Well, in Lib’s defense, IIRC he has explicitly denied that the LP were representative of his views, so you can’t ask him to find stuff from the LP platform that wholly supports his position. When he says “Libertarians believe such-and-so”, I just assume he is talking about his defintion of a Libertarian. Think of it like someone who thinks the Democratic party has strayed for its first principles and endorses the platform the party had at the very beginning; he’d still call himself a “democrat” but his position would not be the same as our current Democratic party, although they would have some principles in common.
Guadere,
If all Libertarian is really saying is that HE believes X when he goes on about ‘Libertarians believe X’, then why doesn’t he honestly just say that he’s stating his position rather than speak for a group of people? If a Mormon ran around saying that Christians believe Joseph Smith was a prophet, it would be just as silly.
The form of government (or lack thereof) that Lib and one or two others are advocating is more correctly called anarcho-capitalism, and isn’t what the LP or most people who would identify themselves as ‘libertarians’ believe in. If Lib really thinks that ‘libertarians’ believe as he does, he should at least be able to point to some indication that his beliefs are representative of the group of people he keeps claiming he represents.
Kevin Allegood,
“At least one could get something through Trotsky’s skull.”
- Joseph Michael Bay
Cecil’s already answered this one.
www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_300.html
Hey, what’s a Great Debate thread doing here in the BBQ Pit? Go away. All of you–you’re boring us to death.
Great Debates was specifically designed to contain your endless, useless, argue-into-the-ground screed-tomes. But this current thread has somehow metastacized and begun growing here in the bowels of the Straight Dope Message Board, i.e., this thread is akin to a colon polyp, and needs to be excised. Immediately, if not sooner.
Even the Pit has standards. And if this sort of invasion isn’t stopped, it could spread to the other forums. Can you imagine what the Great Debaters would do with a “What is Your Favorite Color?” thread in MPSIMS?" (Pink alleged to mean that the person is a communist roader, etc.)
I can’t help noticing that the posters include two moderators, who, instead of particiating in this sort of shenanigans, are supposed to keep things like this from happening. Someone needs to tell Ed that a coulple of his moderators have “gone native” and wandered off the reservation.
Screw you! 
Eagles may soar free and proud, but weasels never get sucked into jet engines.
Edlyn has said that I may take whatever time necessary (probably several hours) this weekend to answer everyone’s questions to me. I’ll try to get an early start either Saturday or Sunday. Thanks. (Aside from my new job, we are also working on preparations for our wedding next month.)
And damn! Bitch! Bastard!
If it’s any help, Lib, you can ignore my questions; they’ve all been asked better and more thoroughly by others. All my posts are ending up redundant, so I reckon I’ll just lurk. BTW, congratulations on your upcoming nuptuals, Lib, and I hope all goes well.
Sorry, Pitizens; some of us GDers simply lack your god-given gift for condensing a 5-page reply into “fuck you and yo momma”. 
Ed’s just going to have to bump up the charge on our electroshock collars to keep us “renegade” mods from breaking free and disrupting other fora.
Thanks, Gaudere. It turned out that I had more time this morning than usual (my development PC was taken to the shop), which gave me just enough time to respond in the GD suffering thread.
I’ll just consolidate all the questions where I see redundancies.
Hell. Bitch. Piss.
RIBOFLAVIN says:
My understanding of this, libertarian apologist that I am (ha!), is that the “use of force” in any context necessarily implies the use of reasonable force. The thinking is (and I’m sure Lib will correct me if I’m wrong) that if someone coerces you, you can defend yourself, but if you use disproportional force (more than is necessary for defense) then you are yourself performing an unjustified act of coercion. In other words, the point at which a defense becomes a coercion is the point at which the force employed becomes unreasonable. Under Lib’s system, you and the boy’s family would go before the Arbriter for a determination of whether his actions and your actions were reasonable, and for the imposition of sanctions and reparations if they were not. The problem you highlight is, I think, a legitimate one – at what point does defensive force become offensive force? But I think the scenario of murdering the trespasser is so extreme that it’s not a very good example.
