One comment to you, please, having just read your astoundingly excellent remark in Great Debates: “Having faith that faith is valid is just as self-referential as reasoning that reason is valid.”
That statement demonstrates that you have a profound understanding that two different epistemologies can be equally valid. Speaking at the level of foundational theory, can you see also that two ethics philosophies might be equally valid? An ethic of noncoercion can be as valid as an ethic of expedience, even though the ethic of expedience is more aggressive in nature.
In my opinion, what is practical depends entirely on what your are practicing. The ethic of noncoercion is useless for practicing authoritarianism. But the ethic of expedience is equally useless for practicing voluntary relations.
As a note to Lib, your rationale about demanding respect from your interlocutors would be more compelling if you showed more respect to them in return. This is the way it works in life, too.
Making every difference of opinion into a pit thread doesn’t contribute to meaningful discussion in the first place. Then relying on personal insults, even though you’re allowed to in this venue, tends to lower the level of debate to the point where it takes 50 posts until people can once again talk like adults.
Most actual people’s ethics in practice fall somewhere between expedience and non-coercion, colored with a healthy dose of ‘what must I do to stay out of jail?’. As I believe you implied in a different thread, this is the actual ethic you follow yourself, in that you pay taxes that you consider coercive.
We (in the US) do not live in a wholly ‘authoritarian’ country, but many people believe and practice what I would describe as “practical, personal non-coercion” in their lives. They don’t force or threaten other individuals on a personal basis. But, like you and me, they submit to coercion when practical. And they reap the benefits of coecion against others by driving on tax-sponsored roads paid for by people who never use them, etc.
There’s no need to choose between authoritarianism and libertarianism: the choices of internally consistent ethical systems abound, and in practice few of us can live within any wholly consistent system.
I think there’s a difference of opinion on your last assertion.
And the first and second assertions are unrelated to one another. I used hyperbole in suggesting that you pitted everyone. However, several posters in this particular thread have noted that vigorous questioning of your views have resulted in pit threads.
Two of those were the pitted ones. But Fenris didn’t think that what you claim is the case. Neither do I. Jeff Olsen thought Riboflavin was a one-trick pony. Spoofe couldn’t care less either way. And now you, whom I’ve also pitted, are checking in. But if you’ll recall, you pitted me at the same time. Did you pit me on account of my opinion differing from yours?
But look at this thread. When you are pitted unjustly, everyone will say so practically unanimously.
The problem is that you won’t allow people to choose. You apparently apply “no need” as a universal imperative.
Honestly, I can’t recall what my motivation was. It’s possible I felt you were avoiding answering a meaningful practical question in a less-than-respectful way. As I recall, though, you thought it sufficient cause for pitting that I pursued the practical question too many times (or too aggressively).
Who, me? I’m no less of a cog than you are. I allow everone to live by whatever personal decisions seem right to them. I’d like to agree that (excluding John Ashcroft and GWB) none of us gets to choose, in practice, between authoritarianism and libertarianism.
In the privacy of one’s own mind, you can support whatever system you want as an ideal, including libertarianism, authoritarianism, radical Islam, radical Christianity, etc. I, and everyone else is happy to allow you to choose. What you do in practice is a different story-- you can probably get in big trouble in the US of 2003 for espousing support for Osama bi Laden. And forget about practicing what he preaches!
You and I do not disagree. None of us, in practice, gets to choose what to practice because of what is being practiced by those with the most political clout. I’m not forcing anyone to be libertarian. I’m not even seeking converts. I merely wish to espouse my views without being presumed to have ulterior motives, a weak intellect, and a naive worldview. Is that too much to ask?
If there’s one thing we can all agree on, it’s that New Jersey sucks in general.**
How do you know the child was left “all alone?” I suspect that may not be the case. It happens that when I was a kid, my mom kept a pretty tight watch on me, but that doesn’t mean that she could have prevented me from darting over the neighbor’s property at any given moment. Parents do, on occasion, have to turn their backs on their children; even a vigilant parent does not observe their child every second of every day. **
Cite for the proposition that the child was “sent outside to explore by himself”? Sounds to me like the kid was just playing in his backyard. **
The mother may or may not be blameless. Again, I’m not entirely certain that criminal charges are appropriate here, but if they are, that does not preclude the mother from also being criminally culpable. Prosecuting Landowner and prosecuting Mother are not mutually exclusive propositions. **
My point was hardly legalese: the basic point was, the law in most states do not take a “all or nothing” approach to allocating responsibility for civil wrongs. (Yes, this is a criminal case, but the bear trap example that led to it was a civil matter, and tort law provides a better lens to show the differences between how Libertaria and the real world allocate liability). **
I’ve always stipulated that the child in these examples is a trespasser. We are focusing exclusively on a landowner’s duty to a trespassing child.
