First, the above objection holds whether we turn into Libertaria at eight a.m. tomorrow or whether we’re given notice, say, a year in advance–thus allowing people to liquidate assets for a huge public service auction.
Second, the “ten thousand” in the final paragraph should read “one thousand.” But it’s an essentially random number anyway.
What if the person who buys the lighthouse and the land it sits on decides to make a greater profit by tearing said lighthouse down and replacing it with a condo with a great view? Now, the lighthouse is probably sitting where it’s at because the location is best for viewing by ships passing by, so relocating said lighthouse, even if an anonymous benefactor can be found, is not always going to be possible. In fact, I don’t doubt that any lighthouse on any location would be more profitable this way.
Bye-bye, lighthouses.
Lib:
Do you believe that people (whether or not of the peaceful and honest variety) can be counted on to act in their best self-interest?
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?
Here’s a really simple fact pattern: 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.
I hope this need not be said, but I’m genuinely interested in your responses to the above questions. And am I the only one who’s starting to think that Libertaria Civil Procedure would be a really neat course?
My point is that I think you may be mistaken in your belief that the arbitration system doesn’t differ that much from the current process. Oh, one more thing: 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? Would they be made up only of the contractees of one particular government?
(I guess some of my question above mirrors Mighty Maximo’s, so I’m looking forward to seeing the response to his post as well.)
Certainly I agree that in a libertarian context the suppression of collective action would be viewed as initiation of force. However, I do find it telling that, prior to the government reforms prompted by the collective civil disobedience (and occasional terrorism) of organized workers, none of the unionization (legal or not) of employees, the strikes or the sabotages succeeded in making any real changes in abusive company practices.
Also interesting to me is the historical record of economically coerced groups who’ve faced the no-cake-walk choices of either[list=a][li]continuing under the boot heels of their economic oppressors,[]moving away,[]banding together to try and change/compete with/destroy their economic masters, orcollectively bucking the governmental authorities supporting their oppressors.[/list=a]In the bulk of cases (IMLE), it is combinations of options a, c and d which are pursued. Large numbers of people will simply not choose to leave the devil they know for the devil unseen. That is the perogative of the radical individual. We only see large migrations of workers where there’s the clear perception of greener grass. (It’s what brought most of the miners and their children to these shores in the first place.)[/li]
Faced with the option of leaving their company or suffering the incredible conditions imposed on them, the mine workers instead chose to attempt through strength in numbers to change the company. For the most part, they failed utterly. The economic powers were too great and remote to be more than temporarily inconvenienced by the protestations of the rabble.
Faced with the option of staying within the law and accepting an intolerable social contract imposed upon them, the mine workers instead chose to “leave” the authority of the US government by resisting it. Eventually, and in bits and pieces, through constant effort, they changed the social contract. Because political power, unlike economic power, is dependent on the suffrance of the masses. And economic power is still, mostly, dependent on the suffrance of government.
Under the protection of a government exclusively contracted through express consent to protect its contractees from initiation of force, those terms are slightly altered; government becomes a nonpolitical commodity whose value is greatest to those with the most property to protect, and thus becomes most dependent not on the suffrance of the masses, but of the most economically powerful.
Excellent question, Czarcasm.
Lib said:
I’ll vouch for the first two-thirds of this comment. It’s been Libertaria since I’ve been here, and Dewey’s the first person I can remember coining the phrase Libertopia. I didn’t get the sense that he meant it pejoratively–so I disagree with your perception there, Lib–but I think Libertaria is both more neutral and more entrenched in the parlance of the board, and I’d prefer to stick with it exclusively.
Dewey’d said:
Can a Libertopian state deny its services to someone unable to pay its fees? If so, doesn’t this create a situation where (for example) criminals can prey on the poor with impunity because they cannot afford police protection?
Lib responded:
Could you expand on the latter part of that, Lib? I’m not sure I understand what you mean.
Yes! “Those people that don’t initiate force or fraud are peaceful and honest; those that do, aren’t.” And why would defining things be difficult? I don’t see any difficulty. In a libertarian system, robbery, burglery, murder, rape, assult, would be illegal. So would embezzlement, fruad, and confidence trickery. So would acting with reckless disregard to the probability of harm to another (for example, driving while impaired). What would no longer be outlawed would be actions that harm no one, or that harm only the person or group committing them. We would end the war on (some) drugs, the war on (a few forms of) gambling, the war on (a small fraction of) sex acts.