This, I think, devolves down into what we consider “one law.” If I declare that the One Law is “everybody be nice,” but then clarify: “don’t hurt others, it’s not nice;” “don’t steal from others, it’s not nice;” “don’t be dishonest, it’s not nice;” do I have one law or four? But again, the problem you highlight is one I have with libertarianism (or at least Lib’s version) as well: Lib can only claim that the Noncoercion Principle is one law by defining “coercion” extremely broadly (to the point, IMO, of defining as something that it is not), and by applying it extremely broadly. You and I see nine laws; he sees one.
Because implicit in that prohibition is the use of reasonable force only; the use of unresonable force is itself a coercion. I don’t think it’s unfair to Lib or libertarianism to assume a degree of reasonableness in that system; I think it’s unfair to expect him to explain how his system would work if utilized by unreasonable people. No system works when in the hands of psychopaths. Besides, taking the hypothetical to ridiculous extremes is the easy way out. More damning, IMO, is my firm conviction that the system would not work even if you grant that the participants would act as reasonably as most human beings (who do not shoot trespassing kids).
Actually, Lib is pretty careful to distinguish between the libertarianism he prefers to talk about, which is purely philosophical and (IMO) maddeningly theoretical, and any form of governance. His position is that libertarians can choose any form of government they want – democratic, fascist, whatever – so long as they are volunteering for it and not being coerced. This has obvious problems of its own (the main being that the first time you don’t agree with your government but are expected to follow its dictates, such as paying a tax you don’t agree with, you are being coerced, at which point libertarianism would allow you to “opt out” and avoid the coercion, an idea antithetical of governmental sovereignty), but Lib does not advocate libertarianism as a form of governance, but rather as a philosophical context.
Jeez, Riboflavin, even I don’t think Lib represents the Libertarian Party, or libertarianism as a whole. He argues the theory as he understands it and as he believes in it, just as the rest of us argue our positions on behalf of ourselves. If I got in a debate explaining why I personally believe democracy is the best form of government ever invented (warts and all), I’d have my hands full just doing that, without people assuming my beliefs were universal to all people believing in the framework of democracy or, worse, that I spoke on behalf of the Democratic Party.
LIB, if you want to focus this unwieldy mess back to one issue, I would join Billdo in suggesting the libertarian justice system might be a good place to start. Please explain how the justice system of Libertania might function. That would include, hopefully, answers to my questions that I posted earlier in this thread, and that I will repost for your convenience:
Thanks.
Jodi
Fiat Justitia
Good, maybe you can answer a question I have: I understand that the ideal libertarian country would have no borders. You said on another thread that borders are arbitrarily drawn by initiators of force.
Please explain how a nation could exist without clearly-defined frontiers.
(Many American Indian tribes did not understand how anyone could own a piece of land. These tribes were also nomadic. I think that’s why they believed no one could claim a piece of land as his own.)
Do you believe that stolen land should be returned to its original owners? If so, do you recall who originally owned this continent?
Feel free to correct me at any time. But don’t be surprised if I try to correct you.
whitetho,
Ask and ye shall recieve.
Good; you and your crowd are a stain upon the noble image of man and your deaths will only raise the average standing of people in general.
Here we see that whitetho is completely unable to understand the discussion at hand, and so begins flinging adjectives around at random in the same manner that a monkey flings his feces at zoo visitors he can never hope to comprehend. This is a good demonstration of the difficulty the less intelligent members of humanity have in distinguishing themselves from other primates.
Although Whitetho seems to show some sophisticated medical knowledge by being able to describe a colon polyp, all he really had to do for this extensive knowledge was take a glance at his family album.
I’m so tired of reading whitetho’s crap that I’m not even going to bother with the rest of it. Here’s my problem with whiteho:
I will not waste my time criticizing or insulting Mr. Whitetho as 1) he is unlikely to change, and 2) Whitetho probably revels in the letters of shock and repulsion that he regularly receives. Instead, I will focus on his hateful officious manuscripts, which, after all, are the things that open new avenues for the expression of hate. Before I begin, let me point out that before bothering us with his next batch of shallow ramblings, he should review the rules of writing a persuasive essay, most notably the one about sticking to the topic the writer establishes. I decidedly cannot emphasize enough how much I resent his rantings. In my view, sometimes the best course of action will be obvious, sometimes not. As a consistently mortified observer of Whitetho’s arguments, I can’t help but educate the public on a range of issues.
