Lib, vague assurances aside, if someone who resides in Libertaria decides NOT to renew her/his contract, is said person forced off their land? Is a little island created in the middle of Libertaria? Would someone who is no longer under contract to Libertaria have any rights?
Now, you can either take the same old cop-out of saying the answers are either elsewhere or “self-evident”(btw, I have found most “self-evident” answers to be anything but), or you can give specific answers to specific questions that have been asked.
It took almost five minutes to find these, but it was worth the effort for you, Slythe:
I addressed that question in this post:
And in this post:
And even about children in this post:
Lots of discussions have centered around that question. A cursory search will show that Gaudere, Spiritus, and even RTFirefly are among the antilibertarians who grasp the simple concept of volunteerism, contracts, and secession, though they don’t like it.
So if I didn’t renew my contract, I would keep my land, even though I would be in a sea of contractees to Libertaria. Since at that time I wouldn’t belong to any country, what legal rights to life, liberty, and property would I have, then? Could someone buy up all the land around my “island” and harass me into leaving? If the only person complaining about the diverting of streams, the playing of loud music, or any other harassment is NOT under contract, what legal recourse is there? I understand that people under contract have the right not to be harassed, however vague this term seems to be defined from person to person and situation to situation, but what rights do the people on this theoretical “island” have?
Rights granted a foriegn nation probably.
Or in other words, I would need a passport to leave my property, all items leaving or entering would be subject to intense inspection, Libertaria could forbid all imports and/or visitors, and any grieviances would have to go before the World Court if Libertaria deems to recognize that at all.
Yes, I suppose that “opting out” is always a possibility in Libertaria, but the Hell-on-Earth created for anyone opting-out seems to be self-evident to me.
Well what do you expect? All the rights of libertaria but none of the responsibility?
No, I just wanted somene to explain the full implication of “opting out” of Libertaria. I wanted someone to admit that it would be a lot more complicated than just not signing a simple contract. I wanted someone to stand up and admit that one would need a personal army and good coastal property to import and export goods to have the “freedom” to opt out of Libertaria, and even then your neighbors could still make your life a living hell.
Of course, you could just sign a contract with the Principality of waterj2, which has entered into various contracts with Libertaria, since Lib and I are both peaceful, honest people with a common interest in preserving the rights of our citizens (or subjects) in our own respective manners. For example, in the PoW, there are numerous laws, because I happen to prefer legislation to simply arbitrating everything from a single principle.
Life in the Principality is not terribly different from life in Libertaria, and any of my subjects will have to answer in the courts of Libertaria for any wrongs against any citizen of Libertaria. I will also make sure that citizens of Libertaria answer in my courts for wrongs committed against my subjects.
You could also, of course, not contract with anyone, in which case neither Lib nor I would see any reason to trouble you. I would even, in the spirit of fairness, allow you to bring suit in my courts for any grievance you might have against one of my subjects, but I would make sure that my courts are fairly compensated for their time, in the form of charging you more than one of my subjects to do so.
Yes, it will be several years before mankind is able to organize itself in this manner. Right now, the tool it has for the protection of individual rights (government) has been used for many years, and has been adapted to. For such a radical change to occur will require a gradual process of depending upon lesser forms of coercion as protection against greater forms.
Hmmm… maybe at some point, if I have a lot of spare time, I might be persuaded to draft an example of a contract with the Principality of waterj2. At the moment, I have some rather difficult homework in a class on computer vision to work on (subtle hint that I’m not exactly in the business of governing). Tomorrow night should be pretty free. Anyone want me to give it a shot?
Jeremey
If it won’t interefere with your studies, I would like to see it.
Slythe
Wow! I hadn’t thought of that. So, you’re saying that if someone decides not to be governed by his neighbor’s governor, he will have to provide for his own safety. Yikes! It could be almost like living in Wats. Or a homeless shelter in Atlanta. Or worse yet, the District of Columbia. [… shudder …]
Something else I hadn’t thought of these many years until you posted: we’re all just as clueless as the hypothetical hermit you’re so worried about. The more I think about it, the more the notion of peaceful honest people pursuing their own happiness in their own way scares me. I mean, how will we control them?
I agree with Slythe. We have been asking this question for a while. Exactly what happens to a person who does not sign the 'contract" with Libertaria, and thus opts out? What do you do if he is suspected of a crime? Can he walk the streets, if he pays the owners? Can the ‘citizens" of Libertaria just shoot him down like a dog? This bit about "volunarily agreeing to be governed’ in a “nation” in which you live seem specious, and it is hard to see how it will work. But, you libt beleive it is the “core” of Libtism, so we would like it explained, please.
