The US Constitution DOES NOT GRANT ANY RIGHTS.

[Liberal]

Neurotik wrote:

Libertaria is idiocy.

Yeah, it’s crazy isn’t it. In fact, it’s nuts. If I don’t have a tit to suck and a nanny to badger me, I might not eat the right things or make the right friends.

---

Dewey wrote:

Lib, all that strikes me as just incredibly unworkable.

Maybe. But it seems to me that what is workable depends entirely on what you’re working on. If you’re working on deciding what’s best for everyone else, then libertarianism is unworkable. But if you’re working on voluntary relations among peaceful honest people, I don’t know what could be more workable than the Noncoercion Principle.

If you damage my property, we don’t have a preexisting agreement over arbitration.

Actually, your agreement is with your government. You voluntarily consented to being governed. You paid for protection of your property. It is the responsibility of your government to use force to defend your property, to retaliate against vandals, and to restore your property when it has been stolen.

For that matter, absent some kind of government, how can I be made whole from your damage?

If you mean that you prefer to be an anarchist, then how you do that is up to you.

Absent statutes and (presumably) controlling judicial opinions how do we determine the rights and obligations of the parties when the contract is silent or unclear?

There is a “statute”. Breach in Libertopia is a form of fraud, a presumption that you misrepresented your intentions when you made your contract. If you feel you have been defrauded, complain to your government. It is charged with determining (a) whether you have been coerced, and if so (b) by whom. You gave your voluntary consent that your government may do this. (Assuming you chose to be governed.)

To govern, in Libertopia, means to protect. It doesn’t mean to rule with moral authority. The government derives its authority from you, not the other way around.

Even if we have spelled all that stuff out, what if you breach and then just refuse to comply? Do I have to hire an armed collection squad to collect on the breach?

You already did. You hired your government to secure your rights. That’s what government is for.

How do we prevent me from collecting more than I am legitimately due under the contract? Presumably you would say you consented to the seizure when you entered into the contract, but who enforces that consent?

Withdrawing your consent outside the contract’s terms would be breach. Your consent was given freely and willfully. Your government will hold you to the terms of your consent.

What stops me from bribing the arbiter? Just his concern for damage to his reputation? What if he figures he’ll make more in bribes than he will from lost business due to rumors of his corruption?

His failure to arbitrate faithfully constitutes breach, and releases you from his authority.

What about criminal acts? What if I, as a visitor to Libertopia, decide to imitate “Grand Theft Auto III”?

That’s a complex question.

Libertopia is not a nation-state. It claims no borders and draws no lines in the sand. It presumes no mystical authority over people who simply have been born upon land it has conquered.

Who arrests me? The property owner? What if it’s a little old lady? Does she contract out to a private police force?

Consider the United States military as being Libertopian. Imagine that it ceases its occupation of land in more than half the nations on earth, and withdraws its forces to keep them at home. Redefine its duty to constitute the security of Libertopians. Teach its soldiers to protect little old ladies and arrest car thieves. Train its special forces to liberate its own people. Use its might to squash crime (coercion) from both foreign and domestic sources.

I take it the jails are private, too. Who prevents abuse of the prisoners by the guards?

No matter whether you are stripped of your rights by virtue of having forfeited them (which is what you do when you initiate force or fraud), you will always have the rights and property with which you were born — those that God (if you’re a theist) or nature (if you’re an atheist) gave you: your life, your body, your mind. If a man abuses your property, he is a tyrant who has forfeited his own rights. Even if he owns a jail.

I will appreciate your honesty in acknowledging that most, if not all, of your questions may be asked of Democratopia as well. Judges are bribed. Prisoners are abused. Contracts are enforced. Property damage occurs.

The root question is one of how authority is derived. For some people, it is derived from physical might. For others, from mystical powers imbrued in governors. But for me, it is derived from man’s consent. In Libertopia, rights do not come from magistrates. They do not come from ancient scribbles. They come from God or nature.

---

Truth Seeker wrote:

You see, in Libertopia, a person’s word has to be their bond. Once they give it, they can’t be allowed to back out. If they try, it’s OK to coerce them into following through on their original agreement.

Responsive force is not coercive. A forceful response to breach is not unethical.

