Lib: I’m going to stop responding to all of your points, because there’s so much I could take issue with, and neither you nor I have that kind of time. Your forbearance in responding to everything in this thread has been exceptional and much appreciated.
In that spirit, don’t worry about my post to Neurotik. However, I’m very interested in your response to my economic coercion post, and I eagerly await that.
And I’m going to tackle your slandering of my fact pattern (hardly “the most exceptional circumstances possible with multiple overlapping jurisdictions”) as soon as I have something to eat.
Ok, but I still maintain that there is a fallacy in the assertion because someone may agree with the assertion that people should be free to pursue their own happiness in their own way but not agree with the assertion that Libertarianism is the means to that end. I still see a “begging the question” here.
Different arbitration systems will have different rules, right? I mean, they’ll all operate under the non-coercion principle, but the ways in which they arbitrate will be different? Their rules of procedure will be different?
If so, then my hypothetical about a court only considering self-defense if the act was videotaped is not ridiculous in the least. My point is that different systems will have different requirements of proof–and that these differing requirements will in turn alter the outcome of the case. Therefore, it matters very much whose court you end up in.
Which brings up another point: if X’s government has a contractual duty to retaliate against X’s aggressors and Y’s government has a contractual duty to retaliate against Y’s aggressors, then isn’t every dispute involving mutual aggression between between subjects of different contractual governments essentially an act of war? Y punches X in the nose and X kicks Y in the balls–Y’s government may now retaliate against X, and X’s government may now retaliate against Y. At which point–the retaliation–further harms occur to both parties at the hands of the other government, and we go round and round.
That is so fucked up.
By the way, how is Y’s government “anal” to require videotaping before considering a claim of self-defense? And how is Y a fool? It helps him. He’s the victim, the action is brought in his court, and now Y is guaranteed to be recompensed. It would be in my interests, whether I was peacful and honest or not, to contract with a government that, procedurally, favored “victim”-complainants over “aggressor”-respondents. (I put those words in quotation marks because, regardless of your guilt or innocence, by bringing suit–by claiming victimhood–in a victim-friendly court you’d be availing yourself of all the benefits of being a victim, and subjecting the other party to all the detriments of being an aggressor. If it was self-defense on X’s part, that is, he’d never be able to prove it in Y’s victim-friendly court.)
Me:
Lib:
So if Y dies without any assets or decedents, his contracting government will nevertheless bring action against X for murder?
Me:
Lib:
How am I mixing up metaphors? I’m not using metaphors at all. The same sequence of events would literally be litigated multiple times in multiple courts under multiple rules.
They aren’t complicated? No, not really. Murder’s a pretty simple thing. But whether someone is guilty of murder–well, that should take a little time to find out, shouldn’t it? Each trial, even in the simple circumstances here–I can’t even imagine what it would be like if corporations sued and countersued each other for fraud!–would still require the retention of attornies, the deposition of witnesses, the filing of briefs, the use of time and resources from each of the governmental systems in which each claim is being litigated. It’s utterly redundant.
And you didn’t answer my question: does this place more of a burden on the poor than our system today (which, per Gideon, guarantees that indigent defendants in criminal trials will be appointed attorneys at no charge to them)?
How are those circumstances exceptional? It’s exceedingly simple: three people, three alleged coercive acts arising from one incident. Real life is a hell of a lot more complex than that.
As an aside, this latter bit isn’t true. I’m in law school right now–it’s not a “good chunk” of my adult life, and we’re not learning “the most elementary aspects” of our laws; you get a sense of how the legal system as a whole functions, you learn about the areas that most interest you, and you’re taught how to argue, how to read, and how to write as a lawyer. There’s no rote memorization of reams of statutes and caselaw. I could care less about estates and trusts, for example, and I promise you I’ll never need to know a single thing about them.
Personally, I’m in favor of repealing the restrictions on most of the above. It can be done without reducing the system to a single overabstracted law.