We are also still waiting for that “model” or hypothetical Libt “nation”.
Whoever said anything about being the core of libertarianism? It is merely one of the many necessities of a context free of initiated force and fraud. As for the question of “opting out”, it has been addressed numerous times, and I can see good reasons for Lib to be annoyed at explaining the basic ways in which contracts work yet again.
Let’s compare it with rent. You agree with your landlord to an arrangement that provides you with a place to live, and him with some money. If you decide to “opt out” of this contract, are you necessarily homeless? Why is a contract with an organization to secure your rights for you different than one that secures your shelter for you? Granted, society is far more accustomed to the latter, but I see no reason that they cannot both be arranged through similar means.
Lib, I only have class two days a week (I’m a second or third semester senior), so I think that if you can write short stories on demand, I can easily find a few moments to create a draft version of a libertarian government.
Daniel, walk the streets safely? As a non-member of Libertania, you might not be allowed to walk the streets at all!
Lib, you keep pretending that all members of Libertania would be as altuistic as you. What magical method are you using to keep the con-artists, thieves, and power-mongers from joining up? You say that you wouldn’t do any of the things that would drive me from my land, but as always, you make the false assumption that all in Libertaria think as you do. What SPECIFICALLY are the safeguards Libertaria would all ready have in place, NOT hopefully decided after the fact, to stop the scenarios I’ve described?
You would have to take your grievances up with whatever organization you have contracted with to safeguard your rights. As a non-member of Lib’s little regime, you have the sort of relationship with it as you do with all the other people whose services you have not contracted.
All of these private companies that we are talking about contracting with have the right not to contract with me, right? If the various utility companies got together and said,“Let’s make a deal-we’ll give each other great discounts as long as ALL of us agree not to contract with people of (insert creed, race or religion)persuasion.”
Likewise, certain groups could form a separate contract to stop (insert etc.) from walking on their privately-owned sidewalks.
You can say that you wouldn’t do such a thing till the cows come home, and somehow that doesn’t reassure me one bit. When you finally design your Libertarian government, keep in mind that assholes WILL flock in.
Guaranteed.
I don’t see any reason that assholes would be any more attracted to my libertarian government than any other. I also seriously doubt that a huge segment of the population is going to contract with blatantly racist/sexist/homophobic/whatever competing governments. If that were to happen, I would guarantee that a government would arise to cater to the disenfranchised minorities. Law of supply and demand, and all that.
Subjects of my government would be obligated to provide a reasonable right-of-way through their property to the nearest road, if they were in the way. If citizens of Libertaria were seriously impeding the ability of my subjects to travel where they see fit, I would talk with Lib and attempt to convince him of the stupidity of this idea. The interests of Libertaria are not well served by carrying out pointless vendettas against other governments operating in the vicinity.
Of course, Libertaria might not be ruled in a manner in accordance with its own self interest. But if that were the case, why would people contract with it?
If your choice in the upcoming election was who would be your President, would you feel the need to rationalize voting for someone you aren’t comfortable with, or would prefer to be in the Green Regime (couldn’t resist the rhyme)? Would you worry that those who voted to be ruled by Bush would not be free to get abortions?
waterj2 wrote:
So, if I understand you right, if a citizen of either the PoW or Libertaria is alleged to have transgressed against a citizen (subject) of the other government, then they will answer to those charges in the courts or abritration system of the appropriate government. This raises some genuine questions for me:[ul][li]If I am a contracted citizen of Libertaria, why should I be subject to the courts of the Principality? If I’d wanted to contract with waterj2, I would’ve done so. I understand that Libertaria has, by various intergovernmental contracts with PoW, agreed on some system by which the rights of both sets of peaceful honest people are preserved. However, I don’t see it as preserving my rights to obligate me without my consent to follow the laws of another government. Any subject of PoW may seek an arbitrated decision against me through the Libertarian system, but I would consider it a serious breach of my rights to be taken into a PoW court, and I would expect my government to protect and defend those rights.Knowing that Libertaria does not engage in diplomacy, but will secure the rights of its citizens by whatever means is necessary, should I expect an armed response from my government to any attempt by PoW to subject me to their laws?[/ul][/li]
Quite decent of you, waterj2. What happens when one of your peaceful, honest subjects transgresses against a citizen of some more traditional geographical state (say, Canada) who’s travelling abroad (perhaps doing a sociological study of your Principality) and cannot pay the judicial fees?