[MEBuckner]

Libertopia is not a nation-state. It claims no borders and draws no lines in the sand. It presumes no mystical authority over people who simply have been born upon land it has conquered.

If a person found themselves in the midst of a Libertarian society–either by virtue of being born there or simply by strolling across the border / swimming out to the island / buying a plane ticket / hopping a ride on the next tramp freighter to Tau Ceti IV–and they then announced “I don’t accept the Libertarian contract, and don’t consider myself to be governed by the laws or customs or social contract of Libertaria”–and then went on to initiate force against others who had accepted that contract (robbing, stealing, pillaging), wouldn’t the government of Libertaria step in and Do Something about this individual, even if this person had in fact never given his or her consent to be governed by Libertaria?

Furthermore, if an individual, not having consented to the laws of Libertaria, chose to initiate force against other persons on the other side of the border / over on the mainlaind / on another continent / back on Earth–somewhere over in Authoritaria–presumably the individuals in charge of enforcing the social contract of Libertaria would not Do Something About It, however regrettable they might find the whole business to be.

Therefore Libertaria would have borders, like any other state, albeit no doubt there would be a decided lack of paperwork in crossing those borders.

Or am I missing something here?

[Liberal]

Buck wrote:

If a person found themselves in the midst of a Libertarian society–either by virtue of being born there or simply by strolling across the border / swimming out to the island / buying a plane ticket / hopping a ride on the next tramp freighter to Tau Ceti IV–and they then announced “I don’t accept the Libertarian contract, and don’t consider myself to be governed by the laws or customs or social contract of Libertaria”–and then went on to initiate force against others who had accepted that contract (robbing, stealing, pillaging), wouldn’t the government of Libertaria step in and Do Something about this individual, even if this person had in fact never given his or her consent to be governed by Libertaria?

Yes. Remember that the one being governed is the one having his rights secured. The consent came from him, not from the coercer. To govern means to protect. To coerce is to forfeit rights.

Furthermore, if an individual, not having consented to the laws of Libertaria, chose to initiate force against other persons on the other side of the border / over on the mainlaind / on another continent / back on Earth–somewhere over in Authoritaria–presumably the individuals in charge of enforcing the social contract of Libertaria would not Do Something About It, however regrettable they might find the whole business to be.

Libertarian government doesn’t conduct diplomacy. If individuals need to conduct diplomacy, they may do so themselves. The government recognizes no sovereignty of nation-states over people. Therefore, it is obligated to use whatever force and means are necessary to root out the coercer from Authoritaria and bring him to justice. The government of Authoritaria would be best served either to surrender the coercer or else to stay out of it.

Therefore Libertaria would have borders, like any other state, albeit no doubt there would be a decided lack of paperwork in crossing those borders.

Well, the land owners have “borders”, but the government doesn’t.

[Liberal]

Buck

I interpreted your second question to mean that someone from Authoritaria coerces a Libertarian. But if you meant that an Authoritarian coerced another Authoritarian or an Anarchist, then it is of no concern to Libertaria.

[sailor]

>> The idea that the Constitution, and hence the State, grants rights to it’s subjects is completely contrary to it’s language and intended purpose.

This is a really dumb discussion which we have had several times before. Whether you have the rights and the lawas just recognise the fact or whether ythe laws do in fact create the rights. You know what? It’s irrelevant and you can think one way or the other and it won’t mean a thing. For all practical purposes, if something is written in the law then it is the law. No two people are going to agree exactly on what innate rights we have and the only thing which counts is what is spelled in writing. The rest is just mental masturbation. In practical terms you have the rights and obligations as the law of the land provides. That is a fact. Whether you think the law does in fact create those rights or obligations is purely academic. In actuality the written law is what counts and so it is the source of rights and obligations.

Many people disagree on whether a woman should or should not have the right to abort a fetus. The fact is the law, as interpreted by the interpreters of the law that count, grants that right.

[jacksen9]

Dewey Cheatem Undhow

I mean really, think about it. I can rant on about how I have a God-given, sacrosanct, natural right to run around buck naked in the town square all I want.

