Question for Libertarians regarding legitimacy of US government.

[Kyberneticist]

A libertarian friend of mine is very much into rights of ownership. Rights of ownership of individuals, of groups, of corporations. But when it comes to the U.S. government, he claims they have no legitimate right to the powers they claim over the land belonging to the U.S.A.
“After all, you didn’t get a chance to choose to be under their government.”
Alright, I posed a series of quick questions to him in the perenially popular Socratic style - although perhaps with a little less toadying. This (roughly paraphrased below) dialogue is highly predjudiced in that it assumes Native Americans have no rights to U.S. land, but then again, I’ve never heard of any Libertarians even considering supporting the cause of returning all U.S. land to its original owners. Pity. I think a strong argument could be made for it from a libertarian perspective.

Me: Would you assent that an individual, laying claim to land, with none to contradict that claim, has right of ownership to that land, can place requirements upon trespassers on that land, and can pass it on to whom he chooses?
Him: Naturally, the right to property is fundamental to Lockean Libertarianism. Although not all agree with Locke’s ideas of improving on the land, if acceded to, it negates many Native American land claims.
Me: And if a number of individuals, laying claim to large portions of land, again, while successfully defending those claims, decided to give certain rights over this land to a council selected from amongst them in order to govern and maintain it for them and their children, could they not do so?
Him: I think you over-simplify how the colonial government came about, but yes, people would have the right to do so.
Me: I may be over simplifying, but let’s presume people supported their state governments, which in their turn had the right to give certain powers over to higher national governing body. In this case, would not the children of these first inhabitants also be bound by this agreement?
Him: Since their parents gave up certain of their rights over this land, I would say that the children would be bound by this agreement.
Me: And anyone presuming to move to these lands?
Him: yes
Me: and their children?
Him: yes
Me: In that case, why the libertarian claims of the illegitamacy of the U.S. government? Did it not gain its power in strict accordance with libertarian principles? Should not federal land be treated as corporate land is, and when they gave it up to private use, could they not set whatever conditions they wished on those who used it?

I swear, our conversation did not get any further that day. Stopped dead right there. Any libertarians around who could clarify my understanding of libertarian principles?
Was he speaking alone in deriding the U.S. government? Do I have an imperfect understanding, as an immigrant myself, of the formation of the U.S. which allows a loophole?

Just wondering.

[jayron_32]

I think you are oversimplifying libertarian notions of government and ownership.

The system you discribe is perhaps more accurately described as a form of “feudalism.” In practice, feudalism states that all land is held by The Government (in it’s time, this was The Monarch, but there is no reason to confine a philosphical “feudalism” to the restrictions of actual, historic “feudalism.” It could be ANY form of government, so long as we agree that in feudalism, the government actually OWNS the land). The land is in effect “leased” from the government to lower landholders, who possess the land only by the good graces of The Government, who holds ultimate rights over said land. Now, in actual historic feudalism, the land was heirarchicly “sub-infeudated” down to managable size pieces, with each level in the vertical heirarchy mimicking the same relationship that existed between the King and the Tenant’s-in-Chief (his Dukes and Earls/Counts). There is, however, no reason to assume sub-infeudation in our definition of Feudalism, merely we must only believe that the rights to hold possesion of the land exist only by the good grace of the government. Now, you describe two situations, which bear seperate analysis:

1. How the government got the land: Ancestors who owned the land volunatrily gave administration of that land to an elective council of that choosing.

2. The decendents of that council (in a philisophical, not literal sense) and the decendents of those ancestors (literally) are bound by the same relationship. Thus, since our ancestors gave our property rights to a government, that government has absolute control over that property.

This clouds the fact that Libertarians do NOT subscribe to a feudal system of government. The libertarian principle of government holds that the people choose a government for the purpose of protection solely, not for the purpose of administration. We assent to a government because it is impractical to each protect our rights individually, but far more efficient to create a government to do that. The government was not created to own all the land, and allow others to control it by its own good grace (as you describe) it was created to provide protection against encroachment of rights.

Protection comes in two forms: external and internal. The military exists to protect our rights (property and civil) from external forces, such as invading armies. The police exist to protect our rights (property and civil) from internal forces, such as criminals.

Now, all Libertarians would agree to these basic principles, however there are many divisions within Libertarian thinking, but they all hold true to the basic idea that the government exists for the sole purpose of protection.

For instance, there is no consensus over whether or not the government can own ANY land. Some maintain that the government is an entity unlike others in society, and is defined as being restricted from holding any land. Others hold that the government is merely a corporation (though a special unique kind of corporation), and may have the right to own land as long as it comes by it through means availible to any other corporation, but still agree that the government does not hold “ownership” in any sense of the word, over ALL land in its jurisdiction. Thus the government may own buildings (for it’s own administration) and land (for any reason, including protection of resources (National Parks))etc. The basic principle, however, is that the government has no MORE rights WRT to land ownership than do any entity under its jurisdiction.

