West Virginia and Pennsylvania Coal Mining, 18th through mid-20th Centuries. Walk through the histories of the West Va. Mine Wars, the Molly Maguires, the WBA and “the Long Strike”, paying particular attention to the uses of the company store as a tool of economic coercion. Note that such coercion was so integral to the coal mining corporate philosophy that all forms of collective bargaining on the part of labor were discouraged through the use ofprivatecompany police, and that most forms of worker dissent were, for most of this country’s history, held to be illegal, thus institutionalizing the coercion.
The Garment Industry, early 1900’s US. Look into the Triangle Factory fire of 1911. Follow the links in that article for discussions of the coercive conditions within the entire industry, of which Triangle was merely representative.
Human history abounds with good examples of economic coercion. The two I’ve cited are examples in this country which prompted a recognition within government that such coercion exists, and must be dealt with.
To score a 160, you need to answer “yes” for every question. How can you reconcile a principle of non-inititation of force with question #61
I find it hard to believe that you would say “yes” to that statement, knowing what I know of you Lib. Can you clarify how “vigilante justice” is “morally permissible”?
I’m imagining, and I’m sure I’ve seen you mention, that the non-coercion bit only applies to consenting adults. Now, suppose, a person who does not subscribe to the government of Libertaria and hence is not regulated by it starts producing child pornography and sells it to people who do subscribe to the Libertarian government?
What is the response of the Libertarian government?
I have a question which would have gone better in Lib’s old “Ask 'th…” thread (and a lighthouse clarification post which I’ll get to in a while):
In my newspaper today the possibility of the elimination of “death by old age” due to changes in medical technology was raised. I’m planning to hang on to find out how much this troubles me. :D. How about you? If today’s generation were to hang on forever and hang onto their wealth forever, would this trouble you? Of course it may be that today’s generation, even if pretty much immortal, would pass on some of their wealth to their offspring. But would you worry if - in 100 years - the bulk of new 18 year olds started with large debts to existing owners of property?
Right. But of course, there’s a couple of things wrong with the picture from a libertarian standpoint. The company had no ethical authority to forbid the workers from assembling together and from bargaining collectively. That usurpation of their rights was itself a coercion, and in Libertaria could cause the company’s ownership to transfer to the coerced employees. And certainly, government had no business institutionalizing it. For that matter, the company may not prevent workers simply refusing to work there, starting their own company, and going into competition with the old one (which will likely fail without employees). Or they can simply move away altogether.
You might make the argument that they’re stuck there because the company owns their houses and what-not, and I’m not saying that it is a cake-walk by any means. But my own father built our first house with his bare hands, and many people have endured much hardship while under the coercion of other people. If that coercion is removed, at the very least, people can do whatever is within the limits of their abilities either individually or cooperatively.
I took it to mean responsive force (because of the word justice), and I imagine that’s how the authors intented it. Every man is entitled by God or nature to use force or fraud against any usurper to restore his rights. When government acts on his behalf to exact, it is acting as his proxy.
Consent is the very heart and soul of libertarianism.
Children (and certain adults) are not capable of giving meaningful consent. Thus, any usurpation of their rights (property), such as their bodies and minds — whether it is sexual, physical, or mental abuse — is a coercion and is strictly prohibited. In fact, in Libertaria, an adult is defined as a person who is capable of giving meaningful consent. But all people, whether or not they are adults, are rights bearing entities.
The mere fact that they cannot give meaningful consent entitles no one to anything whatsoever with respect to their rights (property). It is consent that entitles. The same principle would apply to a retarded “adult” who cannot give meaningful consent.
Well, depending on the individuals, it could go the other way. In a noncoercive free-market, a savvy 18-year-old entrepreneur would have no obstacles toward acquiring wealth. I don’t imagine that we’re positing that the 130-year-olds will stop buying goods and services.
[Regarding Lib’s reply to me] True enough, but they’d start a long way behind and require the approval of lenders before they got rolling - which is what worries me.
I think I’ll lay off the lighthouse business for tonight - too many beers to imagine I might clarify anything.
But lenders stand to profit from, well, lending — especially to entrepreneurs in a noncoercive free-market. I would wager that most entrepreneurs are young.