[Hijack] Is it butt naked or buck naked? [/Hijack]

[The_Raven_1]

*Originally posted by Libertarian *
**Consider the United States military as being Libertopian. Imagine that it ceases its occupation of land in more than half the nations on earth, and withdraws its forces to keep them at home. Redefine its duty to constitute the security of Libertopians. Teach its soldiers to protect little old ladies and arrest car thieves. Train its special forces to liberate its own people. Use its might to squash crime (coercion) from both foreign and domestic sources.
**

So we’re going to take the ultimate projection of lethal force in the world and turn them into crossing guards? Sounds less Libertarian then Clintonian.

Use special forces to “liberate their own people”? HUH?

Libertarianism is a fabulous concept, but once you take away the people who want to smoke pot and the people who don’t want to pay taxes, you’re left with a philosophy club that can’t agree on anything.

The slogan of the Massachusetts Lib candidate for Governor, Carla Howell, was “Small Government is Beautiful”, delivered in a plaintive, breathy tone. Tellyawhat, if she won, it would be a small government all right… after the intellectual bloodbath over doctrinal purity the government would consist of the Governor and a cadre of True Believers.

Not quite as simon-pure as the Objectivists, who take the Judean People’s Front nonsense to new heights, but pretty close.

Just the cacklings of a corvid…

-Rav

[gex_gex]

originally posted by Senor Beef
The US Constitution DOES NOT GRANT ANY RIGHTS.

You’re pretty much correct there, but it does grant one right.

Which one?

Read the second amendment.
Oh, and BTW, am I the only one hoping that we finally will get a libertarian state somewhere in the world so Lib will see how much of a mess it will turn out to be?

[Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow]

*Originally posted by Libertarian *
But if you’re working on voluntary relations among peaceful honest people, I don’t know what could be more workable than the Noncoercion Principle.

That assumption that you’re dealing with “peaceful, honest people” is a fatal flaw. Not all your neighbors are virtuous.

“You can see very plainly that a bad man has as much reason as a good one for wishing to avoid an encounter with the public force, and therefore you can see the practical importance of the distinction between morality and law. […] If you want to know the law and nothing else, you must look at it as a bad man, who cares only for the material consequences which such knowledge enables him to predict, not as a good one, who finds his reasons for conduct, whether inside the law or outside of it, in the vaguer sanctions of conscience.”
– Oliver Wendell Holmes, “The Path of the Law”

Good law is set up with a view to how a non-virtuous person will approach it. If everyone was perfectly virtuous and peaceable, there’d be no need for law at all.**

Actually, your agreement is with your government. You voluntarily consented to being governed. You paid for protection of your property. It is the responsibility of your government to use force to defend your property, to retaliate against vandals, and to restore your property when it has been stolen.**

Ah, but what if the vandals haven’t consented to the authority of the Libertopian government (and I understand this isn’t a government in the nation-state sense; if you’ve got a better label, tell me)? Isn’t that an initiation of force against the vandal?

Suppose I’m a noncontracting party to the Libertopian government. I’m flying my airplane over your farm when, due to pilot error, my plane crashes into your barn. I flee your premises, and the plane wreckage is of de minimis value. You are a contracting party to Libertopia. How do you recover? Isn’t any action you take an initiation of force against me? Why am I, as a noncontracting party, subject to the use of force by Libertopia?
**

There is a “statute”. **

But I thought “there are no statutes in Libertopia.” Your words. **

Breach in Libertopia is a form of fraud, a presumption that you misrepresented your intentions when you made your contract. If you feel you have been defrauded, complain to your government. It is charged with determining (a) whether you have been coerced, and if so (b) by whom. You gave your voluntary consent that your government may do this. (Assuming you chose to be governed.)**

Not all breaches are fraudulent. What you are doing here is an Orwellian redefinition of the word.

And you didn’t answer my question: if there is no controlling statute (or judical opinions), how do we determine the rights and obligations of the parties where the contract is silent?**

To govern, in Libertopia, means to protect. It doesn’t mean to rule with moral authority. The government derives its authority from you, not the other way around.**

KEY QUESTION: How is assent to government determined in Libertopia? Is it actual assent, or is it implied by conduct? If it is implied, what conduct is sufficient to give rise to the implication?

Because implied assent is certainly one philosophical theory under which US citizenship operates – you live here, you take advantage of the opportunities created here, so you impliedly assent to be governed by the mechanisms established here.