Why is it fair to charge murder? Well, that depends; I can see the charge being appropriate if, say, the following elements are present: (1) the chain allowed the dog to wander right up to the Landowner’s property line; (2) the dog was bred for fighting and was known to attack humans; and (3) the landowner knew there was a small child living next door who was likely to dart over the property line before her mother could stop her.
Obviously, specific facts could change this: if the dog was chained in such a way that the child had to traverse a lot of open ground to reach the dog, then the case for criminal liability is much, much weaker, because the case for a callous disregard for human life is much harder to make out. **
I recognize that the facts make a difference. When I posit my examples, I am careful to include the factors that are critical in the law reaching a certain outcome. Indeed, most of my examples are pulled straight from cases studied in the law school classroom. If you think there are additional factors which need investigating – N.B., additional factors, not a change in the existing facts of the example – to determine the outcome in Libertaria, you are free to note that in your reply. I really don’t see what the problem is.**
No, it is not, because my hypotheticals have really happened. Most of them are based on law school casebook materials, i.e., they are cases in which an actual plaintiff sued an actual defendant and obtained an actual ruling for an incident which actually occurred.
Take my boat in a storm example. That is a classic case demonstrating the principle that a trespasser is not liable to a landowner for his trespass if it is bourne of necessity (though he may be liable for any actual damage to the dock). The landowner who unties the boat in that situation is liable to the sailor. And I’m not making it up – that actually happened and a court actually ruled on it. **
Again, we’re left with the notion that parents, to avoid liability, must either (1) keep their kids inside all day, (2) chain their kids to the back porch, or (3) tie the child to their apron strings. Because, again, even the best parents look away from time to time.
But wait a second. In the nuke scenario, there’s no explicit threat. The landowner isn’t saying “give me money or I’ll blow you up with the nuke I’m building.” He’s just building a nuke.
I mean, you can make this principle run pretty far. How about a neighbor with a vulcan cannon? What possible use could he have for that other than threatening others? How about hand grenades? A mortar? Artillery guns? What about a fully automatic machine gun?
This still sounds to me like an ad hoc redefinition of “coercion.”**
So as long as I blow up the reactor real good, such that in the rubble no one can tell if my charge of nuclear weaponmaking was credible, I’m good to go?
**
Yeah, but again, who arbitrates? Do I have to hale my neighbor in for arbitration before I bomb his reactor to smithereens? Why does my neighbor have to participate, and if he chooses not to, why would the findings of the arbitrator be binding on him?
I think my questions relate more properly to the notion that “mere possession of some articles can be considered an initiation of force,” a concept Lib mentioned but did not flesh out.
I’m going to ask this, and please don’t feel obligated to answer quickly but when you feel you have the answer (as it seems to you):
Do we disagree in theory or in practice?
If you take a look at the Robertson pit threads you’ll see several places where I believe I was disrespected (lied about in one, taken to be a fool in another, for example). If the posts had been made by people both with whose posts I was familiar and whose acumen and such I believed to be in order, I would have taken it much more seriously than I did.
Oh dear … I didn’t mean to put myself forward the arbiter/seer of disrespect. I thought I have made that clear enough in my post. Is that the impression you got from my previous post(s), or is that impression something I am reading into your post?
Anyway, to answer your question: mainly how I discern disrespect is that:
Someone flames me needlessly
Someone attributes a comment to me and, when shown that they are erroneous, continues down that same path, ignoring what I said (and occasionally setting up a strawman)
Someone responds to an argument of mine with an ad hominem attack … whether at me or at someone else.
I don’t wish to hijack this thread with a thorough discussion of these points, though, as that was never the intent of this thread. I also must confess I’m not especially keen on starting a new thread about this. I’d be fine with discussing it via email, though you’d have to initiate that, as I don’t have your email address. Your call:)
One final point before I leave here: it is possible to sound peaceful and be attacking someone. Similarly it is possible to sound harsh and be sincere/nice. If you agree with those two premises, I think it might behoove you/your heart to find out, when you believe someone is being unnecessarily harsh, if that is their impression/intent.
If I had responded to one of your questions that way, you would have cried foul so loud the board would have crashed.