Often, the lure of an articulate new pundit, a well-financed attention-getting program, an effective audience generator, hot new “inside” information, or a professionally-produced exposé is irresistible to pigheaded nettlesome jokers who want to burn our fair cities to the ground. Whitetho should think twice before he decides to jawbone aimlessly. His tricks are a hotbed of exhibitionism. Should this be discussed in school? You bet. That’s the function of education: To teach students how to defy the international enslavement of entire peoples. Once it becomes clear that it must be stated quite categorically that it would be a crying shame to let sadistic cult leaders undermine serious institutional and economic analyses and replace them with a diverting soap opera of chauvinism-oriented conspiracies, it becomes apparent that I and Whitetho part company when it comes to the issue of communism. He feels that he could do a gentler and fairer job of running the world than anyone else, while I believe that he wins scalawags over to his side using big words like “extraterritoriality”.
He wants to shout obscenities at passers-by. But what if the tables were turned? How would Whitetho like that? Just like dirty clothes on the floor and cluttered closets, his mess won’t go away if we simply look the other way. We’d all be in grave danger if he continued to engage in his churlish behavior. His propaganda machine grinds on and on. Whitetho respects nothing and no one. Let’s all keep our fingers crossed that he doesn’t sell quack pharmaceutical supplies (and you should be suspicious whenever you hear such tell-tale words and phrases as “breakthrough”, “miracle”, “secret remedy”, “exclusive”, and “clinical studies prove that…”). Many experts now believe that I’m willing to accept that most other insensitive adolescents are not as malicious as they seem. I’m even willing to accept that he is living in a dream world. But even his most bloody-minded cronies are trained in the use of force, deadly force, advanced weaponry, and offensive and defensive tactics. There is one final irony to my story. Mr. Whitetho’s philosophies oscillate between racialism-prone egotism and corrupt authoritarianism.
Kevin Allegood,
“At least one could get something through Trotsky’s skull.”
- Joseph Michael Bay
I don’t have the faintest idea what it means, but the vocabulary is impressive.
I give it a 7.
Jodi
Fiat Justitia
A 7? Really, I thought this quote summed up the whole post: “I will not waste my time criticizing or insulting Mr. Whitetho…”
Re volunteerism:
I don’t claim that volunteerism can be proven to provide the means for a group of people to defend themselves from crime and foreign aggression. It’s just that I no longer believe that the opposite claim, that it can’t so provide, is a given. The examples I gave were not meant to say “this is exactly how a government should be run”, (I’m not proposing Blockwatchataria), but only to illustrate that people do in fact volunteer their resources for both their own good and the good of others, and they do so in functions that are usually regarded as governmental. Seems obvious, but there are people who think that nobody will ever do anything except in his own self-interest, and that, for the good of the everyone, everyone must be forced to contribute.
Could voluntary contribution provide the resources for internal security and national defense? I can’t prove it with facts and figures, and knowing how everything has to be cited around here, I don’t know if it matters that I answer “yes” or not. So I’ll just have to withdraw from that part of the discussion. I don’t mean that as a waffle, just that I won’t keep saying, “I’m right” and not providing any support for it.
I am more interested in the sovereignty issue anyway. Do you all really believe that if a foreign government had taken to shooting American tourists for whatever crime they decided they are guilty of, that our government would simply wring its hands, or at best try to negotiate with them for better treatment? Our government has on numerous occasions responded with military force against other nations with no regard at all for their sovereignty. What actually happens when foreign governments harm Americans, is that the people who make up our government do whatever is politically expedient for them to do. An American can get caned in Singapore for vandalism because Clinton thought he had less to lose by allowing it than preventing it. If you think it’s because he respected Singapore’s sovereignty, then how do you explain his military adventures?