Hazel: Is defamation the initiation of force or fraud? What about copyright infringement? What about insider trading? What about cruelty to animals? What about designing a defective product? Do the traditional boundaries of negligence and strict liability operate within the non-coercion principle? Must an act be intentional to be force or fraud?
Also (at the risk of dredging up a monster of an old thread) would I be initiating force or fraud by shooting someone who was squatting on my property?
Anyway, we can end the wars on (selective aspects of) drugs, gambling, and sex without reducing the whole of our legal system to a catch-all principle tha doesn’t allow for the legitimate prohibition of acts which can reasonably be classified as neither force nor fraud, and the easy applicability of which dissipates in any but the most straightforward circumstances.
In the other thread, Lib said:
So, just to be clear: You sign up with Libertaria, I sign up with some other government/protective agency (whatever you want to call it). If your kid cuts across my lawn, thereby initiating force against me, and I whip out my shotgun and kill him, thereby using responsive force, Libertaria does not recognize that as coercion and would not do anything against me (aside from possibly refusing to trade with me)?
You seriously don’t? I see definitional problems with all of the crimes you’ve listed below. Note that I’m using as a definition of ‘libertarian system’ the sort of setup Libertarian envisions, so no slipping around on that count. Note that the cases I’ve listed either aren’t clear-cut from the non-coercion principle, or are clear-cut but produce a result you probably wont like.
Recovery of property:
Is it burgalry if I’m breaking in to take back property stolen from me (or robbery if I do it with force)? What if I take goods from someone for a payment that I allege they owe me and they refuse to pay?
Self defense:
Is it murder for me to kill someone who steps on my lawn? Tries to break down my door? Is running off with my property? Breaks into my home? Makes a verbal threat? Waves a knife at me?
Unsafe conditions/traps:
Is it murder if I set a deadly trap and someone trespassing (or breaking in) dies in it? What if there’s a dangerous condition (like an unfilled pool) and someone trespassing dies in it?
Reckless endangerment:
Is it murder if I sell more alcohol to a drunk guy, who ends up dying from alcohol poisoning? How about if someone dies because the food I sold them happened to have an ingredient they’re allergic to? How about if they die from some medicine I made up in my basement and sold?
Consent:
Is it murder if I and someone else agree to engage in a dangerous contest and one person dies? What about a duel (where we each try to kill each other)? What if we sign a contract where I pay money in exchange for being allowed to kill him in a year?
consent age:
Is it rape if I have non-forcible sex with a girl or boy who’s 20? 18? 16? 14? 12? 10? 8? (And does it matter how old I am?)
deception:
Is it rape if I lie about my accomplishments in life during the seduction? What if I fail to disclose something bad I did in the past? What if I impersonate someone she/he knows?
Economics:
Is it rape if I require consent to sex as a condition for him/her to keep a job/get a job/use a road or other service? If I have sex with a prostitute but refuse to pay him/her afterwards (or pay via fraudulent means)?
evicting trespasser:
Is it assault if I grab someone and throw them off of my property? What if I give them a few good kicks along the way? Put them into ‘hospitalized’ condition?
I’m getting tired of doing these specifically, so in general where does the line between self-defense and assault get drawn?
As soon as you allow ‘reckless disregard to the probability of harm to another’, you haven’t ended the war on drugs, guns, or any other possession laws. After all, it’s easy to simply declare that insecure storage of the objects is illegal and require prohibitive storage costs, or that sales to criminals or minors are irresponsible (and place prohibitive restrictions on sales). I thought the correct Libertarian way to handle drunk driving was via contract with the road owner anyway?
Similarly, you can use the ‘reckless disregard’ for sex pretty easily too. Does reckless disregard get invoked if I don’t mention that I have aids before having unprotected sex? How about the common cold? Anywhere in between those two?
Public health measures such as vaccination have a positive externality in that they inhibit the spread of disease. Aren’t some forms of coercion called for in this case?
