You've got a Friend in Libertaria

Great Debates
161

This, of course, is not condescending. :rolleyes:

I suggest the solution to the problem of public land not being truly public is to allow the owners of the property to make all decisions with respect to how that property is to be used. I’ll leave it to you to figure out how that applies as regards “public property.” (Here’s a hint–if the abortion clinic also owned the sidewalk in front of it, and therefore was entitled to make all decisions with respect to how that property was to be used and by whom, there would be no more controversy over where the antiabortionists were to stand, would there?)

162

xenophon:

Irrelevant. My statement was directed to the point of who gets to make decisions about how “public property” is used. Apparently, only select members of the public (who, let’s remember, supposedly own the property) get to make these decisions, and I bet they aren’t homeless.

As pro-choice as I am, I question the extent to which otherwise nonintimidating protestors interfere with any given woman’s ability to obtain an abortion.

Great. So can anyone get this deal for Federal land use, or just ranchers, who get to use up a resource at a reduced rate at the expense of other members of the public, meaning they can leave their own land ungrazed for a longer period of time?

163

You’re right, and I apologize. It’s just that you and I actually have such similar perceptions of the world, yet the solutions we respectively propose couldn’t be more divergent. It’s interesting and frustrating at the same time.

…And this is a perfect example. You’re advocating the elimination of public land here, as a proposed solution “to the problem of public land not being truly public.” That’s like using a howitzer to take out a housefly! If resolving the public nature of public land were really your primary concern, I can’t help but think that you’d be more moderate in your remedy. Instead, you seem to jump to the answer which most conforms to your own libertarian bent.

Let me give you what I feel to be an analogous syllogism:

  1. The First and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution prohibit federal and state governments from making laws abridging freedom of speech.
  2. Yet statutory abridgments on freedom of speech exist and have existed in various forms since the founding of this Republic (sedition laws; hate speech laws; restrictions on threats, defamation, or fraudulent speech; laws against incitement, under the clear and present danger doctrine; codes which govern speech at state campuses and high schools, etcetera).
  3. Given all these restrictions on our freedom of speech, I suggest that the solution to the problem of free speech not being truly free is to remove all restrictions on speech and let each person decide for his or herself how freely to speak.

How is that any less appropriate a remedy to a perceived problem than what you’re proposing? In fact, were I to structure the syllogism along the lines of your reasoning, the solution would be to eliminate free speech entirely:

  1. We’re supposed to have freedom of speech.
  2. We don’t all have freedom of speech all the time.
  3. Therefore, we shouldn’t have freedom of speech.

Contrast that with:

  1. Public property is supposed to be public.
  2. Public property isn’t public for everyone all the time.
  3. Therefore, we shouldn’t have public property.

Tell me why those two things are different. Believe it or not, Phil, I respect your desire for a society in which each individual can live free of coercion. I just think that some of the rationales you employ aren’t logically valid, and some of the solutions you propose aren’t reasonably practical.

164

OK, I am getting tired of the Libertarians saying “we will not answer that question, as it has been answered before”. That is a huge cop-out. Ok, maybe if it has been explained last week, or last month, or last thread on the subject, maybe, but it has not. As a matter of fact, I have searched back some 3 months, and this has not been covered except with the above answer, or with a quick “blow-off”. No more “blow-offs”, please. Several of us have requested the answer to this query, and we are by no means trolls or newbies, and i think an answer would be polite. If you can’t, then just tell us.

There is no basic difference between a Libt and a minimalist gov’t, other than this point, which Lib has said was critical. I have said that we have “implied consent”, by agreeing to live in this Nation, but Lib & co has said that is not good enuf. It must be a specific non-coerced agreement to a contract. Thus, you must have the ability to not sign, or “opt out”. Now, a Libt govt does, according to MOST of you, provide some services, primarily police and the Defence/ military. Ok, if you “opt out”, what about the police and military? Do they not defend YOU? Can YOU invite a foriegn gov’t troops in? can you commit crimes, and the only thing the police can do is stop you, if they catch you in the act? If they are investigating the crime, by what authority can they enter you home, or question you? Or can they just torture you until you confess, as you have no rights? Can any citizen shoot you down, like a dog?

