andros, no, not at all. Were you beat up a lot at school? If not, why not?
Upon further reflection, I think I’d rather stay here then go to GD with all this, despite the thread title.
A.
I think there must be some discrepancy in the definition of ‘political philosophy’ among Elvis, lib, and xeno. Maybe a definition of terms is in order.
B.
So, if possible, can anyone define the basic principles of libertarianism for me? I get from Lib the notions of
-
no intial force
which I take to mean that no one person or collection of people should attempt to force any other person or collection to do anything, but that if you try to force me, then I can try to force you not to. -
no initial fraud
No clue what’s meant by that.
C. To get ahead of myself somewhat, what do the libertarians think of the Libertarian Party in the US? Is attempting to get power within the current system of government consistent with Libertarianism? Or does participating in the system to that extent constitute support for an unsupportable system?
Um, political philosophy is, among other things but essentially, the process by which the public decides what form of government they will use, even if there are those who refuse to use the g-word. Any disagreement?
Apparently a self-described libertarian believes that governments are not related to politics, or derived from the philosophies that guide politics. Further, it follows that any system the public sets up to handle public policy that actually handles public problems becomes coercive and therefore illegitimate. That keeps it in the realm of fantasy at best.
Nogginhead wrote:
A political philosophy is a philosophy of ethics that is concerned with relations among people.
Libertarianism is a philosophy that advocates voluntary human relations.
At its core is the Noncoercion Principle. Coercion is defined as initial force or fraud. Defensive force or fraud and retaliatory force or fraud are not coercive. Force is defined as any action or threat of action that contradicts consent. Fraud is defined as any action or threat of action that nullifies consent.
Like any other political party, it is a vehicle for statism. It is much closer to libertarianism than other parties, but it is not purely ideological.
Well, no. Such public systems, if they are established through consensual agreements and do not violate existing contractual agreements would not be considered coercive.
A political philosophy is a systematized application of a specific set of ethical concepts to the social sphere. Political philosophies walk a line (very basically stated) between concentration on individual action (including responsibilities and rights) and collective action. Libertarianism may be the most individualist-concentrated political philosophy (if one includes anarchism as an extreme libertarianism).
Nogginhead
You may consider responses by Xeno to be as authoritative as my own. He has taken the time and invested the effort to learn about our philosophy. Although he does not hold all our views as his own, he will in every case honestly represent them. When he doesn’t know, he will say so.
Well, thanks for that kind recommendation, Lib. I’ll do my best not to over reach.
This is actually kind of cool. Elvisl1ves is speaking Pit, and you’re hearing GD.
Q not worth its own thread:
How does Libertarian feel about slavery? Can you sell you right not to be coerced? The right of your child?
Come to think of it, how does Libertarianism deal with children?
So, loosely speaking, libertarianism is anarchy, except it has rules about interactions between people? Namely that you shouldn’t force someone to do something and you shouldn’t nullify someone’s ability to consent? Otherwise I do exactly as I please?
Force I think I understand, but fraud is more opaque. Can you give an example of initial fraud?
I guess a logically prior question is: How is consent defined?
I empathize with Elvis’ frustration.
If the govenrment’s only role is to enforce noncoercion, then how does a highway get built?
Only if every person whose house is in the way, without any coercion, decides to move?
And sufficient people who want a highway contribute to the construction costs?
And all the people who pour the asphalt really want to be doing that?
How does a government protect its citizens from external threats? For example, suppose a non-libertarian state was said by some (but not all) residents of the liberatrian state to be threatening the state’s existence?
Does the state have a standing army?
Is it also funded by only those who want to , to whatever degree they feel important? That would make long-range planning a bitch.
Are these all examples of public policy issues to which liberatrianism doesn’t speak?
Nogginhead wrote:
Let’s get something straight up front. I want you to know what I will not participate in. I will not participate in having my responses paraphrased to fit with arbitrary presuppositions. If that’s all you’re going to do, then you might as well stay with what you already think you know.
If I describe the mechanism of evolution as natural selection, you may not respond, “So, loosely speaking, evolution is survival of the fittest, except it has rules about allele frequencies.” If you do that, I’m done with you. I certainly welcome genuine inquiries, but genuine inquiries are not phrased disingenuously.