Environmentalism is a good one also: There are some that maintain that the government is not allowed to place penalties upon businesses for not being environementally frinedly, and insist that market pressures should be allowed to protect the environment. This is an example of the Principle of Non-Coersian: the government cannot use its power to control behavior insofar as that behavior is (in the case of personal behavior) harmless to others or (in the case of corporate behavior) subject to market control. However, others maintain that pollution is an infringement of rights: A person has the right, for one, not to have his health endangered by the willfully negligent act of another. Since the government’s job is to protect rights, they must use their power to prevent any entity in its jurisdiction from infringing upon the rights of other entities in its jurisdiction.

The thing with Libertarianism is NOT in a disagreement over philosophy, it is in the application of that philosophy to real-world situations. It’s these policies towards implimentation and execution that create divisions in libertarianism, indeed, that cause divisions in ANY political philosophy.

To answer your initial question: Merely because a government is FORMED in accordance with libertarian principles, does NOT mean it can govern according to whatever principles it wishes. The government must continue to operate under libertarian principles to maintain legitimacy. Insofar the U.S. government does not, it is not legitimate.

[Kimstu]

jayron32:

The land is in effect “leased” from the government to lower landholders, who possess the land only by the good graces of The Government, who holds ultimate rights over said land. Now, in actual historic feudalism, the land was heirarchicly “sub-infeudated” down to managable size pieces, with each level in the vertical heirarchy mimicking the same relationship that existed between the King and the Tenant’s-in-Chief (his Dukes and Earls/Counts). There is, however, no reason to assume sub-infeudation in our definition of Feudalism, merely we must only believe that the rights to hold possesion of the land exist only by the good grace of the government.

That makes the definition of “feudalism” awfully broad. One of the key characteristics of actual feudalism was that real property was allotted to a relatively small class of landowners, who were required to perform many of the tasks of government (criminal justice, national defense) in return. As this description has it, “feudalism means government by amateurs paid in land rather than professionals paid in money.” To extend the use of the term “feudalism” to cover any society where the state is the ultimate source of property rights robs the word of most of its usual meaning.

[hijack inspired by too much debating with libertarians]

“[…] There’s glory for you!”

"I don’t know what you mean by `glory,’ " Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don’t–till I tell you. I meant “there’s a nice
knock-down argument for you!”

"But `glory’ doesn’t mean “a nice knock-down argument,” Alice objected.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to
mean–neither more nor less.

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean different things.”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master–that’s all.”

Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. “They’ve a
temper, some of them–particularly verbs, they’re the proudest–adjectives you can do anything with, but not
verbs–however, I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! That’s what I say!”

“Would you tell me, please,” said Alice, “what that means ?”

“Now you talk like a reasonable child,” said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. "I meant by
“impenetrability’ that we’ve had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you’d mention what you
meant to do next, as I suppose you don’t intend to stop here all the rest of your life.”

“That’s a great deal to make one word mean,” Alice said in a thoughtful tone.

“When I make a word do a lot of work like that,” said Humpty Dumpty, “I always pay it extra.”

“Oh!” said Alice. She was too much puzzled to make any other remark.

[/hijack inspired by too much debating with libertarians]

[hansel]

*Originally posted by jayron 32 ***
The libertarian principle of government holds that the people choose a government for the purpose of protection solely, not for the purpose of administration.
**

Don’t Libertarian principles hold the primacy of individual choices above all else? Is it not possible, then, for a community to choose a government for administration as well? Or is this ruled out as Libertarianism somehow?

*Originally posted by jayron 32 ***
Thus the government may own buildings (for it’s own administration) and land (for any reason, including protection of resources (National Parks))etc. The basic principle, however, is that the government has no MORE rights WRT to land ownership than do any entity under its jurisdiction.
**

The first thought that came to my mind as a practical objection was the idea of “eminent domain” - that the government may take (forcibly, if necessary) private property if it’s in the public good, and just compensation (say, market value) is paid for it. For example, in wartime, the government may claim your oceanfront property for a radar station.

Eminent domain seems to immediately violate Libertarian principles. But as a practical matter, this seems like a necessary power of the (libertarian) government if the government is going to adequately protect the people. Otherwise, a foreign power could, before attacking, purchase strategically valuable land, either for the purposes of attack, or to deny its defensive value to the military, and the home government would have no recourse to claiming the land back in defense of the nation. Likewise, if the government is permitted no ownership of the land, then whatever entity owned the land could hold the nation hostage by evicting the government; a military base could be closed because the owners (friendly to a foreign power) exercised their rights of private property over the land. Again, the government would fail in its duty and mandate to protect the people through no fault of its own.

In these days of high tech conflict, or at least high explosive, it’s doubtful that a citizen’s militia could ever hope to adequately defend against an organized invasion - who would have the artillery, armor, and air force necessary? A standing army being necessary, then, the government would only be setting itself up for a failure of its (libertarian) mandate to protect the people.

By the way, congratulations on an exposition of Libertarian principles so lucid that you nearly had me convinced. It’s a far better showing than many others on this board have made.