How could a libertarian government justify it, though? After all, isn’t it coercive to violate a foreign nation’s sovereignty? I just don’t see the contradiction. If the government’s function is to protect its citizens, and excessive force used in response to petty offense can be seen as initial force, then what is the difference whether the entity a citizen is being protected from is foreign or not?
I tried to come up with some more real world examples of, if not libertarianism, at least something similar, with regard to nations and borders. How about San Marino? Here is a nation that has maintained its independence for 1600 years, but is entirely surrounded by Italy. Not that it’s been surrounded by Italy for that long; what “Italy” is has changed many times. But it’s surrounded today, which means this is a nation that pretty much doesn’t need national defense; it gets provided by Italy by default. Those freeloaders! How could this situation exist? Now I am not saying that either of these nations have libertarian governments, merely that one nation can exist entirely within another geographically. Like Kansas could be independent of the US. Objections to this are usually, “but the US could then shut off all access to the rest of the world and Kansas would starve.” Well, yes, they could. But in the “real world” of San Marino and Italy, it doesn’t happen.
Still, San Marino has a border. Then how about the Sovereign Military Order of Malta? They have no land, yet are a nation. (is a nation, whatever) Or are they? From one of their sites (there are several):
“The Order is still recognized under international law as a “sovereign entity”; and exchanges ambassadors and diplomatic representatives with over 80 countries. On August 24, 1994, the Order was admitted to the United Nations by being granted “Permanent Observer” status.” Other Permanent Observers are the Vatican and Palestine. Are they nations? Regardless of what Cecil says, something is a nation if it’s recognized as one. Again, I am not saying these are libertarian nations. I only want to point out that sovereignty need not require a “country.”
GILLIAN says, regarding volunteerism:
And that’s the rub. It seems to me that libertarians are simultaneously too pessimistic and too optimistic. They are forever going on about how crappy our existing system is, with “bloated bureaucrats” and “freeloaders” abusing the welfare system, yet at the same time they believe that, under a libertarian system, people will be peaceful, honest volunteers who will take care of each other out of the goodness of their hearts. How are the people going to improve to that degree? People are just people – good and bad – and I think the best evidence against the idea that a spontaneous peaceful society will exist, with everyone voluntariliy taking care of each other to the extent that a national govenment would be unnessary, is that it’s never once happened, ever, in the history of the world. I’m not ascribing these beliefs to you, just pointing out what I see as an inherent contradiction.
Actually, I think it depends. Do our citizens have notice that the government shoots tourists? Were they warned to stay out of that country? In that case, yes, I believe the government would do very little. There are a number of countries in the world today where, due to unrest or draconinan laws or anti-American sentiment, the State Department warns American citizens not to travel to. If you go anyway – well, again, you’re likely SOL. The government will not rescue you.
Sure. It’s called “war” or, euphamistically, “police action.” Lots of nations do it. Just because a country recognizes the sovereignty of another doesn’t mean it will necessarily respect it.
See, there it is – Libertania will apparently be peopled by good-hearted volunteer-types, while our government is run by people whose primary concern, even when citizens are being harmed, is “political expediency.” Where are all those shiney, happy people going to come from? Because you don’t appear to have too high of an opinion of people in existence now.
Well, is a cost-benefit analysis “expediency”? Does saving one boy from a non-fatal punishment for admittedly breaking the laws of the country he’s in justify a full-scale invasion? In the final analysis, how would you expect our country to prevent another country (and one far away, at that) from exercising its laws?
In terms of whether the goal to be attained by them arguably justified them. (And, so far as specific military adventures go, we can argue justification or lack thereof all day.) Again, recognizing sovereignty is not necessarily the same as respecting it. But haven’t we strayed fairly far afield? On what basis could a libertarian nation claim sovereignty? Borders? Wouldn’t have one. Cohesive government? Wouldn’t have that either.