Me:
Lib:
Mirror your what? I don’t understand your statement.
Intranational law is nowhere near as messy as international law. I’m saying that you can’t justify replacing intranational law with the messiness of Libertarian law by pointing to the messiness of international law. Intranational law as it stands suits me just fine.
It is not clear that education has such large positive externalities that it will be underproduced if not subsidized (coercively by taxation in non-libertarian gov’ts). Here is a little snippet from Bryan Caplan’s web-page. He is an econ professor at GMU.
Most externalities arguments for education amount to the absurdity that anything beneficial is an externality. “We all benefit from education.” How is that different from “We all benefit from steel.” Yes, there’s a benefit, but doesn’t the market pay people to provide that benefit?!
If people choose to not be educated, about the only person they could be harming is themselves.
However, there are other goods where the network externality is large.
Take the case of a person that owns a wooden house that is very close to other wooden houses. However, the owner of one house has an assessment of the probability of a fire that is much lower than that of his neighbors. Thus, he does not spend any money on things to reduce the risk of a fire. Now in a certain kind of government, we could let this guy have his say, and then out vote him, forcing him to pay for some fire-saftey equipment. What would you do in a Libertarian government? Let’s say he even refuses to put up a bond (or buy insurance; same thing) to compensate his neighbors in case a fire from his house spreads to theirs.
Libertarian, I did not understand some of your counter-example on AIDS and colds. I think you were saying that the benefit of a vaccination was entirely captured by people self-protecting against sickness. But there are (and if my example is not quite right, I think there still could be other) examples where certain persons could not be vaccinated due to other health effects. In these cases, the only way to protect such a person is for other people to be vaccinated.
Consider: I think you would accept that for someone to knowingly breathe smallpox particles onto another person is initiation of force. However it is possible, because of the physical nature of the virus, for neither party to be aware that it is happening until too late.
Thank you for your response, Lib. I’d like to say that I appreciate the time you’re spending here, even if I don’t necessarily agree with feasibility. I have some of the same procedural questions as Gadarene, but I’ll defer to him and spare you the trouble.
I would ask another question, though, if you don’t mind. What are the rules of war? Suppose that Libertaria North (from my earlier example) is your “large” Libertaria, and Libertaria East is more of a religious enclave organization. Their religion requires that a person be seen by two witnesses to be accused of a capital crime, and their contract specifies that their citizens won’t be turned over on any less evidence, so despite the good faith efforts of both parties to resolve the situation, war occurs.
Can Libertaria North’s army conquer the property of LE’s civilians and obtain title to it through force? If so, who owns it? Are they limited to just seizing Chuck and his property? May they kill the entire civilian population of LE and destroy all they possess? During warfare, would it be permissible to enslave the population of LE and force them to work in the salt mines, or would there be some kind of “rules of war”?
If you could respond without the seemingly mandatory insults, I have another point to raise.
Would the form of arbitration that Libertaria uses be anything like the arbitration that is used by major corporations today? Would judgements be binding without chance of appeal? Would both sides have to swear not to publicize the outcome? Would the public have a chance to put some arbitrators in office, or would the large corporations with the large bankrolls be sponsoring them? Can someone freely examine the cases of all the arbitration companies to see if patterns of abuse can be found in certain corporations, or will the corporations be protected by the walls between said arbitration companies?
Arbitration in this country usually favors the corporation, even if the arbitrator is “independent”, because the arbitrator knows where the next job is coming from if she/he rules in the corporation’s favor. What are the safeguards in Libertaria that give the individual real power in arbitration proceedings, and what chance does an individual have to find out if a corporation has a pattern of abuse?
Ok, so fill me on on what the one law of Libertaria is again. I don’t recall anything about ‘excessive force’ being mentioned at all in what you said would be the only law in Libertaria, but I’m probably misremembering. And be sure to define what you mean by ‘initial force’, ‘responsive force’, and ‘excessive force’ if you use those terms.