165

Except that water just said that private property owners would have to allow reasonable rights to pass thru. If you have absolute rights to the land, you can block folks off from going to work, or buying food, or whatever. If you own the roads around a city block, you can basicly cut them all off from everything until the agree to give up their land to you for free. Of course, that won’t happen, :rolleyes: just like in the early Rome, bands of private firefighters would not block other firefighters from putting out the fire, until the owner agreed to sellout- cheap- but they did.

166

OK, I’ll address Daniel first, then work my way up to get other points that have been raised since my last post.

The first mistake you are making is to assume that under a libertarian context there is not a single government that you can opt out of. There are many different organizations that you can contract with to protect your right to be free of initiated force and fraud. Let’s back up a second to the basic premise we have here, which is that every person has the right to be free of initiated force and fraud (and let’s not argue this point here, as I’m getting pretty busy with the other points we’re debating).

Now, it follows that people have this basic right regardless of whether or not they have contracted with anyone to have it protected. Every person also has the right to take whatever action is necessary to defend against the initiation of force and fraud. If you are trespassing on my lawn, I have the right to get you off of it by force. I don’t have the right to use you for target practice.

The concerns of someone who has not contracted to be governed by Libertaria are simply ignored by Libertaria, just as McDonalds ignores you when you go to Burger King. Only if that person initiates force or fraud upon a citizen of Libertaria does it become the business of Libertaria to give a shit about that person. In that case, Libertarian goons (well, police officers most likely) will apprehend that person to be brought to justice. That would be retaliatory force.

You are trying to understand the matter in terms of traditional nation-states, which simply won’t work. In a truly libertarian context, governments, like everything else, are privately run enterprises. They do not have eminent domain over any parcel of land. They are simply one of the many companies which people are free to do business with or not. Is this becoming any clearer? We are looking at this from vastly different perspectives.

Whew… more will follow soon…

167

I said that offering people the ability to reach roads from their property would be a condition that I would enforce on those that had agreed to be governed by the Principality of waterj2. If you are intent on blocking people in, you are perfectly free to do so if you are not one of my subjects. I don’t want my good name sullied by people acting stupid with their property.

168

Ok, let me get this straight. (Hypothet sit) Water is a “citizen/ contractee” of Libt. I am not. Water goes to “his” contracted "goons’, and says I burglarized his house. These goons, who I have NOT contracted with, have every right to break down my door, search my house, and drag me to “justice”. :confused: :rolleyes: So, it is a form of anarchy, whoever can “hire” the biggest “goons” can do anything they want to anyone who is not “part of the system”. What happens if water is right?, and I did burgle him? Would not dragging me from my “nation/home” be a form of war? How would they imprison me? Would water have to pay for my upkeep? Or could they just shoot me on the spot? Or, maybe I did not burgle water. What recourse do i have? Hiring a bigger set of goons to “arrest” him? I can’t sue him, there are no courts of mutual juristiction. Or, how about water claims I burgled him, but I claim he is framing me, as he wants to “get back” something of mine he wants. Ie we both claim the “other” is “initiating force”. So MY set of “goons” shoots it out with HIS set of goons? Who determines who “ititiated” and who is “retaliating” force? Whoever has the biggest goons? It appears, the richest can do whatever they want,then, as they can hire really BIG goons. Would you explain how this is different from anarchy, please? Maybe “gang rule”, a form of anarchy is closer, tho.

But then water talks about no real 'nation", perhaps dozens or thousands of contract police depts, etc. How about the army? We all get to hire whatever army we want to? That army only defends a PART of the “nation”?

I am sorry water, your ‘answer’ only raised more questions, but at least you tried. Thanks. Perhaps that is why others don’t bother to even try.

