Lighthouses and Giant Squids: A Debate about Libertarianism

[KidCharlemagne]

*Originally posted by Libertarian *
**You appear to misunderstand the assertion. You’re treating it like a first order logic assertion when in fact it is a deontic logic assertion.

If we call the truthbearer p, then the assertion is Op. **

I don’t quite follow. I know deontic reasoning deals with obligations and permissions and is often used in debates about social issues but I’m not sure how it applies here. I can see that your inundated but If you get the chance can you explain?

[rsa]

*Originally posted by Mighty Maximino *
Suppose Xavier is found shot to death in his home. He has a valid contract with Libertaria North, which includes police fees (which he’s paid) and an “avenge death” clause. The LNPD finds a fingerprint and a shell casing. They run the print through their files, because all LN members consent to this when they join. No matches. After a little more investigation the LNPD concludes that the likely suspects (but not the only possibilities) are Alex, Bob, and Chuck, who are members of Libertarias West, South, and East respectively. Alex, Bob, and Chuck all tell the LNPD to get bent when asked to consent to the investigation.

How can Alex, Bob and Chuck be in breach to LN, when they’ve never made any agreement with LN? What can the LNPD do at this point to avoid being in breach of their duties to Xavier’s widow?

[list=1]
[li]Libertaria North petitions Libertarias West, South, and East to coerce the subjects to cooperate[/li][li]The petitioned Libertarias ask to see the evidence[/li][li]The petitioned Libertarias investigate and determine that sufficient evidence does not exist to coerce the subjects[/li][li]Libertaria North is obligated to go to war with the other three Libertarias[/li][li]Much fun ensues![/li][/list=1]

[Liberal]

Gadarene wrote:

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?

I don’t believe that people generally can be counted on for much of anything, but do you believe that the politicians and bureaucrats who rule you can be counted on to act in your best interest? So long as your rights and property are protected against my force and fraud, whether or not I act in my own self-interest ought not to concern you.

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?

Your premise might be suspect. There are roughly 200 nations on earth, each claiming independent sovereignty. Why hasn’t civilization as we know it ended?

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.

Okay.

1. In what court is the action for murder against X brought?

In whichever court was holding the consent of the victim, Y, which you have not specified.

2. X is injured in the fight with Y, and asks for arbitration to recover from Y’s estate the cost of his damaged bridgework. In what court is that action brought?

Arbitration R Us

3. Z wants to sue both X and Y’s decedents for damage done to his property during the fight. In what court are those actions brought?

2 4 6 8 Arbitrate.

4. Let’s say neither X nor Y was a tenant of Z’s. Does this change the answers to #3?

No.

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?

As a person who is hosting a twenty-against-one debate, I can’t tell you how much I appreciate your genuineness.

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.

I didn’t actually say that. What I said was that the arbitration aspect of a libertarian utopia differs very little from the process in the current context with respect to whether insufficiently peaceful and honest people may be easily identified.

That said, I would be interested in your take on a similar fact pattern: X kills Y in the apartment of landlord Z. X claims self-defense. X is a citizen of the United States, Y’s decedents are citizens of Cuba, and Z’s real property is governed under Z’s citizenship with North Korea.

What are the answers to the questions you listed?

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?

Not in Libertaria because of its law (“Every citizen shall be guaranteed freedom from coercion.”) Forcing people to be jurors would be coercive. But in say, Freedomia, where the law might be different, there might be jurors of some sort or another.

The whole point of libertarianism is that like-minded people may give their consent to a government, thereby “laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” (The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776)

[Liberal]

Xeno wrote:

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.

I would appreciate your spelling out what you believe to be abuses since you know them off-hand, rather than asking me to plow through entire websites to find them. The Triangle Factory alone has an entire website with a multi-page introduction that said, as I recall, that people weren’t paid much, their bosses didn’t like them, the factory was dirty, and some of the people worked for subcontractors. If you will do that, I will respond in kind by not asking you to read Human Action in order to find out what I mean by laissez-faire.

That said, I’m not sure what it is you want exactly. If as you say there existed a context in which the workers could assemble freely, bargain collectively, shut down company operations by refusing to work, establish competition in peace, and seize back their property that was stolen — what more can even government do than that?

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.

What happened with the least part? How did they succeed?

It is hard for me to understand how a complete loss of income source with no bailout by government and no ability to stop an entrepreneur from securing investment capital to open a competing company that treats workers decently has no effect. One day, the mine owner is a wealthy fop; the next he is a desparado in a ghost town looking down the road at his thriving competitor. How does he continue to prosper?