Who gets to determine whether my attempts were ‘reasonable’ and whether the force I used was ‘excessive’? If your previous assertion that I have nothing to fear from Libertaria if I do not initiate force is meaningful, then you must have some objective standard for ‘reasonable attempts’ and ‘excessive force’.
What you want is certainly not what Libertarian wants, though he’s gotten very angry in the past when I’ve pointed out that there are people who identify as “libertarians” who don’t argue for exactly the same system that he does. I don’t know what you’re actually arguing for; Lib has a rather specific set of claims which pretty much everyone is wrangling about while I don’t even know whether you agree with the OP or not.
All you’ve really done so far on this thread is identify yourself as a libertarian and list the way you’d like some laws set up. From past experiences with threads like these, I’d advise that you fire up a new thread unless your form of Libertarianism is the same as what Lib advocates - what you’re arguing for and what Lib’s arguing for are going to get all mixed up, and the confusion is going to result in anything you say getting glossed over. I’m going to respond to your stuff in this post, but I’m probably going to ignore
Those questions are not about “the finer points”, but about how you even arrive at whether or not they should be laws from the noncoercion principle. While you gave answers to the questions quickly, you didn’t go in on how you came at drawing the line between crime and not-crime; you claim that it’s easy to arrive at what should and should not be crimes, presumably from the noncoercion principle, but your answers don’t show how you got from ‘don’t initiate force or fraud’ to ‘this should be illegal’.
I’m going to pick a few of your answers to show you what I’m talking about, and how it’s not head-of-a-pin stuff, but then I’m probably going to drop this part of the conversation. If you put this in a seperate thread I’ll go into them more point by point (I know it’s annoying to make a long post and have most of it put aside), but I don’t think continuing the discussion here will be produvtive.
To use a specific RL example: in NC (where I live) use of deadly force is legal if you (‘a reasonable person’, in practice the jury) believe that someone wishes to inflict death, grevious injury, or sexual assault on you, or if someone is attempting illegal entry to your home. How are the cases of justified use of deadly force in NC but not in your answer inconsistent with what you mean by libertarian? None of them involve initiation of force, they’re all defensive force by the standard libertarian definitions, so I fail to see how making the changes you’d want would qualify as moving towards a more libertarian form of government.
I simply don’t understand how you reach this conclusion in a libertarian context; why should I be responsible for the safety of people who are using my property without my permission? I don’t think that building a pool qualifies as an initiation of force.
The case I left in the quote above would be considered rape in most jurisdictions in the US today, so I don’t think asking about it is ‘kinda silly’. Why do the protections against fraud not apply in this case - presumably I would not be bound by a contract if my agreement was based on fraud?
What gives the cops the right to eject the trespasser? (Note that whole basis of libertarianism is that initiation of force is wrong, not ‘wrong unless a cop does it’.) How is reducing my ability to legally protect my property moving in a libertarian direction (currently, I can use warning-gentle hands-non-deadly force to eject a trespasser)? Also, the reason someone would want to eject a trespasser is irrelevant to answering the question of what means they may legally/morally use to do so - maybe there’s an hour or more police response time where I live, maybe the person is interfering with what I want to do, maybe I value my privacy and don’t want additional people traipsing around my property.
(Again, thse are more ‘food for thought’ than ‘next stage in the debate’ since I don’t think keeping this line of conversation up will be productive).
Somewhat true, although to get closer to the mark, I would substitute “ruled” for “governed,” and would point out that anarchism also denies Men the right to be enslaved.
However, anarchism is not anti-government so much as anti-state. There is still government in anarchism, just governance by the people through direct democracy. The people are the government.
I don’t see why this would necessarily lead to war.
If Y used initial force hasn’t he reneged on being peaceful?