I might be overreacting and misreading your intent. I hope that I am. But I am very gunshy about deliberate trolling that is nothing but a waste of time for me and everyone involved. I am willing to answer any questions you have, but I expect intellectual honesty and respect. I can see where someone might say that I am “touchy”, but just as you said that the price of discussion with you is to endure aggressive questions, so is the price I charge that you phrase them respectfully and without sarcastic bias.
Libertarianism is opposition to coercion. It is an anti-bullying ethic that, when implemented, provides people a context of peace (no initial force) and honesty (no initial fraud). There are no “rules” beyond that. You may defend yourself, but you may not start a fight. You are free to pursue your own happiness in your own way so long as you are peaceful and honest in your dealings with others.
Fraud is an attempt to circumvent consent. It does not bruise, but it has the same ethical effect as a club or gun: it tricks a person into making a decision that he otherwise would not. It nullifies his consent.
An example might be, “This watch is made of solid gold and I offer it to you for $10,” when in fact the watch is cheap gold plating. Another might be, “I agree to fix your roof in exchange for room and board,” but you fail to do what you promised. Another, “Our restaurant is kosher,” when in fact it is not. Or, “These miracle pills will help you to lose weight by burning off fat while you sleep.”
Consent is the exercise of volitional choice. Giving your consent to a contract, for example, means that you agree with its terms. Withholding your consent means that you do not.
Why? Elvis’s frustration is born of ignorance. He opposes something he does not even comprehend. It is one thing for a man to be frustrated with a bug in a computer program, but it is quite another to be frustrated merely because he is incompetent to use it.
I submit that it is far too early in the discussion for you to be frustrated in the manner that Elvis is. Wait until you have all the pieces of the puzzle before you fret over where they fit.
Here is some important advice if you want to understand libertarianism or anything else new to you, for that matter: do not bring unnecessary entities to bear upon what you are studying. “Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatum.” — William of Ockham. Leave behind your preconceptions because they might not apply.
You are used to government playing the role of “provider”. You must understand that asking where something will come from in a provisional context is entirely different from asking the same question about a nonprovisional context. If government were providing you with words to use, you might ask where language would come from if it did not.
And yet, you and I are communicating in English. Who governs English? Who provides the vocabulary, grammar, and syntax? It has developed, not because a provider has determined that it is necessary, but because we who use it have decided so. It has generated spontaneously because there is a context of freedom in which it may.
If government provided your electricity, you might wonder where it would come from without government provision. And yet it is provided without government provision. In fact, it is provided despite government interference with its provision.
The oil that lubricates the libertarian machine is entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurs are people who act upon opportunities to make a profit. Their praxes generate wealth both for them and for those whom they pay to help them. So long as there is free and fair competition, the profits they earn will remain reasonable by virtue of the fact that they must be peaceful and honest with their consumers who are free to decide with whom they will do business. If one entrepreneur is overcharging for his goods or services, another entrepreneur will see a profitable opportunity to enter the market. It is only when government intercedes to favor one entrepreneur over the other with special legislation or other consideration that one has an advantage that the other cannot overcome.
Roads will be provided by entrepreneurs in manifold ways. Business owners will know that consumers need a way to get to their businesses. Housing contractors will know that people need a way to get to their homes. Industries will know that they need a way to transport their goods. You can read papers from the Cato Institute and other libertarian think tanks for details on this.
Without coercion, yes, but not without incentive. Why should it not be up to you to decide whether your land is worth what someone is offering for it? Destroying neighborhoods for the sake of fulfilling the vision of a central planner who doesn’t live in them is not only unethical but bad business. Houses already have roads, and if new ones are needed, people will demand them. But my demand ought not automatically to constitute your submission. Should it?
As you will discover if you investigate libertarianism unilaterally, there are myriad ways that a highway might be financed. People understand that, in order to conduct commerce, they have to be connected to one another. How will you buy or sell anything without access? Will you build a business twelve miles outside of town with no way for people to come there? Will you try to sell a home that requires people to walk or ride horses to get to it?