Heck, that could even justify public ownership of property: if you’ve impliedly assented to represenatitive democracy (and thus to go along with its decisions), and that government decides via preestablished mechanisms to own property, isn’t it holding that property via the consent of the governed?**

That’s a complex question.

Libertopia is not a nation-state. It claims no borders and draws no lines in the sand. It presumes no mystical authority over people who simply have been born upon land it has conquered.**

1. It is not a complex question. It does not assume the answer to an unasked question. Here, let me put it more simply: how does Libertopia handle criminal conduct by non-contracting parties?

2. No borders? How does Libertopia determine the reach of its jurisdiction against noncontracting parties who have wronged Libertopia’s citizens? Suppose I, a noncontracting party, damage a contracting member. I flee to the basement of another noncontracting member, who is away on vacation. I do not have permission to be in the basement. Can Libertopian forces break down the door of this unrelated, noncontracting person’s home to get their man?**

No matter whether you are stripped of your rights by virtue of having forfeited them (which is what you do when you initiate force or fraud), you will always have the rights and property with which you were born — those that God (if you’re a theist) or nature (if you’re an atheist) gave you: your life, your body, your mind. If a man abuses your property, he is a tyrant who has forfeited his own rights. Even if he owns a jail.**

Soooooooo…rubber hoses, truncheons, plungers up the rectum, whatever the guards want to do is OK because a prisoner who has abused your property has forfeited his own rights? Commit an act against property and you become little more than an animal?

Y’know, I always considered the eighth amendment to be a GOOD thing. I guess it disappears in Libertopia.**

I will appreciate your honesty in acknowledging that most, if not all, of your questions may be asked of Democratopia as well. Judges are bribed. Prisoners are abused. Contracts are enforced. Property damage occurs. **

Well, of course. We live in an imperfect world. But our system has mechanisms that handle those issues, however imperfectly. Libertopia strips away many of those mechanisms without adding anything to fill the void.

[Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow]

*Originally posted by Libertarian *
Libertarian government doesn’t conduct diplomacy. If individuals need to conduct diplomacy, they may do so themselves. The government recognizes no sovereignty of nation-states over people. Therefore, it is obligated to use whatever force and means are necessary to root out the coercer from Authoritaria and bring him to justice. The government of Authoritaria would be best served either to surrender the coercer or else to stay out of it.

So Libertopia does not respect property rights when it’s pursuing an alleged coercer? I note there hasn’t been a trial or any other proof of guilt at this point (at least, not one where the accused is present). So just a bare allegation and Libertopia can pursue the guy by any means necessary?

I’m liking Libertopia less and less with each post.

[Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow]

*Originally posted by Libertarian *
**I interpreted your second question to mean that someone from Authoritaria coerces a Libertarian. But if you meant that an Authoritarian coerced another Authoritarian or an Anarchist, then it is of no concern to Libertaria. **

Interesting. So, say, Nazi death camps would be of no concern to a Libertopian?

(I hope that doesn’t stray into Godwin territory – I think it’s a legit point.)

[Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow]

*Originally posted by jacksen9 *
**[Hijack] Is it butt naked or buck naked? [/Hijack] **

I believe both are appropriate. I’ve also heard “stark naked,” “bare naked” and “Goddammit put some clothes on.”

[Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow]

Lib: Strike my comments re prisoner’s rights. I misread your post, specifically the last sentence as “Even if he goes to jail” rather than “Even if he owns a jail.”
:smack:

Although I’m still left wondering how exactly a prisoner redresses his grievances.

[The_Raven_1]

*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow *
**Soooooooo…rubber hoses, truncheons, plungers up the rectum…

I’m liking Libertopia less and less with each post.

**

Speak for yourself, sailor!!

After all, this IS the Pit, innit?

[Truth_Seeker]

*Originally posted by Waverly *
**Listen you fucking ignoramus, stating that rights are not innate does not lead one to goose-step directly down your slippery slope.

You believe rights are innate? Fine. Which ones, and where is this documented? You must have some sort of instruction manual in hand to state: “you still deserve them by virtue of the fact that you are human.” Please inform us all where the uniform set of rights belonging to all humans is written; and for bonus credit, kindly inform us who authored them.
**

Happy to help. Universal Declaration of Human Rights

The idea that certain human rights are innate has been the subject of extensive analysis for hundreds of years. The entire concept of human rights directly depends on it. In fact, the basic idea that some human rights are innate, while originally revolutionary in the extreme, is probably the most widely accepted philosophical idea on the planet today.