Conversely, and of more concern I’m sure to your subjects, how do you protect their rights against those who’ve “opted out” and who have no contractual obligation to follow your laws? Do you impose those laws anyway? Do you coerce peaceful, honest non-subjects by imposing your rules with no contract? Or are your subjects taking a big chance every time they contract with entities not subject to PoW governance?
Forgive my question, but I’m genuinely trying to understand the niceties of libertarian theory. Doesn’t our present government already attempt to protect against greater forms of coercion by enforcing lesser forms?
BTW, I’m eager to see your draft of a libertarian contract for government services. Perhaps it’ll clear up some of my lingering questions.
Hey, I’ll take whatever compliments I can get. (I have NO self-esteem. ;))
Well, then, we’re actually almost in agreement here. But a point I made in my post above is that many libertarians would like to do away with the whole concept of public property altogether, that every speck of land would belong to either an individiual or a corporation and there would be no government ownership of land anywhere whatso-freaking-ever. So, the ruins at Mesa Verde National Park could, for example, fall into the hands of Exxon and if they wanted to set up a rig in one of the kivas, there wouldn’t be a thing anyone could do about it. It’s Exxon’s property now, not that of the people, and they can do whatever they wish, right?
Not right now, they can’t, which is how I would like it to remain.
And if you think my example is extreme, there are people wo’d love to start drilling in some ecologically-sensitive areas in Alaska no matter what damage it may cause, no matter how many species it may cause to go extinct.
And if they don’t care about living things, what makes you think they would care about historical artifacts or fossils?
[quote]
[li]Could you provide some cites regarding the estimated number of artifacts destroyed for gold content in modern times? (i.e. a few centuries post-Cortez 
[/li][/quote]
I certainly wish I could at the moment. If I go searchin’ and don’t find any examples other than people melting down Mayan gold in order to cover up the theft of said gold, I’ll withdraw the claim.
Yeah, but without ALL the artifacts we can study, our history will be incomplete and poorly understood.
And here’s a link to the story that made me make my first post on this subject: Best seat in the House | Real Politics | Orlando | Orlando Weekly I used to live in Orlando and I sometimes look at the Orlando Sentinel and Orlando Weekly websites to see what’s been going on. This story is mostly about people who steal artifacts from state parks (and many libertarians would like to do away with public property like state parks) but it also tells about developers who build without allowing scientists to first examine the land and see if there’s anything of scientific value there, in defiance of state law. And there are not nearly enough people available to investigate the ones who do bother to obey the law.
“Public property.” Right.
If public property is so public, why are homeless people routinely rounded up from the streets and the parks and arrested or dumped outside the limits of major cities? Are they not members of the public?
If public property is so public, why do antiabortion activists have to stay off of certain portions of the sidewalks? Are they not members of the public?
If public property is so public, why are farmers out West given sweetheart deals for grazing their cattle on Federal lands?
Could all of this be because “public property” doesn’t belong to the public at all, and instead belongs to whoever happens to hold political clout? Could be. Or do you have a better explanation for who actually gets to make decisions concerning so-called “public property”?
I won’t even bother to address the straw men concerning not caring about living things ( . . . he said to the vegetarian animal-rights activist) or scientific discovery ( . . . he said to the member of the Planetary Society, the Northern Virginia Astronomy Club, and CSICOP).
pldennison complained:
Wow, we agree! So you want more humane treatment of homeless people? You won’t get any argument from this liberal.
OK, Civics 101. Right to peaceful assembly does not trump the rights of women to freely exercise their medical choices. Abortion protesters are not allowed to intimidate or obstruct access to clinics. This in no way violates their free speech or denies them the rights to use public travelways. When they are using the sidewalk as a pedestrian thoroughfare (in other words not for a pulpit), they’re just as free to walk in front of the clinics as anyone else.
Um, because they’re members of the public? :rolleyes:
-Actually, I don’t understand your objection in this context. Have you been denied the opportunity to graze your own cattle on those lands?
So, Phil, lemme get this straight: You say that public property isn’t really public because not everyone can use it with impunity–and I agree with you, the treatment of homeless people on public streets is shocking. And your solution to the problem of public land not truly being public is to…get rid of public property altogether?!? Man, I think I finally figured out where Libertaria is–it’s through the looking glass!