of a written contract. I accept these governmental authorities for as long as I choose to neither leave their areas of control nor resist that control. Those alternatives are unattractive to me, but they do exist, And I have also the ability and willingness to participate in changing these governments.

[Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor]

I am forsquare in favor of Giant Squids.

My Sister married a Giant Squid.

But those dammed lighthouses have got to go.

End of discussion.

[Ulterior]

Ulterior: I would guess Lib would respond that no one needs to define peacefulness and honesty; that people define themselves through their actions. Those people that don’t initiate force or fraud are peaceful and honest; those that do, aren’t. Which makes it a problem of defining “initiation,” “force,” and “fraud.” Who makes those determinations? Dunno.

Fair enough; the point’s the same. At some point, you need to define something, which means interference in some way. Does Libertarian think you don’t? I’d like to hear his arguments, or his argument as to why that question wouldn’t be relevant.

-Ulterior

[Jonathan_Chance]

Well, hell, Lib.

You can’t say I didn’t try.

[Leaper]

I’m curious about something from the Ask the Libertarian thread that has some relevance to the practicality questions brought up here. Libertarian, you told Erika, in response to her question of whether there was a smooth way to get from our current system to libertarianism, that you didn’t believe there was, and that you “believed that the best bet is to start from scratch.”

I’d like you to explain what you meant by this. Given the heavy investment many people have in the “statist” system we have right now, is it possible, especially when it would be preserved if only in their memories? Are you advocating some sort of revolution? Is it any easier to “start from scratch” in that case than it is to convert an already standing system? Or were you advocating libertarian-minded people to start their own country elsewhere?

[owlofcreamcheese]

well since you seem to love not answering this question, I’ll ask again.

who DOES own the lighthouses?

who owns the parks?

who owns the sewage treatment plants?

who owns any of the unpofitable public goods? your only answer so far is that they would exist because some nice old man would build them. is that something you really stand on? a “charity of rich old men” based government?

[Neurotik]

Well, the lighthouses would be owned by whoever could figure out a way to make money off them. Same with sewage treatment plants. There have been plenty of parks donated to the public by wealthy philanthropist, or if the people of a community wanted a park, they could pool their money and buy it and voluntarily pooled their money to maintain it. And people who don’t pay to maintain it don’t get to use it.

[Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow]

*Originally posted by Gadarene *
**Dewey: I hope Lib doesn’t mind me taking a crack at a couple of those as well (Lib, let me know if I’m misrepresenting your view in any way).

#1: If you can purchase it, you can own it.

#2: Yes.

#3: Consent to be governed must be express.

#4: Presumably, the market would take care of this: service providers would arise who would charge low enough fees for the poor to afford and, thus, be granted some police protection. But yes–if you can’t pay the fee, you don’t get the service. **

1. See Fenris’s response.

2. So no committment proceedings in Libertopia? Sometimes that’s a tragic necessity. I think this is a flaw in pure libertarianism.

I could go one step further. Say a friend of mine is considering jumping off a building ledge. I think he’ll change his mind if he has a few days to cool off. I physically restrain him from jumping. Is this an initiation of force against my friend?

3. Well, fine, but I think that’s unmanageable from a purely logistical point of view.

4. Police forces are expensive, and the neighborhoods most in need of good police protection are generally those in poorer quarters. The Libertopian model gives them the opposite: police protection by the lowest bidder.

Probably my last post for awhile – traveling tomorrow morning.

[Neurotik]

Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow *
** I physically restrain him from jumping. Is this an initiation of force against my friend?*

Only if he presses charges.

[Gadarene]

Well, the lighthouses would be owned by whoever could figure out a way to make money off them.

And that way would be…?

[Chumpsky]

*Originally posted by Libertarian *
**No, you’re mistaken. I agree with you about the nature of most people. If I didn’t, I would advocate anarchy. What need is there for a government at all if everyone is going to be peaceful and honest?

But I do not advocate anarchy. I advocate a government as big and strong as it needs to be to supress coercion from people who are NOT peaceful and honest. That is the natural advocacy that derives from the assertion I made in the OP.**

This is quite ironic. In Europe, at least, for over a century, libertarianism has been associated with anarchism. Indeed, libertarian socialism is used as simply a more descriptive term for anarchy.

I actually agree with a lot of what libertarians say. Who would disagree with a system that promotes “allowing peaceful honest people to pursue their own happiness in their own way…”

The problem is that capitalism does NOT do this. Capitalism is a highly authoritarian system that depends on a very coercive state security apparatus. It is anything but libertarian.

