Ok, so why aren't you a libertarian?

[billydkid]

I honestly can't understand why anyone who doesn't have anything in particular to gain by adopting a leftist or rightest or statist agenda would not be a libertarian. Freedom is good, right? Freedom to succeed, freedom to fail? Freedom to conduct your life in the manner you think best so long as you are not interfering with another's ability to do the same? Freedom to accept ownership and responsibility for one's own life? Freedom to associate with whomever you choose and freedom to express one's opinions however unpopular they might be? Freedom from others who think they are better suited to make important choices about your life than you are? Freedom from social engineering by the goverment? All these things are good things aren't they? Well, I know some like and promote the idea of social engineering. I guess you have to hope that those doing the engineering continue to have the same vision as you do of a perfect society.

I know a fair number of you have contempt for the libertarians and that's fair enough, but I would ask those of you who have only heard about it and have based your opinions on what you have heard to check out the Libertarian Party website to find out what it is really all about. If you think it's crap then, fine. Just remember one thing - government is force. Obviously, by definition government compels behaviors and it compels those behaviors, ultimately, through the threat of force. Which may be fine for you if government agenda matches your own, but what are you going to do when it doesn't? This is precisely why the founders envisioned a strictly limited government. There, that's my little diatribe. I just hate it when folks who don't really grasp libertarianism feel free to dismiss it as whacko. Google Libertarian Party and take the little libertarian quiz and see if you're a libertarian and don't even know it. thanks, bdk

[Thanz]

I took the test on the website, and came out a left-liberal. This is what it has to say about left-liberals:

Left-Liberals prefer self-government in personal matters and central decision-making on economics. They want government to serve the disadvantaged in the name of fairness. Leftists tolerate social diversity, but work for economic equality.
That is a pretty fair summation of my beliefs. I pay more taxes than the average Joe, and I would be personally better off under a more right-wing or libertarian regime. But I care about the underprivileged, and think that society as a whole has a duty to try and care for those who need the help.

I find libertarians to be too individualistic, generally speaking.

[DanishDynamite]

I don't feel contempt for the libertarians. Hell, I agree with a lot of their viewpoints, in principle. The problem IMO is that they seem to be fanatics. There is no room for compromise, no problem in society (sorry, I know that's a taboo word) which won't be automatically solved by the holy Free Market. Even after several years of pounding by our esteemed Libertarian shanek, I just don't buy it.

[DavidJames]

"...dismiss it as whacko"

"government is force. Obviously, by definition government compels behaviors and it compels those behaviors, ultimately, through the threat of force."

For me, quote #2 explains quote #1.

"Which may be fine for you if government agenda matches your own, but what are you going to do when it doesn't?"

I vote and deal with it either internally or through the system if my opinion is different than that of the elected officials.

"the founders envisioned a strictly limited government"

The founders were very wise and setup a very nice system but I get very uneasy when people view them in biblical proportions and assume they were inerrant and that things won't need some changes in 200+ years. Then it takes on the tone of a relgion and it's associated dogma, no thanks.

[Silicon]

Maybe if I say "freedom" a bunch of times in a row, it'll start to sound really wierd. Freedom freedom freedom freedom freewwdoom froeoodomm frewweeddooommm fweellldooommmmmmmmmmm


What was I saying? It sounded wierd.


Oh anyway. You can't trick me by just saying freedom over and over again! I'm still not a libertarian. You haven't hypnotized me.


What don't I have to gain from government? Well, I've never been on welfare, I haven't ever been unemployed, I pay a good chunk of taxes, more than Arianna Huffington!

What do I have to gain from government?

How about the fact that concessions made to the working poor kept this country from going communist. The Ballot box, the jury box and the cartridge box, as Shanek I believe quotes.

When the poor are really really hungry and desperate, as they were about 100 years ago, scary things start to happen. And folks like Bill Gates are the first ones against the wall when the revolution comes.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
I don't feel contempt for the libertarians. Hell, I agree with a lot of their viewpoints, in principle. The problem IMO is that they seem to be fanatics. There is no room for compromise, no problem in society (sorry, I know that's a taboo word) which won't be automatically solved by the holy Free Market. Even after several years of pounding by our esteemed Libertarian shanek, I just don't buy it.

Well said DD!!!
:)

[jj]

I'm not a libertarian because libertarianism is an extreme position, just like communism and many other things, and extremes have been shown over and over again to be unfunctional.

Some examples of moves toward unbridled capitalism and libertarianism are the destruction of Bell Labs, the destruction of AT&T Research, the great blackout of last summer, the current utter chaos in cell phone function, long-distance billing/slamming/thievery/etc and the breakdown in load vs. supply in several key utilities.

Libertarianism, in short, can never even begin to address the tragedy of the commons, among other things.

Now, this does not assert that other extreme methods do any better, since I'm quite aware of some of the proponents here being willing to build straw men from one blade of grass.