Riboflavin, maybe what I want isn’t true libertarianism. I’ll be back later with answers to some of your questions, but, honestly, I don’t see much point in debates about the fine points of how this or that would be handled in a perfect libertarian system. We’re so far from any kind of libertarian system that debating fine points of how this or that would be handled in a perfect libertarian system seems to me to be kind of like debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
I’d like to see the US move in a direction that seems to me to be toward libertarianism. I doubt I’d go all the way to a purely libertarian system (not that I see any chance at all that we’ll ever come near going that far).
I mean, we can’t even manage to decriminalize marijuana!?
Correct me if I’m wrong here, but it seems to me that Libertarian and Hazel are advocating rather different things here. Hazel seems to want to reform and scale back the state, while keeping the fundamental idea of an enforcer of the prohibitions on fraud and initiating force; Libertarian seems to envision a much more radical restructuring of society, in which nothing would exist which resembles what we now think of as “the state” or “law” (although very different entities might exist under those names).
And yet both Libertarian and Hazel seem to be identifying themselves as “libertarians”. This is a problem I often have with the “ism” of libertarianism: is it just “classical liberalism”, or is it a form of anarchism? That’s common enough with political “isms”, but I really think separate terms might be useful here.
lib, the lighthouse question isn’t LITERALLY about lighthouses you know. no one uses them anymore, they are just a simple example of a public good or service that makes no profit but helps everyone.
there are thousands of examples
rest stops on roads, roads being non competitive (you can’t go on a ‘better road’ if the one your on doesn’t offer luxurys like somewhere to rest, so why build one if you want profit? just let people drive without stops)
what about pollution? what stops some factory from dumping raw waste murcury in a river? the people of the town will build a clean up for the factory? so with the people of the town doing the clean up for them, why not dump ANYTHING in the river, its not the factory’s problem.
build a nuclear reactor on my land? vent it into the sky? fine in your country, its my land after all, other people can clean it up for me.
or is that force against them, venting poison? if so, can I build no factory on my land that could possibly ever create any polution? whats the limit? what line is the acceptable pollution to attacking poisions.
and what about location? a slightly leaky reactor in alaska might be basicly okay, one in the center of new york would not.
so, can I kill people with my property? or do you think we need zoneing ordinances and polution laws?
Riboflavin’s Question: Is it burglary if I’m breaking in to take back property stolen from me (or robbery if I do it with force)? What if I take goods from someone for a payment that I allege they owe me and they refuse to pay? Hazel’s Answer: In my system, you wouldn’t need to do these things. If someone steals from you, you’d go to the police. They’d have plenty of time and resources to deal with theft and burglary, as they would not be fighting a futile war on drugs.
Riboflavin’s Question: Is it murder for me to kill someone who steps on my lawn? Tries to break down my door? Is running off with my property? Breaks into my home? Makes a verbal threat? Waves a knife at me? Hazel’s Answer: You can kill someone who is trying to kill you, with a knife or otherwise. It would be criminal for you to kill in all of the other cases you list.
Riboflavin’s Question: Is it murder if I set a deadly trap and someone trespassing (or breaking in) dies in it? What if there’s a dangerous condition (like an unfilled pool) and someone trespassing dies in it? Hazel’s Answer: Deadly trap? You’d probably be charged with some crime (not necessarily murder); you might or might not be convicted. Dangerous condition? You’d probably be charged with something or other; something far less then murder.
Riboflavin’s Question: Is it murder if I sell more alcohol to a drunk guy, who ends up dying from alcohol poisoning? How about if someone dies because the food I sold them happened to have an ingredient they’re allergic to? How about if they die from some medicine I made up in my basement and sold? Hazel’s answer: None of these things are murder. However, if you are selling a worthless product that you falsely claim is medicinal, you’d be charged with fraud. If someone died because of an ingredient in something you sold him, this ingredient was known to be deadly for some people, and your packaging failed to list this ingredient, you’d be charged with reckless endangerment or manslaughter or something.
Riboflavin’s Question: Is it murder if I and someone else agree to engage in a dangerous contest and one person dies? What about a duel (where we each try to kill each other)? What if we sign a contract where I pay money in exchange for being allowed to kill him in a year? Hazel’s Answer: No, none of these things are murder.