169

Gadarene:

The answer I jump to is indeed the one which conforms to my own personal ethic, which happens to be this one: The government should be in the business of protecting my rights, not in the business of buying up property, then telling citizens how they may or may not use it, contingent upon the results of a popular vote or of the whims of the legislature.

When the government puts itself in the business of owning large amounts of real property and telling people how they may use it, there are going to be, inevitably, conflicts between parties with differing interests on how that property is to be used. The solution is nearly always in favor of the group with the most political clout. My solution? Take the government out of the business of owning real property.

IMHO, they are different because free speech rights extend from the observable fact that each person owns his or her own body and mind, and therefore reserves the right to make decisions with respect to same, including how and on what topics they will speak. “Public property,” on the other hand, is supposedly owned by everybody, which really means it is owned by nobody. Therefore, decisions on how it is to be used are not made by everybody (which is ideally how they would be made); they are made by the politically powerful.

Now, in our world, when someone owns a piece of land and wants to put, say, a homeless shelter on it, he or she has to contend with all sorts of red tape–restrictive zoning, Federal, state and local oversight, usually a vocal group of NIMBYs, etc. In a Libertarian context, if someone owns a piece of land and wants to put a homeless shelter on it, it is nobody’s business but theirs. (I recall a recent case in DC in which a charitable group wanted to open a halfway house/methadone clinic to treat drug abusers. The NIMBYs went to work, and the idea was quickly voted down by the council. Too bad for the drug abusers, I guess.)

“Practical” depends entirely on what you’re practicing, as Lib has said.

170

Ah, fine; now that you’ve stated your point explicitly I’ll answer explicitly.

I don’t mean to be condescending, as I’m sure you understand federal and state government structures as well as I do. However, due to the phrasing of your question I feel I need to state the following: There are two ways in a representative democracy by which decisions are made about public policy (including what to do with public property). Specific issues may be decided by public referendum, or the electorate can empower public officials to make decisions (or to appoint others to make them). California seems to put most issues to referenda. Other states rarely use this method, and some states make it extremely difficult to call for a referendum.

Personally, I think some issues, such as use of public spaces for temporary shelter, lend themselves well to referenda. Other issues affecting long term policy decisions that need to be based on a thorough understanding of logistic, legal or other considerations should be left to representatives.

As pro-freedom-of-speech as I am, I feel that a woman having to walk through a group of protestors carrying large signs that say she’s a murderer is unduly intimidating.

You seem to be under the impression that[ul][li]grazing cattle somehow “uses up” a non-renewable resourcethe public lands currently being grazed would somehow be more profitable or less costly to the public if grazing were not allowed[/ul]Can you support either of those propositions? (I’d expect you might have limited success with the second one, but not the first.)[/li]
Now, if you are genuinely disturbed that other uses of public lands are disallowed, please list a few that leave the lands as unharmed as controlled grazing does, and let’s discuss those. There’s nothing about our current system of Federal land management that prohibits similar arrangements with other industries.

On the other hand, if you genuinely think that grazing is an improper use of public lands, I’ll be glad to research the issue more heavily and debate you on that score as a side-light to the larger debate.

171

xenophon:

I think we’re getting bogged down in minutiae, here, about the political process. My point was (and remains) that, in contrast to a situation in which a single property owner gets to make decisions with respect to property use, “public property” use is at the whim of whoever has political power.

Incidentally, in either situation, the homeless lose. They don’t tend to vote, so the referendum will mean nothing to them, and business owners and homeowners definitely don’t want the homeless hanging out near their properties. On the other hand, the homeless can’t buy representatives (at any level) like business owners can.

As long as they aren’t physically restraining her or obstructing her, she has no more right to not hear intimidating messages than I have to not hear Christian proselytizing. IMHO, of course.

No, I’m under the impression that rather than this “public property” being available for use to “the public” (I bet some of it would make a nice campground), its use is reserved preferentially, at sweetheart prices, to a group with a large, powerful voting bloc (cattle ranchers). I know a way to make it infinitely less costly to the public, BTW.