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.

Well, I don’t see why the hardships they suffered with their bits-and-pieces eventuallities were any more unendurable than merely building themselves a community that they liked. If we assume that the companies could not coerce them and the government could not coerce them, then what is left to assume but that they were brain-dead zombies? Was there not among them even one person to whom the thought occurred that, “Hey! If I opened a shit shoveling service, it would be better than this.”?

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.

Why? Government’s income is the same from them all.

[Liberal]

Gadarene wrote:

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?

I wasn’t sure whether you were asking that of me or Hazel, so I will err on the side of not be accused of evasion. If the squatter refuses to leave by every kind of force that you have tried, from nicely asking to physical eviction, then yes, you may shoot him.

[Liberal]

Riboflavin wrote:

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)?

Just to be clear: excessive force is not responsive force, but is itself, to the degree that it is excessive, initial force. You may shoot my son if he has ignored your more reasonable attempts to evict him.

[Liberal]

Djbdjb wrote:

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?

No. If we work together and I have AIDS, should you be forced not to catch a cold? People who get themselves vaccinated will be protected from the diseases; people who don’t will risk infection.

[Liberal]

Owl wrote:

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.

Lighthouses need not make no profit. Owners may conduct tours, for example, and treat their lighthouses as fun attractions. Cape Hatteras Lighthouse does this, and provides souvenir shops and amusement activities as well, and is financially stable.

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)

First off, why can’t there be a competing road (or even a competing mode of transportation)? And secondly, what will the road owner do himself when he uses his road, pee in a cup?

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.

Pollution is a form of trespass and vandalism, and is strictly prohibited in Libertaria.

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.

On your land, no problem. But the moment it leaches onto my land, your reactor might become my property.

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.

Whatever limit a man is willing to bear. I may declare, if I wish, that you may not emit a single molecule of pollutant onto my property. Of course, if I do, then you will do the same, and we will be silly-billies who destroy each other’s happiness with our own mutual myopia.

and what about location? a slightly leaky reactor in alaska might be basicly okay, one in the center of new york would not.

Really? What if you lived beside that reactor in Alaska?

so, can I kill people with my property? or do you think we need zoneing ordinances and polution laws?

I think we need a law that prohibits coercions like trespass and vandalism.

[Liberal]

Hazel wrote:

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?

No. It is a reference to a Great Debates thread wherein I was asked how the libertarian philosophy would respond to sentient giant squids arising from the ocean floor and producing proof of ownership for the land now occupied by us. I have since referred to absurd hypotheticals as Giant Squid scenarios.

[Gadarene]

I said:

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.

Lib replied:

Could you rephrase that without a passive voice construction? When you say that so-and-so is “being forced”, forced by whom and how?

Actually, I can’t rephrase actively. Like I said, no specific individual is initiating the force. But it’s perhaps less difficult than you think to understand: If I, a peaceful and honest person, have no money, no food, and no charity, I am compelled to work so that I might eat. The perpetual urgency of the need for food compels me. My lack of money compels me. The law of property compels me.

In order to get money to eat (and sleep and provide for my family), I must accept terms of labor that I would disdain if I were wealthy. These terms might range from the undesirable–cleaning toilets–to the unsafe–handling hazardous material. But it’s enough to say that the moment I accept a job I would not otherwise undertake were it not for my need of money and food, I am being coerced. Grok me?

There’s a famous 1930s article by Robert Hale entitled “Coercion and Distribution in a Supposedly Non-Coercive State” that lays this out nicely. I’ll quote from its most pertinent passages if you’re still unclear what I mean.

[Liberal]

Gadarene wrote:

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)

That depends on what you mean by foreseeable. If he just frightens you because he is weird, then the problem is yours. But if he threatens you with harm, then the problem is his.

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?

Not necessarily. An explicit threat is a coercion. “Give me your money or your life,” is one example.

Can you not commit a violent psychotic until he’s actually committed violence?

Or a violent and explicit threat (in the context of usurping your rights).

What if he’s standing in his front yard ravening and feinting with his knife at everyone who passes by?

If he’s not demanding anything of you, then he’s just a nut. If he is using his knife to keep you off his property, he is behaving ethically. But if he is using his knife to reach over his property line and abridge your own rights and property (like your body for instance), then he is a coercer.

Note that Dewey’s question was about a mental illness wherein the man is a danger to himself.