It matters because of the libertarian non-coercion principle. You see, a democratic nation can impose its will on foreign nationals within its borders because it doesn’t mind coercing them if the circumstances justify it – ie, locking them up for murder or, in Iran, cutting a hand off for theft. The non-coercion principle, however, dictates that the government cannot impose itself upon an individual without his or her consent, because to do so would be a coercion. A foreigner to a libertarian nation obviously did not consent to be bound by the laws (or law) of the libertarian nation. So you can’t do anything to him without violating the noncoercion principle. But, libertarians, will say, retaliatory action does not violate the noncoercion principal. This, to me, does not wash. I, as a foreigner, have never agreed to refrain from coercion, so how can you justify applying the noncoercion principal to me without my consent? It might be different if we were dealing with a libertarian nation with actual borders and sovereignty, where visitors might be deemed to be on notice of the law within the country, but how can any one be on notice of what is acceptable in a patchwork of tiny nations, all adhering to different laws?
I would respectfully suggest that San Marino exists at the pleasure of Italy, much as Monaco exists at the pleasure of France. Nations may grant such countries the courtesy of acknowleding their sovereignty, but are they really soveriegn? Probably not.
It exists at the whim of Italy, not to put too fine a point on it. Are you suggesting that a libertarian nation could only exist if surrounded by another nation to handle its defense, and with the same degree of sovereignty (or lack thereof) enjoyed by San Marino)?
Kansas could never exist independent from the United States; the United States would never allow that to happen. We actually fought a war over this, so that much, at least, is pretty well established. Italy does not starve out San Marino because it has no need to, because San Marino is not truly sovereign in any practical sense of the word. It poses no threat to Italy whatsoever. If it did, I imagine it’s “independence” would be over in short order.
No, IMO, they are not, precisely because they h
Um, having sort of jumped on Lib for failing to follow through on discussions, I feel obligated to disclose that I’ll be gone tomorrow through Wednesday. Not that anyone cares, but I didn’t want you to think I’d flaked off. Have fun, kids! (I will be.) 
Jodi
Fiat Justitia
Gosh. How to do this? I hope nobody’ll mind if I organize it a little bit. I see that everybody has cut me some slack, and I’d like to express my gratitude for it. [A tip o’ the hat to each of you…] I think I’ll do this narratively because that’ll make it easier to consolidate the redundancies and to link all the associations together, and easier to read, probably.
Going from the simplest to the most complex…
Spiritus asked, “Is the OP asserting that the estimated cost above is paid to the court and would thus not occur in the Libertarian [model]? Or is the OP asserting that the lawyers fees would disappear in the Libertarian [model] because the single law and system of arbitration would be administered in such a manner that there would be no benefit in a claimant hiring an advocate?”
The Opening Post is a rant, and doesn’t make any assertions; it just makes interjections.
He then asked, “Unbelievable in the sense that you do not believe the quote is an accurate representation, or unbelievable in the sense that you feel the present situation is outrageous?”
Neither one really. Just unbelievable in the sense of discovering that it can cost you $10,000 if you become the object of a frivolous charge. I don’t know. I find that unbelievable. To give you the sense of what I mean by “unbelievable”, I’ll say it a couple of different ways: I find that outrageous! I can’t believe it! Good golly, Miss Molly! Holy cow! Oh, dear Lord. Oh, for heaven’s sake! Now I’ve seen it all! That’s pretty much what I mean by it.
Riboflavin, I’m just now associating your post count with the obvious. Sorry about that. I should have already explained to you that I discuss libertarianism per se as an ethic. From time to time, I use Libertaria as a Platonic device to illustrate the implementation of the ethic. I do not hold that Libertaria is the sole legitimate libertarian model, nor do I hold that it is a perfect model. It is simply the model that I personally prefer. Had I the right God gave me to own my own consent, Libertaria is the model to which I would give it.
I gladly concede that there might be certain weaknesses inherent in any arbitrary libertarian model, including Libertaria. It is simply my opinion that its weaknesses are of the kind that I believe I could endure. I believe that in the arbitration-enforcement model of Libertaria, it is advantageous to establish a single broad law, in order to give its essential attribute, arbitration, the maximum possible flexibility, and to give the interpretation of its law the widest possible scope. It is really arbitration by principle, rather than judiciary by law.