As to the rest, see my response to Gadarene–it’s my opinion that it isn’t the job of the government to buy up and own property.

172

pldennison said: *My point was (and remains) that, in contrast to a situation in which a single property owner gets to make decisions with respect to property use, “public property” use is at the whim of whoever has political power. *

But Phil, this is hyperbole. In real life, “public property” does give the public a great deal of access (though there are always problematic exceptions, as you point out). Look at me, for example: I am a despised liberal with little money and no political power beyond my solitary vote which is frequently cast in favor of the loser. Yet I walk on the public sidewalks wherever I choose; I can successfully access public libraries and public parks and public roads and public offices. So can you; so can all of us. The question of abuses of public property is an important one, but it doesn’t wipe out the fact that access to public property, in most cases for most people, is actually quite dependable and satisfactory. Whim, schmim.

173

Kimstu: Try walking around in front of Shell Oil headquarters wearing a sandwich board reading “Shell Oil Responsible For Thousands of African Deaths” on one side and “Shell Oil Hires Mercenaries to Murder Nigerians” on the other, and see how much access to the sidewalk you have all of a sudden. Or, alternatively, try sleeping overnight in the public park.

174

I have a question for water, Phil, and/or Lib. I understand that there is no eminent domain within libertarian philosophy. That works very well whenever all the land is owned and/or claimed, but how is land ownership arbitrated otherwise?

Say slythe has a really nifty homestead, hundreds of acres of choice land with rich resources, a great house, solar and wind power, putting greens, pool, and so forth. In short, everybody would love to own a spread like this. Slythe has got it made on his little parcel of land. Slythe, however, really dislikes the three surrounding governments, Libertarian’s Likable Land, Phil’s Friendly Fiefdom, and Water’s Wonder World. Although the people who live there are content and happy, slythe has this anti-libertarian bent that not only keeps him from contracting with any of the governments, but the conitinued expression of which has also has driven everyone away, even the pool cleaners. Isolated, without family or heirs, slythe is skimming the accumulated algae from his pool when he is cruelly struck down by a meteorite that hurtles from the sky, completely ignoring slythe’s right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Now we have this unowned, untenanted tract of juicy real estate sitting in the middle of three areas ostensibly controlled by your governments. How is this handled? Obviously, since the government cannot own land, individual citizens must claim it. Is there some system or ethical guideline that libertarianism offers to solve such a thing? Under a system of eminent domain, our government is the owner of the land, and the land can be sold off as the government sees fit. It will also act to formalize and protect the property rights of the new owner. How, in our libertarian world, is this empty land handled? First citizen who realizes slythe is dead gets to claim it as their own, with their contracted government acting to secure the property rights? What establishes the validity of a claim of ownership? What if a contractee moves in to claim the land and a non-contractee claims it as well? What about if a contractee dies without heirs? Without eminent domain, a libertarian government would have no authority to sell or give away the land, even if it were in the middle of an otherwise homogenous collective of contractees.

This world without eminent domain confuses me somewhat in that it, at first glance anyway, reminds me of the movie version of the old west land grabs. The land was yours only if you could get there, stay there, and handle a gun well enough to keep competitors away.

175

Wow, did you open up a can o’ worms. Let me see if I can stuff 'em back in…

What rights would homeless people have in Libertaria, where only property-owners would have rights? What treatment would the mentally ill homeless get in Libertaria? As much as they could afford, I guess. :rolleyes:

As for not allowing people to sleep in parks, some of the reasons I’ve heard (and have seen for myself) are:

  1. Safety. I’ve had to stay in a shelter or two and I have seen men check in after they’ve been robbed and had the crap beat out of them while they were asleep in a park or on the sidewalk. In one case, a guy was beat up by the owner of the store in whose doorway he’d been sleeping. But the homeless man had initiated force by sleeping on the store-owner’s property, so, did that make it all right? (I realize that Libertarian has said we have the right to use reasonable force to repel initiated force, but I bet that store-owner thought he was being reasonable.) A man can actually be safer in jail than on the streets. (It depends, of course, on who his cellmates are.)