I want answers. What is the status quo doing to guarantee the rights of children? Why are thousands upon thousands of children falling through the cracks? (I gave you links already.) Why is the status quo failing? What about the status quo makes it superior to pinning responsibility for children onto parents? Why are neighbors held accountable when they have behaved responsibly? I’m not accusing you of reckless disregard for the welfare of children the way you did me. I’m just asking what your system does to secure their rights to their lives, their bodies, and their minds.
I think that’s just crazy. I am a parent. I positively cannot fathom ever having put my daughter into that sort of dangerous situation and taking my eyes off her. It’s irresponsible beyond belief.
Nevertheless, by what ethical principle do you turn responsibility back onto the neighbor? If parents can’t watch children every second, why should neighbors be expected to?
Consider it to be a hypothetical. Would a mother who sends her two-year-old outside to explore by himself be liable for what happens to him in the status quo?
They aren’t in Libertaria either. So why is libertarianism the big evil bastard philosophy that you make it out to be? By the way, the mother was not charged. Can she be “criminally culpable” without being charged?
I don’t understand that. What does “tort law” mean? Why is a bear trap any different from a dog? Is it because the trap is inanimate and the dog isn’t? Why can’t a man be as fond of trapping as he is of dog handling?
Fine. Stipulate that the child is a trespasser. Libertaria does not hold the child liable in either case, whether he is trespassing or not. If he is trespassing, it is in fact his parent or guardian who is trespassing. What is the legal term for that, de facto?
But why is it indemically necessary to consider those things to be appropriate to charging the landowner with murder? They seem to me like good reasons that the mother is neglegent: (1) the mother knows where the property lines are; (2) the mother knows that the dog — no matter how it is bred — is capable of killing her two-year-old; (3) the mother knows there is a big dog living right next door that is likely to charge at a swaggering toddler.
Libertarianism doesn’t allow “callous disregard for human life” either. But the point is that the callous disregard seems to me to be on the part of the mother, not the neighbor. Why should the neighbor have to exercise more care than the child’s own mother?
If that’s the case, there is no problem. But you must understand that there might be certain facts that are pertinent when the consideration is noncoercion rather than expedience. And quite often, you have been answered, but you just don’t like the answer. And you equate not liking the answer to being unanswered.
How many more times will I have to tell you that Libertaria holds the mother liable for the safety of her child, so long as her neighbor is not coercing her, before you will accept that your damn question has been answered? I answered your bear trap question the same way. I told you that what I would do as a parent, and what the parents in your hypothetical ought to do. But you just didn’t like the idea that parents should be held responsible for the welfare of their children, and so you pressed on. Why couldn’t you just accept the answer you were given? That way, we could just disagree civilly. You say the trap owner is responsible, and I say that the parents are responsible. There. See? The world has not ended.
I don’t recall seeing that one. But Libertaria just doesn’t operate that way, and that does not make it an evil place. I would let someone dock at my place in an emergency. Plenty of people would. We just can’t require you to allow it. You might say that that puts an onerous burden on people with emergencies, since they don’t know whether they will encounter a nice person or a mean person, but so what? Neither the libertarian example nor the status quo will change what actually happens. The status quo landowner might untie the boat and take the consequences if he is charged with … whatever the law charges him with for untying boats on his property. Likewise, the libertarian boat owner might fight to keep his boat tied, but he will pay the consequences if he is charged with trespass.
Not when their child is right beside a fucking pit bull, they don’t. Those are called “worst parents”, not “best parents”.
In Libertaria, the mother has built a tall, strong fence around her yard to protect her child from the dog she knows is there. That is only part of what she did when she began contemplating the responsibility of bearing and caring for a human being. She made sure that when she couldn’t watch her child that the father could. In fact, the government made sure of that, because fathers can’t just duck out on their parental responsibilities. The family spends a lot of time in the yard, and their child is happy mainly because he knows for a certainty that they love him.
Though this perhaps is a result of frustration, I must admit that this “you didn’t answer my question” complaint is not exlcusive to you or these arguments, and in fact I think it is a fantastic idea all the way around to ensure that some don’t think the question was rhetorical or simply miss it.
That is exactly what I have been trying to explain to since this all began. The definition of coercion is purposely fluid. It is intended to extend the greatest possible liberty to the greatest number of people. That’s what libertarianism is all about — liberty. But not unbridled liberty. Not the liberty to infringe the liberty of others. Merely the liberty to do with your property what you please so long as you do not suppress the same rights of others.
Living in Libertaria involves taking risks. You risk failing whenever you launch a business venture. You risk being charged with coercion when you try to push the limits of common sense, like having nuclear weapons and vulcan canons (whatever those are).