Riboflavin’s Question: Is it rape if I have non-forcible sex with a girl or boy who’s 20? 18? 16? 14? 12? 10? 8? (And does it matter how old I am?) Hazel’s answer: In my system, once you’re past puberty, you’re entitled to have sex with any other post-pubescent persons you like. So long as everyone’s past puberty, and everyone consents, people can do as they please. Pre-pubescent kids engaging in consensual sex play are not to be considered to be committing any crime. But once you hit puberty, pre-pubescent kids are off limits.
Riboflavin’s Question: Is it rape if I lie about my accomplishments in life during the seduction? What if I fail to disclose something bad I did in the past? What if I impersonate someone she/he knows? Hazel’s answer: No, none of these things is rape. (These questions are getting kinda silly.)
Riboflavin’s Question: Is it rape if I require consent to sex as a condition for him/her to keep a job/get a job/use a road or other service? If I have sex with a prostitute but refuse to pay him/her afterwards (or pay via fraudulent means)? Hazel’s Answer: No, these acts are not rape. Failing to pay the prostitute is theft of services, however, just as failing to pay a cab driver is.
Riboflavin’s Question: Is it assault if I grab someone and throw them off of my property? What if I give them a few good kicks along the way? Put them into ‘hospitalized’ condition? Hazel’s answer: Why should you need to personally eject the trespasser? Why not just call the cops?
Riboflavin’s Question: As soon as you allow ‘reckless disregard to the probability of harm to another’, you haven’t ended the war on drugs, guns, or any other possession laws. After all, it’s easy to simply declare that insecure storage of the objects is illegal and require prohibitive storage costs, or that sales to criminals or minors are irresponsible (and place prohibitive restrictions on sales). I thought the correct Libertarian way to handle drunk driving was via contract with the road owner anyway? Hazel’s answer: It’s far too easy to outlaw something by the back door via laws that require needless but expensive things. In the Hazel system, no such laws would exist.
Riboflavin’s Question: Similarly, you can use the ‘reckless disregard’ for sex pretty easily too. Does reckless disregard get invoked if I don’t mention that I have aids before having unprotected sex? How about the common cold? Anywhere in between those two? Hazel’s Answer: If you know you have AIDS, you have an obligation to refrain from unprotected sex. I’d say that if you have AIDS, engaging in unprotected sex is reckless endangerment. Needless to say, I should think, this applies only to conditions that have a high probability of causing death.
MEBuckner said, “Hazel seems to want to reform and scale back the state, while keeping the fundamental idea of an enforcer of the
prohibitions on fraud and initiating force.” Yes, that’s about right.
Someone asked about giant squids. Lib, is that a reference to the giant libertarian squids from an alternate universe in the book by L. Neil Smith?
Hey Hazel…what about my questions? 
In a society (such as that which Lib advocates) where the Non-Coercion Principle was literally the only law, how do you fit the things I mentioned into categories of force or fraud? Or do you?
Continuing to respond to Lib’s responses…
Dewey asked:
Lib answered:
This raises a question I haven’t (to my recollection) seen discussed in any thread on libertarianism since I’ve been on the board–how does the Non-Coercion Principle apply to foreseeability and preventative measures?
Let me show you what I mean. I’ll modify Dewey’s question:
Is the committment of a mentally incompetent person who, left to his own devices, would foreseeably be a danger to other people an initiation of force against that person? (changed text in italics)
In a case where the probability of future harm is overwhelmingly likely, do you have to wait for the harm to occur before doing anything about it? Can you not commit a violent psychotic until he’s actually committed violence? What if he’s standing in his front yard ravening and feinting with his knife at everyone who passes by?
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?
Gadarene, I don’t remember your questions. But as I said above, (a) I’m not seeking the same things Lib seems to be, and (b) I’m not sure I really count as a libertarian. I want some (perhaps much) of what I understand the libs to want, but do not find plausible a perfect libertarian society.
On ocean rights:
and
But…how does one claim the ocean? How does one possess it? And the ocean is more than land with water on it. It’s a method of navigation, for one. It gets you from one place to another. And it’s, y’know, big. Absent a Globalibertaria, other countries will be sailing through this water that you’re theorizing someone claiming and possessing. Oceans have historically–like literally forever–been the property of no sovereign state or entity. How are you proposing that this change? Holding title is all well and good, but if no other country recognizes that title as legitimate…
But–but–they’re right above you! 
And I’m know you and Lib aren’t the same–but since you challenged my statement that there’d be a definitional problem in the first place, I’d be interested in a response.