You've got a Friend in Libertaria

Great Debates
41

My, such hostility. No need to get so defensive. My post was no more than a contribution to the stream of this discussion.

And no, obviously, your X is nonsensical. I was talking specifically about a Libertarian society, not all societies. It’s ridiculous that I should have to clarify that. Are all the nouns in your sentences interchangeable with other random nouns?

FWIW, I agree with xenophon that Libertarianism is an “effective and vital opposition philosophy”; that it has a place in the eternal political discourse as a supplier of a valuable perspective.

But the internal contradictions I referred to above are irrefutable: In order to work, a Libertarian society would have to consist entirely of committed Libertarians. The system would rely entirely on the “honor system.” To maintain this system in the inescapable context of human nature would require either enforcing the honor system, which is of course oxymoronic, or expelling non-adherents, which is of course coercive.

Even Ayn Rand’s hidden utopia had to be hidden, and depended upon total isolation and the philosophical commitment and acquiescence of every individual member; even she couldn’t posit a real-world Libertarian society.

42

Sorry; should’ve noted that this was in response to pldennison’s post.

43

Well, even I don’t think that this has to be so. If a person contracts with a government, they have to obey its laws or face the penalties for not doing so. If they do not contract, the govt has nothing to do with them, except exact retribution upon the uncontracted person if s/he coerces or defrauds one of its citizens. (Now, this seems to lead to the rather unhappy situation that if a person has not contracted with any government, you can do pretty much whatever the heck you want with them without fear of official retribution; but we’ve been over this situation before in previous threads, and it’s a bit of a digression.)

44

Far from being a digression, this is just a paraphrase of what I’ve been saying.

45

Really? But the government is not being coercive; and not to be glib, but if you wish to belong to a society that defends people who have no government to protect them, you can join one (I rather like living in a society that does not allow those too poor to pay taxes to be abused, myself, so I would probably choose to join a government that protected the rights of those who cannot afford its fees). Anyone who has contracted with a government will be protected by it, and I would assume that anyone who does not have a private army or who is not insane would probably do so; it’s like buying insurance. Those who are too poor would have to be sponsored by charity or protected by a generous government. I do wonder about the rights of a goverment A to protect noncontractors who are abused by government B (which has no protection-of-noncontractors clause), though. I don’t know that Libertaria is truly workable, but I think automatically concluding that it is logically impossible seems overhasty. Nor do I see even our government worrying all that much about the welfare of those not under its aegis. It does worry a little, and I think that a good thing; but I don’t know that a libertarian society cannot tell those who contract with it that they may not coerce or defraud others even if that person has not contracted with a government. If the vast majority of people do not want noncontractors to be abused, they will form governments to take that into account.

46

Ah, but Gaudere, what right does the Libt govt have to enforce the law against someone who has not signed the “Contract”? Oh, sure, it has every right to attempt to PROTECT the contractees, but how about exacting revenge? Say an non-contract resident is hired to kill a contract citizen. He does so, and then goes across the border. By what right does the Libt government ask for his extradition? He had no responsibility to obey the Law, the Law is only for the contractees. Or are you saying that all residents of Libertaria must obey the Law, contractee or not? In which case, the residents are COERCED into the contract. Thus, it is no different than the USA.
Or say I, being a non-contracting resident, go on a Burgalry spree. They never catch me red-handed, but the evidence is clear- I did it. By what right do they enter my non-contract (and thus non-part of Libertaria) homestead? By what right do they arrest me? Or do they just send out an assasination squad to kill me, as I have “no rights”. No trial, just shoot me. Right. :rolleyes: But- sending a kill squad into another country? We call that an “act of war”.

See, the fact that any resident of Liberaria can “opt out”, and turn himself into a little independent country, with no laws over him, is what make the whole idea 'logically impossible".

Actually, there is such a country, or a whole passle of them in one city- Beirut. You are protected from 'coercion" from whichever Gov’t/gang you want to join. Those that do not join are preyed upon by those who have joined. You can “opt out” at any time- and simply forgo the protection of your “government”. There are only two Laws- whatever you “agree” (contract) with, and the Law of the Jungle. Roads, services, ect, are all in the hands of “private” enities, and you pay for what you want, and nothing more. (Actually, Beirut is getting more civilized, this does apply to Albania, currently, tho). Normally, we call this “anarchy”, but it isn’t. It is truly, Gov’t by “contract”. Oh, and if the “gang” over there is bigger than “your” gang, well , they just come over and take & do whatever they want to you.

47

Daniel…

A libertarian government has the same rights as any other. Zero.

A contract in Gaudere’s scenario need not involve payment of money. She is talking about a pro bono contract, made with the voluntary consent of all involved. You can’t be more libertarian than that.

Regarding opting out, I have two remarks: (1) no one may opt out while under contractual obligation; that would be breach, and (2) you must think North Korea has the perfect government.

48

Daniel…

Uh huh. You forgot New York and Los Angeles.