Stated as it is, “every citizen shall be guaranteed freedom from initiated force and fraud,” it is more a declaration of fundamental rights than of prescriptive regulation. It frames the question of law in terms of what the government must do, not what the citizenry must do. The citizen has a guarantee that he shares will all his fellow citizens. It contextualizes freedom as freedom from something, rather than freedom to do something. It presupposes freedom as being the absence of coercion (coercion being, in this case, initiated force or fraud).
Rather than legislate, Libertaria arbitrates, and I suppose you could make the case that the precedences established by arbitrarial rulings amount to laws. And I won’t fight you over that; in a way, they do. But the essential difference as I see it is that the rulings are descriptive of the law, rather than prescriptive of it. This allows coercion to be interpreted liberally. While an action might be coercive in one context, the identical action might not be coercive in some other context. A lie is not a fraud if you are refusing to tell a serial killer where your sister is hiding.
I apologize for leaving the impression that I speak for all who call themselves libertarians. I speak only for myself, and for people who agree with me. I do not speak for constitutionalists, minarchists, or anyone else for whom libertarianism is a metaphysic. Oh, and I most definitely do not speak for the Libertarian Party. After much cajoling, I finally capitulated and joined the party a few years back, only to find what I expected to find all along. Politics. Yuck. I did not renew. I am thankful they could not force me to belong.
I hope that clears up some things for you, and relieves you of the understandable indignation you must have felt.
Jab asks me to “explain how a nation could exist without clearly-defined frontiers.” If by nation you mean a traditional nation-state (and you probably do), then by definition it couldn’t exist. Yes, I do understand that that means my model of preference is therefore not a nation-state, but I am content with that.
I can empathize if you find that incredulous. “Well, dammit man,” you might say, “how the hell is that practical?” The only answer I can give you is one you might not like. What is practical depends entirely on what you are practicing. If you are practicing making nation-states, then libertarian principles are highly impractical. But if you are practicing voluntary human relations in a context of noncoercion, then libertarian principles are the only practical ones there are.
Yes, I know that the implications of implementing the libertarian ethic are dramatic and radical. In all honesty, the experience of becoming a libertarian was, for me, downright epiphanic. Suddenly, I saw everything in a new way. The chief difference I noticed immediately was my amusement as I pondered the same implications that presently horrify you and some others. ‘My God,’ I thought. ‘This stuff means that society might turn out in some way other than the way it should!’ And for some reason, that thought struck me as supremely funny. You know, like I, out of the six billion, ever knew how it should turn out anyway!
In that instant, it dawned on me what libertarianism is all about. It is about doing the right thing. That’s all. It’s about respecting the rights and dignity of others. It’s about letting decent people make their own decisions and control their own destinies, no matter what their circumstance or station. It is concerned, not with the end, but with the means. Do what is right, and what is right will follow. Recognize the special sovereignty of the human consciousness given to every human by God or nature. No other man can ever experience your consciousness. It is yours and yours alone. God or nature gave you your life, and you are entitled to own it, to call the shots with respect to it. And you are entitled, simply by virtue that you are human and alive, to acquire whatever you can peacefully and honestly, in the pursuit of your happiness. And whatever you acquire is equally yours as is the life, the means, and the praxes by which you acquired it.
Wealth entitles you to nothing. Scribbles in ancient documents entitle you to nothing. You are not entitled to anything by virtue of any attribute: if you are the strongest, you are not entitled to coerce the weakest because God or nature gave him the same rights as you were given. You are entitled to your rights simply because you were born. They define you as human. If you believe in God, then I would tell you that God gave you your rights because He gave you your life. If you are a naturalist, I would tell you that your rights come from nature.
Wherever your life and consciousness come from, that’s where your rights come from also.
Gilligan, I greatly appreciate your analysis. You might be interested in F. A. Hayek’s Theory of Spontaneous order, which he developed in two works, the three volume Law, Legislation and Liberty (1973-1979), and The Fatal Conceit (1988). I’m sure they’re available at Amazon. If you decide to check it out, though, you might consider first reading Ludwig von Mises’ Human Action, which supplies the context for Hayek’s work.
—<P
Enjoy your time off, Jodi. And thanks and congratulations to Lib and Edlyn.