Further, by allowing the consumers of goods to bear the costs directly, you reduce the expenses associated with the goods. In other words, if I am the government agent in charge of providing roads, how is it efficient if you pay me to pay a contractor? I have to make a living, too. And I will keep a portion of your money for myself. So, whereas you could have paid the contractor $1,000 yourself, you are now paying me $1,500.
This question seems out of place. Only in the most authoritarian context would anyone be forced to pour asphalt. Even for all its egregious ethics, government that is familiar to you will not enslave its people.
If there is a need for pouring asphalt, an entrepreneur will seize the opportunity. If a man needs work, he will work for the entrepreneur. This is hardly any different than what you have in place now, except for the fact that, in a libertarian context, neither the entrepreneur nor the worker is burdened by frivolous regulation and the enormous expense of dealing with a government that monopolizes nearly every aspect of their lives.
It need threaten only one citizen. The response from the libertarian government will be swift and decisive. Libertarian government does not engage in diplomacy and is not itself a nation-state. Citizens decide individually for themselves whether diplomacy with foreigners is in their interest. It is often commercially desirable to make contact with people in other places.
Yes. A very powerful one. It has to have a powerful army/police because it is contractually bound to defend the rights (property) of its citizens. In fact, nearly the whole of its structure consists of arbitration of disputes and enforcement of noncoercion. There is no need for any legislation in a libertarian society, although legislation is not on principle prohibited.
It is funded by those who want their rights (property) secured and have consented to be governed. To govern, in libertarianism, means to protect. Government is not an authority over you; rather, it is the other way around. Without your consent, government is illegitimate.
When you wrote that question, you had a fundamental misunderstanding about libertarianism. With any luck, you are now in a better position to ask a question that is relevant.
Robert wrote:
If you search, you can find detailed discussions about this, so I’ll just hit the highlights.
Libertarianism defines children as rights bearing entities who are incapable giving meaningful consent. Because they had no say in being born, their parents are holders of a unary contract. The act of producing the child was itself coercive (the child could not give consent) and must be mitigated by the parents’ discharge of their contractual obligation. The parents are obligated to the child in the same way that government is obligated to adult consentors: they must protect the child from coercion and may not themselves coerce the child. They may use force only to defend the child from harm (defensive) and as reasonable punishment (retaliatory).
The child was born with certain property (rights), including its life, its body, and its mind. Child abuse, pornography, neglect, slavery, and so forth are all violations of the rights (property) of the child. They are not capable of giving meaningful consent with respect to their rights and therefore must be protected by their parents or, in some cases, from their parents by government.
Regarding slavery, and assuming you are an adult, you may not be taken into servitude without your consent. But neither may your consent to be a servant be suppressed. You may sell yourself in any way you see fit, e.g., your body as a prostitute, your mind as a writer, your life as an indentured slave, etc. It is your property (right).
As a quick “aside”, Lib, would you be willing to participate in a thread refining the libertarian definition of “initial fraud”? I think this may be the biggest fly in the ointment for me, and possibly other progressive liberals, concerning libertarianism. When we assail you with talk of “economic coercion,” the concept of fraud comes into critical play in our thinking (i.e. the appearance of equitable practices disguising or enabling deep and institutionalized inequities).
Yes. It might be that I have approached your concept of “economic coercion” with certain baggage. If a case can be made that it is a form of fraud, like breach is for example, then I would be interested in hearing it.
Cool. I’ll work on an OP later on today (hopefully). —If I start this thread and it shows signs of degenerating in one of the usual directions, I’ll ask for it to be closed.
Sounds good. Thank you, Xeno.
nogginhead, you’re quite right, except it isn’t “frustration”, but simply annoyance. Libertarian has entirely established the things we’ve said - when confronted with the real world, he resorts to insults while asserting his own “intellectual honesty”. He really does believe, as I suggested, that the rest of the world is too stupid or obstinate to recognize the brilliance of his vision, and has now said so.
The winner and still champion: nogginhead.
You know, Lib, I’m thinking you should get this thead’s title changed.
Or at least get nogginhead’s name removed and another, more worthy name put in.
I’ve sent an e-mail to an administrator requesting that it be closed.
[Administrator Hat ON]
Thread closed at the request of the OP.\
[Administrator Hat OFF]