I get depressed when people are utterly ignorant. I get frightened when people believe their utter ignorance is actually brilliant insight. Do a bit of reading before you spout off. In your case, I’d suggest you start here.

[Liberal]

Raven wrote:

Libertarianism is a fabulous concept, but once you take away the people who want to smoke pot and the people who don’t want to pay taxes, you’re left with a philosophy club that can’t agree on anything.

I think that’s a pretty good description of the Libertarian Party. Of course, most of those people are statists, constitutionalists, and other hegemonists.

---

Dewey wrote:

That assumption that you’re dealing with “peaceful, honest people” is a fatal flaw. Not all your neighbors are virtuous.

Nah. I’m pretty used to ferreting out flaws.

In libertarianism, the assumption is made that your neighbors ARE NOT virtuous. Otherwise, there’d be no need for any Noncoercion Principle and anarchy would do just fine.

Ah, but what if the vandals haven’t consented to the authority of the Libertopian government (and I understand this isn’t a government in the nation-state sense; if you’ve got a better label, tell me)? Isn’t that an initiation of force against the vandal?

Didn’t I explain this already?

Libertopian is not protecting (governing) the vandal.

But I thought “there are no statutes in Libertopia.” Your words.

Forgive me for not being a lawyer. I had assumed that “law” and “statute” were synonyms. As I said before, there is one law.

Suppose I’m a noncontracting party to the Libertopian government. I’m flying my airplane over your farm when, due to pilot error, my plane crashes into your barn. I flee your premises, and the plane wreckage is of de minimis value. You are a contracting party to Libertopia. How do you recover? Isn’t any action you take an initiation of force against me? Why am I, as a noncontracting party, subject to the use of force by Libertopia?

Libertarian government acts basically as your proxy. That’s what you’re hiring them for, to secure your rights, to protect you, and to fight the fight on your behalf that you are unable to fight. If someone coerces you, responsive force (i.e., defensive or retaliatory) is not unethical. Only initial force is unethical.

And you didn’t answer my question: if there is no controlling statute (or judical opinions), how do we determine the rights and obligations of the parties where the contract is silent?

Oh, yeah. Sorry about that. What is a silent contract?

It is not a complex question. It does not assume the answer to an unasked question. Here, let me put it more simply: how does Libertopia handle criminal conduct by non-contracting parties?

I might have misunderstood your question. I thought you were presuming that you would go through some sort of customs across some kind of national border.

Not all breaches are fraudulent. What you are doing here is an Orwellian redefinition of the word.

Would you be surprised to learn that, in logic, a “weak” axiom is not inferior to a “strong” one?

It is actually commonplace for academic disciplines, like philosophy and law, for example, to make use of common words in specialized ways. Libertarian philosophy considers fraud to be coercive if it is initial. Fraud in response to coercion, however, is ethical. (You may lie, for example, to retrieve your property.)

No borders? How does Libertopia determine the reach of its jurisdiction against noncontracting parties who have wronged Libertopia’s citizens? Suppose I, a noncontracting party, damage a contracting member. I flee to the basement of another noncontracting member, who is away on vacation. I do not have permission to be in the basement. Can Libertopian forces break down the door of this unrelated, noncontracting person’s home to get their man?

Well, it has no jurisdiction in the sense that I think you mean. Its obligation is to the person it governs (protects). It has whatever authority that you, as the governed, have given it.

To answer directly your last question (which is remarkably similar to the one Buck asked just above your post), the Libertarian government not only may, but must use whatever force is necessary to secure your rights (property) — whether that’s breaking down a door or fighting a war against a nation-state.

Soooooooo…rubber hoses, truncheons, plungers up the rectum, whatever the guards want to do is OK because a prisoner who has abused your property has forfeited his own rights? Commit an act against property and you become little more than an animal?

Actually, Dewey, I said the opposite of that. This conversation is quite amazing.

In case you see this, let me just say again that the prisoner still has rights to his life, his mind, and his body — the rights given to him by God or nature. You may not abuse any of those.

Maybe it would behoove you to read that earlier response again with just a bit more care.