  2. Sanitation. Many homeless frankly don’t give a damn about where they throw their litter and parks would look like dumps before long. (Never learning responsibility is one reason why some people are homeless in the first place. Also, as stated above, many homeless are mentally ill and simply don’t realize what it means to throw trash on the ground.) And what does a guy do when he needs to urinate or defecate and there are no public toilets available? Well, he finds a tree (usually in a public park) and…

  3. Punishment. Our country has the Puritan work ethic and many people believe homeless people are all lazy bums who don’t want to work. (Actually, many homeless have full-time jobs, but those jobs pay very little. I guess that in Libertaria, all jobs would pay wages sufficient for everyone to live in his own house with a yard and a white picket fence around it. This is not sarcasm, this is skepticism.)

176

Nice analogy, Ptahlis! :slight_smile:
And before any of you get any bright ideas, I’m leaving all of my property to Fidel Castro in event of an “accidental” death.

177

Now now now Slythe, you shouldn’t ascribe ideas to Libertarian that he hasn’t stated. :rolleyes: He has explicity stated that he is ok with others practicing sexual and racial discrimination, and that he fully supports the rights of companies to practice it. So of course it would exist in Libertaria, and of course he doesn’t have a problem with it. That is where most sane people claim they have a problem with his philosophy, and he claims that he will debate them when they prove their existence to him.

Also in response to
water2j’s comment

**

Ahhh seperate but equal and all that. One governemnt would set up white drinking fountains, and the other’s could set up Black one’s. Of course woe betide the minority government if they didn’t have enough money to set up drinking fountains for all the citizens. The supreme court already dealt with this one, it decided that seperate didn’t really mean equal. Again, you are justifying wide spread racial discrimination. I have a problem with any government that espouses that. And I have a problem allowing any government to exist that espouses that.

178

[hijack]

I only want to interpose here that libertarianism is composed of many different people with different ideas about how to “implement” it.

Lib, WJ2, I admire your efforts, but I worry that many people who would otherwise be interested in giving libertarianism a chance, might be alienated by your respective utopias.

To clarify, the parts about individual rights and freedom from force and fraud are basic notions in libertarianism. They serve as the axioms, if you will. How to best achieve these things are subjects of much debate, even among libertarians.

For anyone who’s interested, I believe that a strict reading of the U.S. Constitution would provide as much libertarian context as is practicable in today’s world.

To be honest, Lib’s and WJ2’s contracted governments give me a bit of a headache, too.

-VM
[/hijack]

179

Why thank you, Smartass. Hell, writing a libertarian government is proving to give me a headache as well. Especially since this evening is 100 days until commissioning (i.e. I will be an officer in the United States Navy) and tomorow is 100 days until graduation. I’m working on the contract, but it is taking a while. Hopefully the finished product will ease some concerns that have been voiced.

Daniel, in response to your last post, I suppose that I was being rather pessimistic. It would behoove each government to include a clause stating exactly which conditions would have to be met in order to extradite a person to another government.

Please voice your concerns as to what you would expect from a government now, so that I can address them as I write my sample contract. Also, do you (the people participating in this thread) think that my example libertarian government deserves its own thread, or should I post it here when I finish with it?

180

Taxes:from who & how much, how.
Elections/ govt: who gets to vote, etc
contract: can it be changed? Do you have to agree/sign again?
Laws: yes, 1 basic law but lots of “twists” on it- who decides those? Are these new contracts?
military
schools: how about those too poor or too oldfashioned to send their kids, would they have to anyway, and who pays.
dealings with other nations, treaties, tariffs,passports etc

Opting out: rights, lack of rights, interactions with contract/citizens

Will this do for a start?

And congrats on your commision- what Service/academy?