[arcticpenguin]

I think the word some of you are looking for is ideologue. On some issues I will agree with the libertarian response, on some the conservative response, on some the liberal response. I will compromise where necessary. I think anyone who adheres to a particular ideology in all situations is going to be out of sync with reality much of the time.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Thanz
But I care about the underprivileged, and think that society as a whole has a duty to try and care for those who need the help.

Libertarians are like this, too. We just disagree on what's the best way to do this.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Silicon
What do I have to gain from government?

How about the fact that concessions made to the working poor kept this country from going communist. The Ballot box, the jury box and the cartridge box, as Shanek I believe quotes.

When the poor are really really hungry and desperate, as they were about 100 years ago, scary things start to happen.

Except that it is the free market, with its creaiton of wealth and technology that improves the quality of life for everyone, which is to thank for this and not government.

[shanek]

Guys, here's really the nutshell of it:

A Libertarian is someone who believes that the initiation of force or fraud is [i]never[i] justified. If you aren't a Libertarian, then you must mean that the initiation of force or fraud is, at least sometimes, justified in some way.

So, what are these ways? When is it all right to initiate force or fraud against someone else? And how do you set up a system where only those particular initiations are committed and none others are?

[Silicon]

Originally posted by shanek


Except that it is the free market, with its creaiton of wealth and technology that improves the quality of life for everyone, which is to thank for this and not government.


Tell that to Teddy Roosevelt.

[Evolver]

I agree with alot of the Libertarian ideals. I even vote for them when I can. But today when I was stuck in line behind a bunch of people who couldn't figure out how to use a self-checkout machine at a store, I severely doubt the ability of most people to govern themselves. It was damn scary to think of how many of these morons might own guns. (Don't start a gun rant, I don't think they should be banned. It was just a thought that came to mind at the moment.)

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek


Except that it is the free market, with its creaiton of wealth and technology that improves the quality of life for everyone, which is to thank for this and not government.

The government provides the social infrastructure of a civilised society that capitalism needs to thrive. Lets take an empirical point of view. How many libertarian nations are there in the world? How many democracies that have survived under big government.

BTW. Did you know that China is tipped to pass the US as the worlds largest economy in 20 years? This from a country that is anything but the libertarian dream.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/09/30/1064819929332.html

[Selvedge]

Originally posted by shanek
Guys, here's really the nutshell of it:

A Libertarian is someone who believes that the initiation of force or fraud is [i]never[i] justified. If you aren't a Libertarian, then you must mean that the initiation of force or fraud is, at least sometimes, justified in some way.

So, what are these ways? When is it all right to initiate force or fraud against someone else? And how do you set up a system where only those particular initiations are committed and none others are?

Here's what puzzles me about this. There's all this stuff in the world -- land, streams, rocks, clams, whatever. And there are people milling about using the land, drinking the water, eating the clams, etc. Somewhere along the line, the stuff becomes property. My land, your stream, her rocks, his clams, etc.

How do Libertarians see that happening, in a legitimate way without the use of force? How does it become my land, my stream, my rock, etc.? What if someone else wants to claim the same bit of stuff as their own, and how do we resolve that without force? Especially if the stuff had previously been used communally -- how does anyone claim it without the rest of the community experiencing it as deprivation and getting ticked off?

Also, wouldn't greed and destructiveness be concerns here? I dislike force as much as the next person, but I can see people resorting to it if one of their number wants to claim all the clams for themself, pee in the stream, etc.

Can you clarify a little? As I mentioned in a another thread, I find much of libertarianism counterintuitive, but since so many people find it so compelling, I'd like to understand it better. Is it possible for stuff to become property without force being involved?

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by shanek
If you aren't a Libertarian, then you must mean that the initiation of force or fraud is, at least sometimes, justified in some way.That's a false dichotomy. Some people might very well agree that initiation of force or fraud is unjustified, but
Can't see a diffferent way.
Have a different definition of force and fraud than you do. (For instance s/he sees socialized healthcare as a form of defensive force).
Recognize that since the initiators of force or fraud will always try to justify their actions as defensive force, the difference between initiation of force and defensive force is not always clearcut. And one should not try to pretend that it is.
When is it all right to initiate force or fraud against someone else?Most people will agree that initiation of force is not justifiable. But that does not mean they agree wit you everytime you say something is an initiation of force. Some will think that welfare is a defensive measure against poverty, socialized healthcare is a defensive measure against epidemics, or (in the Netherlands) taxes to maintain dykes is a defensive measure against the sea and rivers.

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
BTW. Did you know that China is tipped to pass the US as the worlds largest economy in 20 years? This from a country that is anything but the libertarian dream.

And how well off are their poor?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Selvedge
Here's what puzzles me about this. There's all this stuff in the world -- land, streams, rocks, clams, whatever. And there are people milling about using the land, drinking the water, eating the clams, etc. Somewhere along the line, the stuff becomes property. My land, your stream, her rocks, his clams, etc.