As a citizen of a Libertaria (based on the idea “that allowing peaceful honest people to pursue their own happiness in their own way is a good and reasonable ethic”) he gave his express consent to be governed. So a contract exists between him and a Libertaria. He stopped being peaceful when he initiated force against another person. Seems to me he breached his contract. And wouldn’t this have some effect on his government’s obligation to protect him? (And does it matter where this possible breach of contract occurred?)
If X’s government is able to show that Y was the initial aggressor, does this or could this limit or void their contract to protect Y?
FF: I guess whether it’s essentially an act of war depends on the answer to this question: When Y’s government uses force against X as a response to X’s force against Y, will X’s government view this as an initiation of force against X, thereby obligating them (per their contract with X) to respond with force against Y’s government? And will Y’s government see that as an initiation of force against them, allowing them to respond in kind?
And even if you can renege on your peacefulness and void your contract, whether or not X initiated force against Y is a question to be decided in arbitration. If X’s government would decide the question differently than Y’s government (the latter says force was initiated by X; the former has different rules of arbitration and concludes, from the facts they find, that X started it), then we can’t even agree on who was the initiator, and therefore whose contract should be voided.
The initiation of force is not so clearcut a thing that all reasonable arbiters would decide the same set of circumstances the same way. Bob sleeps with Frank’s wife. Frank finds out about it and punches Bob in the nose. Who’s initiated force? Bob sleeps with Frank’s wife. Frank walks in on them and punches him in the nose. Who’s initiated force? Bob kicks Frank in the shins. Frank responds by blowing off Bob’s head with a shotgun. Who’s initiated force?
Petitio principii (begging the question) is an argument in which the conclusion is assumed by one or more axioms. Merely implying the conclusion is not petitio principii. After all, implication is the heart and soul of logic. If we may not draw inferences, then we may not construct syllogisms.
One eventual conclusion that is to be drawn from the deontic assertion that peaceful honest people ought to be free to pursue their own happiness in their own way is that freedom is unbedingt Verbotene (unconditionally forbidden) in a context of coercion. The conclusion, of course, is itself deontic, and is not presumed by the initial assertion, but is eventually implied after a series of inferences.
Libertarianism therefore defines freedom as the absence of coercion.
Why is it that you presume that fully half the population will be uneducated and that the other half will be unvaccinated?
Since we’re just pulling stuff out of a hat, I am a factory owner. Half the people who apply for the jobs are overqualified; they have doctorate degrees. The other half who apply for the jobs are olympic medalists. They’ll be unhappy doing factory work.
It is in everyone’s interest that some people collect the garbage, work in the sewers, serve food to the rest of us, and be productive so that they may be good employees, consumers, citizens, and neighbors.
I covered that in the post you quoted from. You must have missed it in your haste to respond. If you take your extremism to Libertaria, you will find that you are crippling only yourself. By insisted that not even a molecule of pollution waft your way, you will be hauled into arbitration the moment you exhale. When you are then removed from the society, more reasonable people will prevail.
Actually, you have a buttload of them, variously nuanced and selectively enforced. But that wasn’t what I meant. A single law that prohibits coercion prohibits trespass and vandalism.
Why do you presume that physical injury is the only coercion? Coercion is the use of initial force such that a person is compelled into nonvolition. That’s why fraud is included as coercive.
I would sooner let arbitration decide whether he is a gibbering loon. But if you already know that he is a gibbering loon who is no threat to you, why are you asking this question?
What if he says it while winking, hopping on one foot, and whistling Swan Lake?
If the president believes that he has been coerced, let him take the matter into arbitration.
A threat is coercive if it compels you to act against your will.
He may not even be on your property without your consent, much less wave a knife at you there.
I’m suggesting that peaceful honest people ought to be free to pursue their own happiness in their own way.
If L. Neil Smith is happy hiring his own arbiters, then let him. If I am happy consenting to be governed, then let me. If Chumsky is happy being a part of a libertarian socialist community, then let him. If Gadarene is happy being told what to do, then let her seek out a Nanny to govern her. And let Fenris do what makes him happy, so long as he initiates no force or fraud in his dealings.