[Liberal]

Gadarene wrote:

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?

Oops. Sorry I missed that one. In trying to get caught up, I overlooked it. I did not intentionally evade you.

I need clarification on your question. What were the neighbors doing allowing their children on the man’s property? Did the man invite the children? What were the circumstances?

[Liberal]

Gadarene wrote:

But…how does one claim the ocean?

You say, “I claim the ocean.”

How does one possess it?

By occupying and defending it — the same way people have claimed unoccupied land for millenia.

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.

So are lakes and rivers. But Duke Power Company owns Lake Greenwood, Lake Jocassee, Lake Keowee, High Rock Lake, and Lake Wylie, as well as portions of the Saluda and Reedy Rivers, the Catawba River, and the Keowee and Little Rivers.

And it’s, y’know, big.

Well, sure. But Asia is big, too.

Absent a Globalibertaria, other countries will be sailing through this water that you’re theorizing someone claiming and possessing.

But they’ll be trespassing, just as if they were driving tanks through your lawn.

Oceans have historically–like literally forever–been the property of no sovereign state or entity.

Can you explain why that is not an argumentum ad antiquitatem fallacy?

How are you proposing that this change?

I reckon you just let people go stake their claims and start from there.

Holding title is all well and good, but if no other country recognizes that title as legitimate…

All that matters is that the country to whom you have given consent to be governed recognizes it. It is then its job to defend your property.

[Liberal]

Gadarene wrote:

Air.

Compression.

[Liberal]

Gadarene wrote:

As I said in the baseline problem thread, the obstacle that the 18-year-old faces is the existing distribution of wealth. To wit, she ain’t got any. And I don’t care how savvy you are–there’re a finite number of ideas and enterprises on which money can be made (and especially, on which a living can be made). Especially when you’re starting from scratch.

I put this in Google and got 3,330,000 hits: “investment capital”. On the first page alone are offers of capital for everything from broke family businesses to water treatment plants.

[Gadarene]

Lib:

I don’t believe that people generally can be counted on for much of anything, but do you believe that the politicians and bureaucrats who rule you can be counted on to act in your best interest? So long as your rights and property are protected against my force and fraud, whether or not I act in my own self-interest ought not to concern you.

It does concern me, actually, because my welfare is in some manner tied to yours–especially in the longer term. What’s more, as the term gets longer and the goals broader, our self-interests converge: we both want a long, happy life; we both want to be secure in our homes; we both want our children to grow up being able to breathe the air outside.

It’s no radical notion to say that our short-term self-interests often conflict with long-term self-interests. If I have that double bacon cheeseburger I’m craving today, it increases the chance of a future heart attack shortening my life. If, as a factory owner, I pollute because it’s cheaper to do so (and I’d rather have those extra profits in my pocket right now), the world’ll be dirtier later on.

My point is that both short-term interests and long-term interests are, strictly speaking, rational–there’s nothing bad or wrong about someone who doesn’t look to the future…or who only looks to the future. But as a society our individual actions, in aggregate, affect everyone–and there has to be some balance of foresight among the self-interested acts. That’s one of the functions of our tyrannical government (and honestly, could you stop calling it that? as highly sensitive as you are about perceived slights to libertarianism, you’d think you’d use less loaded language)–to ensure that long-term goals are being looked after.

This is one of my bottom-line objections to your form of libertarianism: There’re only so many hours in the day, and my need to provide for myself in the immediate sense (working and eating) takes precedence over devoting myself to the longer term. I like knowing that there’s an infrastructure at least ostensibly devoted to (and accountable for) maintaining the larger societal necessities: an educated, engaged populace; a well-trained, responsive police force; a clean environment…

[Liberal]

*Originally posted by Fenris *
**This leads to a couple of interesting (to me, at least ) questions:

What if I refuse to give consent to any arbiter or we can’t agree on an arbiter?
Scenario #1
I’m accused of robbing the houses of 17 grandmothers. There’s no proof, but there’s circumstantial evidence. The 17 grandmothers choose “Arbiters R Us” to represent them. I refuse, as I’m offended that anyone would even consider that I could do such a dreadful thing. I point blank refuse any arbitration and refuse to give consent for any arbitration as it would show that I take these outrageous accusations seriously. Under no circumsstances will I give consent to go before arbitration.