The fallacy is that your assuming your own conclusions, otherwise know as “begging the question.” I suppose there are also hints of “Straw Man” but they all tend to blur. The conclusion your assuming is that Libertarianism allows peaceful honest people to pursue their own happiness in their own way, which is really part of the issue up for debate. It’s really just the wording. I knew what you meant but I could see that alot of people were already debating issues not related to assertions about libertarianism. It looks like the thread is now on track. I just had a feeling semantics would end up playing a big role in this so it’s best to have a crystal clear assertion to defend.
Pardon my ignorance…but what does Libertarianism have to do with giant squids? I can see where lighthouses come into the discussion, but not Architeuthis…
I’m interested in the concept of arbitration. I’m assuming that the arbiters are either independent contractors or work for the governmental providers.
If you’re accused of coercing somebody, does the accuser have to go through your arbiter (if any exists) or do they go to their own? If they go to an arbiter that rules against you, how would such a decision be enforced if you never consented to be ruled by their decisions? What guarantees do you have as to process, or can any arbiter just come over to your house and go through your stuff? If not, how can an arbiter or police force obtain evidence to use against criminals?
Can you meaningfully appeal a decision? Since there’s no case law or binding precedent, individual arbiter discretion would seem to be critical. Would outright bribery be the only way you’d be entitled to free yourself of the decision?
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.
Thanks! That fits a whole lot better into my mental picture of you Lib. For a minute I thought I’d slipped into the “Mirror/Mirror” universe or something!
Wait a minute–usurpation of the rights of children (and other non-consenting entities) is prohibited by whom? The government? But all governments in Libertaria must function by explicit consent–children cannot consent to sexual acts, but how can they give consent to being governed, either?
Here’s a notion: there are some services and resources the availability of which should not be predicated on the ability of someone to make a profit on them. Lighthouses, breatheable air, drinkable water, sewer systems, and parkland are among them. Not that you can’t charge someone for their use–that’s a different issue. But what incentive do private businessmen have to run a lighthouse or a sewer system that breaks even or operates at a loss? If the answer is “none” or “very little,” why should the availability of a light to guide ships along the coast be dependent upon how creative someone can be in profiting from the lighthouse business? Say what you will about the government, but its (in many respects) not-for-profit status keeps things running that would be dropped as not cost-effective in the private sector.
Also: in releasing all of these services to the innovation of private control, we have to remember that there are a finite number of brilliant, wealthy individuals out there willing to find ways to make money off (or, if they’re philanthropists, donate money for) newly privatized industries. What’s more, there’s only a limited number of those people who, at any given time, has enough financial liquidity to devote resources to a new project.
So let’s say that the U.S. does turn into Libertaria at eight a.m. tomorrow. All of a sudden you’ve got lighthouses, sewer systems, libraries, parks, courthouses, garbage collection, law enforcement, schools, roads, firefighters, etc. etc. etc. up for sale to the highest bidder. And let’s say, for ease of calculation, that there are fifty such services newly privatized, and that each of these services–to varying degrees of scale–are replicated in every (former) state, county, and municipality in the country. Let’s be real conservative and say that there are a thousand of those. So that’s fifty thousand potential money-making/philanthropic opportunities out there. And–attempting to keep the scale somewhat accurate–there are one thousand multi-millionaires with the time, available resources, creativity, and inclination to take up the opportunity. [I fully realize that the states, counties, or municipalities themselves could decide to continue to operate the services, by “pool[ing] their money and voluntarily” buying it and maintaining it. Tell me again how this is any different from our current system, except that the loss of tax revenue would force the community to pick and choose the services they most want to keep for themselves? Additionally, any time you’re talking about groups of people getting together and purchasing something like this, you have to deal with mondo transaction costs–organizational, informational, psychological. Anyone care to address that?]
So fifty thousand opportunities, ten thousand potential purchasers. That’s not necessarily bad, since one purchaser can clearly take advantage of more than one opportunity. But every one of the fifty thousand opportunities (to provide basic services, remember) must be spoken for–and quickly–for this newly privatized society even to match the utility of the present-day framework. If not enough of the potential purchasers think that sewage is an attractive and profitable enterprise to cover every (once-public) sewer system in the country, then whole communities will be deprived of working plumbing.
Tell me again how the profit motive takes care of this?