Sorry if I dragged things off on bizzare tangents. It isn’t my intention to start debating whether or not this or that is “really” a nation or not. I just figured some “real world” examples of the kinds of entities being discussed would be helpful, so that we can get past the “it’s all a fantasy in Lib’s head.” If these are bad examples, because the entities aren’t “nations” or “sovereign” in your opinion, then that’s fine; could be a topic for another day, although would probably just be a debate over language.
I do want to clarify something I said earlier about American citizens being punished in foriegn countries. I didn’t mean to imply that every single time this happens, we send in the troops to rescue the guy. Everything Jodi said about this is correct; in fact a number of Americans are in foreign prisons right now - SOL. (I was unable to find any statistics on Americans executed in foreign countries.) But I also noticed that many of these people (sorry, no exact numbers) are in those prisons for drug-related offenses, not inadvertent trespassing. This is why I said political expediency - these foreign nations aren’t all crazy criminals, some of them are Valued Allies in the War on Drugs. Mostly, though, they are simply difficult targets.
By all this I don’t meant the the US is wrong to be this way. Like you say, the rightness or wrongness of each instance can be argued all day. The US isn’t immoral, it’s amoral - like every other government. But you are insisting that a libertarian government be held to a higher standard. You say this:
“The non-coercion principle, however, dictates that the government cannot impose itself upon an individual without his or her consent, because to do so would be a coercion. A foreigner to a libertarian nation obviously did not consent to be bound by the laws (or law) of the libertarian nation. So you can’t do anything to him without violating the noncoercion principle. But, libertarians, will say, retaliatory action does not violate the noncoercion principal. This, to me, does not wash. I, as a foreigner, have never agreed to refrain from coercion, so how can you justify applying the noncoercion principal to me without my consent?”
I think the problem is in the last line; nobody is “applying a principle” to anyone, they are just defending themselves. The only meaning I can get out of “applying a principle” to someone is forcibly making them a citizen. That would be the coercion. Unless I am mistaken, no nation does this - grant citizenship to foreigners committed of crimes as a prerequisite to punishing them. Why should a libertarian government be held to this standard? Or do you mean, “applying a law”? If, so they can justify it the same way any other government does - as a defensive measure and therefore not coercion. Taking your example above: For you, as a foreigner, not to have agreed to refrain from coercion, simply means that you have not agreed to obey our laws. (Or THE LAW, in Libertaria.) That’s fine, as long as you are talking about your own property. As soon as you involve OUR property (namely, one of our citizens), you involve us and our response. Now if you are punishing one of us appropriately, we have no problem with it; after all, we have no interest in allowing criminal behavior. But if you’re killing one of us for a petty offense, then you’ve initiated the force, so we are permitted to defend.
As to some of your other statements about what a lib govt can or can’t “do” (enter into treaties, conduct arbitration, come up with whatever means it chooses to finance itself), I am unsure if you are talking about Libertaria specifically, or a libertarian context in general. Only Lib can tell you about Libertaria. But if you mean a real country, such as the US, with a libertarian context, then this government could legitimately do all these things and more. It wouldn’t even have to require constantly renewed “contracts” or 100% agreement on every single decision. What it couldn’t legitimately do, is require the participation and contribution of everyone by virtue of their residence. As soon as it does that, it is no longer a libertarian context.
This same government wouldn’t even have to have an arbitration system of justice. (back to the OP) Libertarian (and most libertarians) think that is the best way, as he’s explained. Whether or not it is best, it is not required by the non-coercion principle. So arguments against it are not automatically arguments libertarianism, even if they are good arguments.
One last comment - I had to chuckle at your remark about my not having too high an opinion about people. You’re the one who thinks that the people, even though they “want” such good things as publically funded arts and a space program, would suddenly become lawless selfish freeloaders, shooting their neighbors on a whim, unless they had a huge government stopping them.
Well, I tried to lurk…
This:
seems contradicted by:
Simply implying “the ends never justify the means” seems a bit too sweeping. After all, in your example, the lying was justified because of the likely projected outcome of both the truth (your sister would be killed) and the lie (your sister would be able to avoid being murdered). If “fraud” only exists when someone has a “right” to the truth, how do we determine this “right”? We determine this by our knowledge of the circumstances and the likely projected end.