I would be very curious to hear what your opinion of anarchism is. Here is a handy FAQ:
http://flag.blackened.net/intanark/faq/index.html

[Liberal]

Gadarene wrote:

The libertarian philosophy necessarily predisposes itself to absolutism–i.e., for a libertarian society to function, it must be possible to easily distinguish the peaceful, honest people from those who aren’t always peaceful or honest, or those who are peaceful and honest to varying degrees. Our current context, despite your protestations to the contrary, is based not on the idea that we’re all “selfish, evil reprobates,” but that such absolutism is inherently impossible–that some people are dishonest, and some people act irrationally, and that we need a social framework to deal with those eventualities in light of a greater good.

Every philosophy is predisposed to absolutism, including the philosophy of relativism.

I know of no libertarian writer who has ever said that libertarianism can be perfectly administered, at least by human beings. There is no difference between what you claim is the current context and what libertarians themselves presuppose.

The fact that people do act irrationally changes the nature of the whole equation. . . . Listen: Not everyone acts in their own best interest all the time. Not even most of the time. Some people act out of short-term self-interest with negative consequences (for themselves and others) in the longer term, and some people act out of long-term self-interest with negative consequences (for themselves and others) in the shorter term. But not everyone acts in their own best interest all the time, and being occasionally irrational in no way automatically removes someone from the ranks of peace and honesty.

You seem to have made a convincing case that people are not always rational. Perhaps in a debate about whether people are rational, your point would be relevant.

Basically, I feel that positing the existence of a peaceful, honest, and (implicitly) rational populace is assuming your own conclusion. If the populace is peaceful, honest, and rational, then pretty much any consensual government/system/context is going to work darn well.

I couldn’t agree more. If I thought that populace were peaceful and honest, I would advocate anarchy.

Even if you agree, as you surely do, that not everyone is peaceful and honest (which is not the same, by the way, as saying that everyone is not peaceful and honest), a libertarian society is still predicated on the assumption that people who are not sufficiently peaceful and honest may be easily identified and excluded to no practical ill-effect.

Cite?

I know of no libertarian writer who has ever claimed that insufficiently peaceful and honest people may be easily identified. The arbitration aspect of a libertarian utopia differs very little from the process in the current context.

The difference is not in ease or difficulty. The difference is that one system bases its arbitration on principle, whereas the other bases its arbitration on proscription.

[Liberal]

Jonathan wrote:

You reply that you agree with me that people are selfish etc (I could quote Lex Luthor here…but I won’t). But wouldn’t this Libertarian government be comprised of such individuals? Doesn’t that make any government at all inherently coercive as it’s made up of the sum of its parts?

Certainly. But you do not abandon the idea of forming your government as a Republic simply because people aren’t perfect. Why then would you abandon the idea of your Republic operating from principle rather than proscription simply because people aren’t perfect?

And if your reply to question 2 you mention that your top legislative priority would be the dismantling (or rather stopping) of the Total Information Agency. Fine. How would you then, using the current system, go about making that happen?

I’m not sure. I suppose that I would have to form a cabal of special interests with sufficient political power and clout who could derive political benefit from causing it to be dismantled. At least, that’s how it got built.

I’m not understanding that [“I just don’t want to be disingenuous and pretend that I advocate one thing when I in fact advocate another.”] in context of my statement about ethical bankruptcy. Could you elaborate on that for me?

Well, I don’t want to represent myself as a statist who advocates a tax and spending cut when in fact I advocate the elimination of all taxation and the elimination of all spending except for defense of property (rights).

[Liberal]

*Originally posted by Fear Itself *
**I submit that any form of government (monarchy, socialist, dictatorship, democratic republic or theocracy) will work fine if all the governing and governed are peaceful and honest. Since this, in the history of the world, has never happened, all forms of government, including libertarianism, are flawed. All we can do is adopted the form of government whose flaws annoy us the least. **

Libertarianism is not a form of government in that sense.

It is merely a philosophical context, a principle, upon which a government of practically any form — including monarchy, theocracy, democratic republic, and even dictatorship — may be based, so long as all who are governed have given their consent.

Libertarianism is not about a government’s structure. Libertarianism is about a government’s scope.

Anyone could devise a Libertaria that is much different from mine, and yet still be libertarian because what it does is secure the rights (property) of its citizens and no more than that.

[Liberal]

*Originally posted by Scylla *
**How do you define “peaceful honest people.”

Once you’ve defined them, how do you identify them?

Once you’ve identified them how do you ensure they stay that way?

Is there such a thing as “peaceful honest people,” or is it really just a question of degree? **

I think it is a matter of degree. I know of no one who is perfectly peaceful and honest.

I define them as people who do not initiate force or fraud. The only way I know of to ensure they stay that way to the extent it is possible to provide any assurity at all is to leave them alone when they do not initiate force or fraud, and use responsive force against them when they do.