The whole process of arbitration is for the purpose of determining what coercion means in given situations. The idea is that people who are not extreme risk-takers will err on the side of caution. And those who do take great risks will pay the price when they fail. They will also reap the rewards when they succeed.
If you are intent on finding out whether a machine gun is allowable — or a grenade, or a mortar, or an artillery gun — then you will indeed find out. Your neighbors will let you know in short order. I’ve refered you before to Hayek’s Theory of Spontaneous Order. If you have read it, then you already understand this principle.
Of course not. He doesn’t have to prove your charges for you.
Gah. This has been covered so many times.
Arbiters arbitrate. When you consented to be governed, you signed a contract agreeing to arbitration. Do you mean to say that you are not familiar with even the most basic fundamentals of Libertaria? If so, you ought to get better acquainted with it before you condemn it.
If your neighbor is not governed by Libertaria, then he is not protected by the Libertarian government. The government governs you. To govern means to protect. You’re used to govern meaning to nanny, apparently. Your. Government. Is. Securing. YOUR. Rights. The arbiter’s concern in that case is with how he is bound to YOU. Not the anarchist.
Me: You want answers?
Lib: I want the truth!
Me: You can’t handle the truth!
Sorry, couldn’t resist.**
The answers to these questions are GD-worthy in and of themselves. The status quo does make efforts to save children. The status quo fails all to frequently in that regard. There are doubtlessly any number of changes that could be made to the status quo that would improve it.
That doesn’t mean that Libertaria improves on the status quo in this particular area. And in some ways, as I note, it makes it worse. **
The status quo does pin primary responsibility for a child’s well-being on the parents. That it also recognizes some duties by other parties does not change that fact.**
The argument here, of course, is that the neighbor did not behave responsibly. **
Hold on there, Sparky. When did I accuse you of reckless disregard for the welfare of children?.
That’s a serious allegation, bub. Back that shit up RIGHT NOW.
**
A comprehensive review of every program designed for the protection of children is obviously beyond the scope of a message board post. I would hope that you would be willing to stipulate that there are programs designed to aid at-risk children, that some of those programs are good, some are negligible, and some are abject failures. **
Congratulations. I gather you’ve never been watching your kid playing in the yard and had to answer the phone?**
The neighbor isn’t expected to watch the children; the neighbor is expected to refrain from activity that is substantially likely to cause harm to a trespassing child when such trespass is foreseeable.**
Define “explore.” Obviously, sending your kid out into the woods completely sans parent is a far cry from sending them into the backyard with plans to follow them a minute or two later.**
**I never said Libertarianism was an “evil bastard philosophy;” indeed, I have specifically noted that I find much to admire in Libertarianism. I do, however, think there are serious problems with a purely Libertarian state.
Obviously, your statement that they are not “mutually exclusive propositions” in Libertaria is false, since by your own argument Libertaria would not prosecute the landowner.**
In a metaphysical sense, yes, though there’s clearly no penalty if that’s the case. Obviously, there are issues of prosecutorial discretion at play – the evidentiary case vs. mom may well be weaker than the case vs. landowner.
**
Do you not own a dictionary?
A tort is a civil wrong, as opposed to a crime or a contract dispute. When you sue for personal injuries or for trespass or for things like that, you’re suing over a tort.**
For all practical purposes, there is little difference in this example between the bear trap and the dog. In both cases, the same rule governs: a landowner owes a duty to foreseeable trespassing children to keep his property free of things likely to cause them serious bodily harm. **
Er…for what? Your question does not compute.**
And indeed, the mother may well also be negligent, and indeed may even be criminally liable. Holding the landowner liable does not preclude liability on the part of the parents. **
Again, the answer is that both parties owe certain duties to the child. Liability for one does not preclude liability for the other. **
Not so. There is a difference between an answer I just don’t like or one that requests a fuller description of the facts and an answer that attempts to sidestep the principle the example is trying to illuminate.**
Oh, I agree that that is the result in Libertaria: total liability for the parents, zero liability for the landowner. I think that’s 100% accurate. I’ve never said otherwise.
I do think that most people will see that result as less satsifactory than the status quo. Which is why I continue to bring it up: it illustrates a shortcoming of Libertaria. **
But the how liability is allocated does affect how things will happen. If a dock owner knows he has no right to evict a trespasser when trespass is bourne of necessity, and that he will be held responsibile for damages if he does so, then he won’t evict the sailor during the storm. The allocation of liability has real-world consequences.