I am not arguing that the ends always justify the means, either. I am saying the ends define the means, and the means define the ends. If evil means are used to achieve a good end, the end cannot be considered wholly good. Similarly, if the best of means achieve an evil end, the means cannot be considered truly good either. (An example of this would be telling the truth to the serial killer). It’s a precarious balancing act, but it seems the only way to take into account both the way we think the world should be, and what probably will happen in a specific circumstance. Therefore, simply saying “this is a good means” does not absolve you from an obligation to take into account likely ends.
I have a few more questions about arbitration in a libertarian context. Let’s say the United States has adopted a wholesale libertarian context, and promptly fragmented into Riboflavia, Gauderia and The Republic of Jodih. About .5% of the citizens also split off into their own private little countries. Now, everybody is ruled by the non-coercion principle, and tends to follow the descriptive arbitrations made based on that. Does everybody in Riboflavia, Gauderia, the RoJ and the tiny one-man countries use as a guideline the arbitrations previously made? What if the DoJ disagrees with the previous arbitration about what “reasonable” punishment is, and chooses punishments for a trespassing citizen of Gauderia that Gauderia thinks is unfair? Can they take it to another arbitrator, who may say that the punishment is “unreasonable” and therefore coercive, or are they stuck with the rulings made by the DoJ?
Gaudere
Respectfully, I disagree.
The lie you tell on behalf of your sister is not justified because of the likely outcome; it is justified because serial killers have no rights. He has no right to know where the woman is. He is entitled to nothing. A response equally ethical to telling him a lie is to knock him unconscious if you are capable of it. He belongs at least in prison.
Defending your sister from a serial killer is not coercive. It is a good means.
Okay.
[sigh] Okay.
Okay.
Well, that’s pretty amazing.
Am I supposed to know this?
I don’t know, my dear fellow believer in Love.
Let’s paraphrase your question with substitutions: “What if the United States disagrees with the previous arbitration about what reasonable punishment is, and chooses punishments for a trespassing Mexican that Mexico thinks is unfair?”
Does the answer to that question, whatever the heck it is, serve to invalidate the plausibility of there being a United States and a Mexico?
They who? Whoever “they” are, they are bound by their contractual obligations (if any). Otherwise, they are free to do as they please within what others will allow.
I wish I understood your question better, but tell you what, I won’t leave you in the lurch or link you to anything. Instead, I’ll refer you to my friend, Gilligan, in whom I have complete confidence. He is infinitely more capable than I in these matters.
Gilligan
You have a beautiful and profound insight. Thank you.
Respectfully, I disagree. What if it’s your father asking, but he seems really upset and you think he’ll kill her? Now, he hasn’t done anything yet, so he still has rights, right? Still, I’d lie if I thought I was endangering my sister’s life by telling the truth. I think not taking into account the likely outcome of your actions is highly irresponsible, yet it does mean you can’t simply “do the right thing” and hope everything works out. I think you may be arguing that “the right thing” necessarily takes into account the likely outcome, but that seems a rather sneaky way to be able to say “the ends never justify the means” while still having the ends somewhat justify the means.
Well, if you don’t know… I am trying to get a feel for this, and I don’t have it yet. Presumably, the RoJ and Gauderia contract with each other to respect each other’s judgments. But does this mean that excessive punishment enforced by the RoJ ceases to be coercive if Gauderia has agreed to respect RoJ’s judgments? Then I wonder about countries that have not contracted with anyone to respect judgments. If they have not contracted with Gauderia and enforce a punishment that Gauderia thinks is unfair (and therefore coercive), can Gauderia invade to protect the rights of its citizens? I am not saying this is a bad thing, just that it almost seems as if Gauderia must invade, since to do otherwise is to allow coercion. This may be a solution to the “nutcase who shoots children for tresspassing” dilemma. Presumably, Gauderia would not contract with Psychotica unless their punishments are reasonably just, and therefore has the right to invade if unreasonable punishments are dealt out. Any flaws with this argument?
Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorn is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that She is pink; logically, we know She is invisible because we can’t see Her.