Scenario #2
I’m accused of robbing the houses of 17 grandmothers. There’s no proof, but there’s circumstantial evidence. The 17 grandmothers choose “Arbiters R Us” to represent them. I refuse, as I firmly believe that “Arbiters R Us” is a bunch of unethical muttonheads who are more advocates and showmen than impartial arbiters. I refuse to participate in a media circus. I insist on “Justice is Blind, Inc”. The 17 grandmothers refuse as one of them crunched some numbers and found that “Justice Is Blind, Inc” found for the defendant 50.2% of the time, a clear case of bias. I refuse to budge: so do the grandmothers. Neither of us will consider another arbitration firm.

In both cases, what happens? Do I go free? Do the grandmothers get their day in court?

Fenris **

Keep in mind what it is that consent is being given for. The person who is governed is the person giving consent. To govern means to protect — it doesn’t mean to rule with moral authority.

In your examples, the fact that you are not governed and refuse arbitration is not relevant. It is the grandmothers who have contracted with a government for its protection from your coercion.

What happens in both cases is that the government(s) of the grandmothers are responsible for restoring their property and bringing you to justice. Your resistance is futile.

[Fenris]

I assimilate!
But I’m still unclear on one part: “Who gets to pick the arbiter?”. Am I understanding correctly that the arbiter is picked by the alleged victim? If so, I’m gonna set myself up as the most popular arbiter around, finding ONLY for the alleged victim. What recourse, if any, does the alleged perp have in that case? Does the government step in at some point?

(And I’m terribly disappointed that you took the word of the Grannies over mine. I’m hurt. Truly. )
And let’s tweak it a little: let’s say I have also contracted with the government and I contend that the grannies are whacking me with friviolous lawsuits. Do I counter-sue for fraud (fake lawsuits)? And do I then get to pick the arbiter, since I’m the victim of the Grannies cruel harassment?

Fenris

[Liberal]

Czar wrote:

Libertarian, you avoided the question I actually posted completely.

Since you’re completely avoiding my responses, I’ll have to parse your posts.

The imaginary sea-faring company cannot build a lighthouse on the best land available if some other business or person has already bought the land for other purpose.

Land that has been bought for one purpose can be (and routinely is) resold for another purpose.

The trouble with Libertaria is that all land is first-come first-served, and the people with the most money to start out with, not the people who can best use the land, will always be first-come.

How is this different from anything else? Have you gone to buy land and been told, “No, you were first, so that isn’t fair.”?

The prime forests in our national parks will go to those who can buy them first-lumberers, not conservancy groups.

Gratuitous assertion. Tell it to these people.

The prime flatlands will go to those with the greatest cash reserve who can also guarantee the banks they may need to borrow from the best return on their money-the real estate developers, not the farmers.

Not necessarily, Miss Cleo. According to Modern Agriculture, almost all farms using modern precision technologies are highly profitable, and even 20% of the older farms are equally so.

The problem with Libertaria is that it is run on the proposition that businesses and people will always be looking for the long term profit. The two problems with this are pretty obvious.

Where do you get this crap from? You haven’t listed a single citation for your claims and prognostications.

Libertaria is not run on the proposition you stated, but on the proposition that peaceful honest people should be free to pursue their own happiness in their own way.

And just so you’ll know when you start screaming, “Evasion, evasion! You left off my last two points!” that portion of your post was contingent on your absurd presumption that libertarianism is somehow an economic philosophy. I don’t have to respond to irrelevant blatherings.

[Liberal]

*Originally posted by Mighty Maximino *
**Thanks, Lib. I’m still going through your answers in my mind, but I’d like to ask another question about this, to understand your position better:

How can you breach a contract to someone you have no duty towards? I will propose a hypothetical.

Suppose Xavier is found shot to death in his home. He has a valid contract with Libertaria North, which includes police fees (which he’s paid) and an “avenge death” clause. The LNPD finds a fingerprint and a shell casing. They run the print through their files, because all LN members consent to this when they join. No matches. After a little more investigation the LNPD concludes that the likely suspects (but not the only possibilities) are Alex, Bob, and Chuck, who are members of Libertarias West, South, and East respectively. Alex, Bob, and Chuck all tell the LNPD to get bent when asked to consent to the investigation.

How can Alex, Bob and Chuck be in breach to LN, when they’ve never made any agreement with LN? What can the LNPD do at this point to avoid being in breach of their duties to Xavier’s widow? **

Remember — the obligation of LN is to Xavier. If it encounters resistance in its efforts to fulfill its obligations, then it must use whatever force is necessary to fulfill them. If after every eventuality that means war, then it means war.