49

Lib, trying to argue from a “either it’s black or white” perspective causes the thoughtless churning-out of statements such as the last one you made. New York and/or Los Angeles is nothing like Beirut,and to suggest such is puffery.
Now, unless all contracts in Libertaria are totally non-cancelable and are for life, there wil come a time when someone opts not to renew. There will also be outside forces that will not recognize the government and/or the non-governmental rights it’s citizens deem to give each other. Can you government work in the non-vaccuum of the real world, or is total isolation(which can only be forced) the only solution?

50

Your bifurcation does not limit me. The closest city on earth to having a libertarian context is Hong Kong.

As regards Los Angeles, I recommend you view the documentary, “South Central Los Angeles: Inside Voices”. It is a discussion of issues following the 1992 riots, when “a car engulfed in yellow and orange flames slowly rolls across the street in daylight. At night, the city is lit by fires. And when the dawn finally comes, only the husks of buildings remain.”

Sounds like Beirut to me. There is a character in the documentary, called Clever, who says, “If I had a penny for every time the cops kicked my ass, I’d have a whole dollar.”

According to USC’s report on the Ethnicity and Economic Status of South Central Los Angeles, the median household income in Watts is $12,000.

From that article:

51

::struggling . . . to find . . . relevance::

52

It was relevant to this comment, put before you for your convenience:

Gangsterism is not limited to one city. I cited (and documented) Los Angeles as a counter-example.

53

Actually, Lib is somewhat correct, in that PORTIONS of LA, for eg, are run by gangs, and there is no law. There are enclaves where the mail is not delivered, just put into outside boxes. However, the gangs can only go so far. The Govt still provides some services and collects taxes.

However, Lib, you said folks can’t “OPT OUT”. When thry 1st enter/join/come of age, I assume there is a contract offered, based on what you have said. I assume that, based upon your feelings on choice, one does not have to sign that contract, and thus he “opts out”. I have also assumed, that if the “contracting agency” (aka Govt), later does not perform to expectations, one may again “opt out”, but that is unclear. The 1st example of “opting out” has been rather clear from you posts.

And the USA and other Countries DO have rights in other Nations: we call these “Treaties”. In some cases, US Law enforcement may even enter & assist in the arrest. But, the treaties re extradition, allow the USA to ask for the return of someone who has broken US Laws, and over whom the USA had juristiction at the time of the crime.

54

The example of Beirut or any other gang-controlled city may look on the face of it like a libertarian context, but you seem to not understand which characteristics are the defining ones. Libertarianism is not primarily about being free to contract with an organization to protect yourself, but about a context where peaceful and honest people can live free of initiated force and fraud. In short, it is the result, not the process that defines libertarianism.

The extent to which a society exists in a libertarian context is not the extent to which the government is limited, but the extent to which individual rights are protected. The primary goal of libertarianism is the protection of each individual’s right to be free of initiated force and fraud, not abolishment of non-consentual government. Rule of law is a necessary prerequisite of a libertarian context. This is why virtually no libertarian supports the immediate adoption of a truly libertarian context.

The goal we want to accomplish is to create a transition from the current system to a libertarian context, at all times protecting people from initiated force and fraud to the maximum extent possible. You seem to be confusing libertarianism with minarchism. While limited, consentual, government is a feature of libertarianism, it is only so because that is the only type that can exists without initiating force or fraud.

55

My kingdom in exchange for the talent to exposit a point that concisely.

56

It seems to me that the Libertarians who are, um, shining forth in this thread are, understandably, focusing on Libertarianism’s good points; its sky pie, as it were. To which I feel a very strong urge to respond, “yadda yadda yadda.”

But what about its dark side, young sky walkers? Wouldn’t a Libertarian government allow a company to dump whatever the hell kind of poison it wanted in whoever the hell’s backyard didn’t come with a built in lawyer?

Can’t the philosophy of Libertarianism be reasonably paraphrased: “May the biggest man win”?

57

Ssometimes you wonder, “what’s the use”. Hope, nevertheless, springs eternal.

Try to follow me on this, okay? It’s complicated. Vandalism is a coercion.

58

In all seriousness, Libertarian, I honestly don’t see the point you’re trying to make. Please elaborate for the penny public.

59

Libertarianism is opposition to coercion (defined as initial force or fraud) against a person’s property (like his body or land, for instance). Poisoning (or in any other way polluting or vandalizing) a man’s property is a coercion. Libertarianism, therefore, is opposed to it.

Does that help?

60

lissener, if I understand correctly, libertarian thought is that, in the scenario you’ve imagined where someone is polluting not on their own property, it is presumed that the property holder or other damaged parties will bring a complaint against them, which is enforceable under libertarian law since the polluter initiated force by dumping on others’ land.

Simularly, if a property holder who is polluting their own property can be shown to be causing damage to others through that act (eg polluting a water table, creating a hazard adjoining another’s property, or -conceivably- driving adjacent property values down), then complaints could be brought against them under the same concept. (Did I get that right, Lib?)

What is not so clear are things like hunting endangered species on your own property, or importing/establishing plants and animals on your property which are foreign to your local ecosystem.