Let peaceful honest people pursue their own happiness in their own way.
I’ve been silent on this one because the only thing I’ve really had to say is: Libertarian, your system wouldn’t work. But now that I think of it, that’s a valid thing to say. So:
Libertarian, your system wouldn’t work. It would fail. It would fall apart.
You don’t much like the hypothetical situations that have been thrown around, but they’re important. They expose the flaws in what you’re advocating.
If I so wanted, I could create Libertaria Stricker under your system. Got a problem? Is someone “coercing” you? No problem. Stricker can handle it.
Assuming I did a good enough job, my little enterprise would expand. I’d have my own army, ready to use responsive force whenever one of my clients is wronged. And I’d need it, too, because the first time my judgement conflicted with the judgement of another arbiter, there would be war. Justified war, according to you, and I couldn’t disagree more.
The system we have right now, flawed as it is, eventually decides one way or the other. And that is IT. You cannot appeal to the next arbiter of choice (Stricker, Enforcer at Large). When there are international problems in our current system, it’s a real mess, sure. But the US isn’t going to risk war (which would lead to the deaths of countless people), just because my summer house has been burned down by revolutionaries somewhere else in the world.
But your Libertaria would be obligated to go to war. And this sort of obligation would spring up all the time. There would be constant fighting and bickering.
Eventually one Libertaria or another would dominate, due to both great economic influence (monopolies and market power) and a powerful military.
Stricker would be in charge, and my military would be responsible to me, not to my clients. And then there would be no Libertaria anymore.
I think you doubt it would happen like this. But I am pretty durn positive it would happen exactly like this (well, I wouldn’t be the one who rose to the top, but you get the point).
You call a person’s life their sacred property. Okay. But a person’s summer home is not, nor will it ever be, sacred property. It’s just plain ol’ property. And protection of plain ol’ property is important, but not sacred. It’s not worth war.
I doubt I’ve convinced you, but that’s okay. I’ve spoken my piece. Whether or not you agree with it, I hope you understand it. And I think that’s about all I have to say.
They should immediately make certain that their children do not ever go into that man’s yard, and teach them that it is not only unethical but dangerous. If necessary, they should show them what a bear trap can do.
The reason it mattered was that, if the man invited the children onto his property, then it might be reasonably argued that he intended to harm them, particularly if he did not disable the trap while they were there.
Incidentally, I’m wondering why you’re not equally worried about the bear that is roaming the neighborhood. Or is your hypothetical man yet another of your neighbors from Bizzaro World?
Well, it depends on who is extending rights to whom.
Regarding the statist laws, I’m afraid it’s not quite so simple as you represent it, and it depends entirely on the jurisdiction. In Canada, for example, you may not even attempt to trap without a license. That’s if the animal is fur bearing. You can trap only where trapping is permitted. Whether or not you know where those areas are is irrelevant. You may not disturb someone else’s trap. Incidental to this is that you may not shoot a beaver or muskrat if it is on land. If you want to trap muskrats and beavers, there is an extensive set of regulations that apply. In any event, your traps can’t have serrated edges, teeth, or hooks. (Nothing is specified about barbs, spurs, or Klingon knives.) You can’t trap black bears with leghold traps, but you can shoot them. You can use leghold traps to trap beaver, ermine, fisher, marten, mink, muskrat, otter, red squirrel or wolverine (although beavers and muskrats fall into the special circumstances noted above). If you trap an animal, you must shoot it immediately when you find it (and you must check every 72 hours), but your shotgun must be at least 20 gauge and no larger than 10 gauge. And your barrel must have a bore of at least .50 calibre for moose and black bear and at least .44 calibre Claire for deer and wolf. Your gun must shoot a single projectile, although it may include a sabot.
All that said, it is still the case that “Special permits may be issued in exceptional circumstances.” But power snares are an exception to the exception if they’re used in open areas. But black bears are an exception to the exception to the exception.