So Libertopia does not respect property rights when it’s pursuing an alleged coercer? I note there hasn’t been a trial or any other proof of guilt at this point (at least, not one where the accused is present). So just a bare allegation and Libertopia can pursue the guy by any means necessary?

That depends upon what the arbiter determines.

I’m liking Libertopia less and less with each post.

Well, that’s the beauty of it, isn’t it.

If you don’t like Libertopia, your opinion matters. But if you don’t like Authoritaria, your opinion is worthless.

[Liberal]

Oops. Page Two.

Dewey wrote:

Interesting. So, say, Nazi death camps would be of no concern to a Libertopian?

(I hope that doesn’t stray into Godwin territory – I think it’s a legit point.)

No problem. It would be a miracle if you asked a question I haven’t already heard and answered a hundred times.

The Nazi death camps would be of no concern to the Libertopian government because its role is strictly defined as securing the rights and property of the governed.

HOWEVER, they damn sure would be of concern to me and millions of other Libertopians. Nothing precludes us from intervening on behalf of the Jews. In fact, nothing prevents the Jews from hiring the Libertopian government, in which case, it would indeed have a vested concern.

Lib: Strike my comments re prisoner’s rights. I misread your post, specifically the last sentence as “Even if he goes to jail” rather than “Even if he owns a jail.”

Good. Thanks for letting me know that. I was beginning to think I was losing my mind!

Although I’m still left wondering how exactly a prisoner redresses his grievances.

The same way he always has. He petitions his arbiter.

[Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow]

*Originally posted by Truth Seeker *
Happy to help. Universal Declaration of Human Rights

So a bunch of guys meeting in an ugly building on the East River are the divine arbiters of what is God-given? Do tell me how appointment to a UN ambassadorship gives one these shaman-like mystical powers. :rolleyes:

Better answer: the UNUDHR are an (arguably) valid expression of core human rights because a bunch of properly-delegated people thought about it and agreed it was so. NOT because they were ordained by God.**

The idea that certain human rights are innate has been the subject of extensive analysis for hundreds of years. The entire concept of human rights directly depends on it.**

No, it does not. We can recognize a right to free speech as A Really Good Idea ™ without requiring that the right be ordained by God. **

In fact, the basic idea that some human rights are innate, while originally revolutionary in the extreme, is probably the most widely accepted philosophical idea on the planet today. **

Dare I say…cite?

[Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow]

*Originally posted by Libertarian *
Oh, yeah. Sorry about that. What is a silent contract?

Not “silent contract,” places where the contract is silent. Key terms that are inferred by law if they aren’t in the contract itself.**

To answer directly your last question (which is remarkably similar to the one Buck asked just above your post), the Libertarian government not only may, but must use whatever force is necessary to secure your rights (property) — whether that’s breaking down a door or fighting a war against a nation-state.**

Cold comfort to the innocent, noncontracting vacationing homeowner who had the misfortune of having me sneak into his basement. Why should Libertopia be able to initiate force against his property?

Indeed, is Libertopia obliged to respect the property rights of noncontracting parties absent some initiation of force? Why? As a practical matter, their only obligation is to those who pay the bills. Why would Libertopia be any more noninterventionist than other forms of government?**

That depends upon what the arbiter determines.**

So a noncontracting party can be seized by violent force in the middle of the night if some arbiter that HE certainly didn’t hire decides it’s OK? Is probable cause even required here? Why would a Libertopian arbiter care about due process rights for a noncontracting party? – after all, that guy isn’t paying the bills.

[Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow]

*Originally posted by Libertarian *
**The Nazi death camps would be of no concern to the Libertopian government because its role is strictly defined as securing the rights and property of the governed.

HOWEVER, they damn sure would be of concern to me and millions of other Libertopians. Nothing precludes us from intervening on behalf of the Jews. In fact, nothing prevents the Jews from hiring the Libertopian government, in which case, it would indeed have a vested concern. **

How are they gonna do that? Can you send a purchase order from a death camp?

And I utterly fail to see a difference between saying the camps would be of “no concern” to the Libertopian government, but that nothing would preclude millions of individual Libertopians from parachuting into Berlin. Why can you initiate force against German property rights in defense of a noncontracting third party (let’s assume German Jews are unaware of Libertopia’s existence)?