How do Libertarians see that happening, in a legitimate way without the use of force?

If I'm on my land, using it, and you come onto my land and try to stop me from using it, that's an initiation of force and I am personally justified in defending myself from it. To this end, "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed." So a government which recognizes and defends my property rights is a tool for the protection of those rights.

The strawman the anti-libertarians here and pretty much everywhere else like to spout out is that we're against government in any form. That just ain't true. We aren't anarchists (although some anarchists are Libertarians); we're for small government, not no government.

But, since government is force, its use should be confined to protecting its people against the initiation of force or fraud by others.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Earthborn
That's a false dichotomy.

No, it isn't. That's the very definition of Libertarian.

Some people might very well agree that initiation of force or fraud is unjustified, but
Can't see a diffferent way.

That's a justification.

Have a different definition of force and fraud than you do. (For instance s/he sees socialized healthcare as a form of defensive force).

Yes, people can twist logic; we know this.

Recognize that since the initiators of force or fraud will always try to justify their actions as defensive force, the difference between initiation of force and defensive force is not always clearcut. And one should not try to pretend that it is.


Agreed. That's why there is and should be a system in place to examine the evidence and resolve such disputes, and that someone should only be found guilty and punished if the evidence proves their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That concept is not opposed by Libertarians.

Some will think that welfare is a defensive measure against poverty,

But how is poverty a form of force? That's twisting logic again.

socialized healthcare is a defensive measure against epidemics,

The problem there (as with welfare, for that matter) is that the target of your force is not the initiator of said force. it's like saying, "Your brother stole from me so I'm going to steal from you." That's an initiation of force because the person you're using force against didn't use it against you.

or (in the Netherlands) taxes to maintain dykes is a defensive measure against the sea and rivers.

Again, it's not the seas and rivers who are forced to pay for it. Don't you think people living there would willingly get together and pay for it themselves? Why should others be forced to pay just because some people insist on living in a flood plain?

[Nasarius]

It's the insanity that kinda turns me off :D

I agree with the Libertarian positions on social issues, but economic...no. Sorry. I think the current system of regulated capitalism is more or less the way to go.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek


And how well off are their poor?

Sidestep noted. The country is getting richer, despite being anything but libertarian.

Also, I can't recall you ever being concerned for Americas' working poor. You have consistently attacked the minimum wage, for example.

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by shanek
No, it isn't. That's the very definition of Libertarian.'The false dichotomy lies in your statement that someone is either Libertarian or thinks initiation of force is justified.

If you say that thinking initiation of force is unjustified is all that is needed to be Libertarian, you include a whole lot of people who disagree with much of the Libertarian agenda.Yes, people can twist logic; we know this.Something is not automatically a twist of logic just because it is a different view than yours. The logic can be sound and selfconsistent, yet be a different way of looking at things.Agreed. That's why there is and should be a system in place to examine the evidence and resolve such disputes, and that someone should only be found guilty and punished if the evidence proves their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That concept is not opposed by Libertarians.Evidence can be presented to prove who did something, but how can courts determine what constitutes 'initiation of force' and what 'defensive force' ?But how is poverty a form of force?Poverty itself is not. But the taxes necessary for welfare (according to you) are.
The problem there (as with welfare, for that matter) is that the target of your force is not the initiator of said force. it's like saying, "Your brother stole from me so I'm going to steal from you." Of course you can't make epidemics pay for the expenses of epidemics. It will have to go from someone else.That's an initiation of force because the person you're using force against didn't use it against you.True, but they also get something in return: health. The benefit he receives from it outweighs the cost.

Without mandatory healthcare, there is an increased risk that poorer people don't insure themselves to save money and such an underclass becomes a breeding ground for epidemics. (Dang that sounds awfully incorrect. But factually it is true.)Again, it's not the seas and rivers who are forced to pay for it.Actually, in a way, they pay the highest price. Don't you think people living there would willingly get together and pay for it themselves?Apperently they have, and have decided that everyone who benefits from it has the oligation to help pay for it.Why should others be forced to pay just because some people insist on living in a flood plain? Some people? Half the country is below sea level! The most economically prosperous half even. And some parts of the country that are on higher grounds are likely to suffer from river floods. There isn't a single person who doesn't directly or indirectly benefit from the fact that the government ensures the continuing existence of the country. What possible justification could there be for not helping to pay for that? "Hey, it isn't my fault that everything I own is washed away when dykes aren't maintained. Why should I have to pay?"

[a_unique_person]

I would argue that the use of force is inevitable, anyway, so it should be regulated and controlled. Too much of libertarianism, to me, opens up people for economic exploitation. Eg, the people being paid peanuts to make track shoes that sell for hundreds of dollars.

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Sidestep noted.

It's not a sidestep. The benefits of a free market economy extend to everyone, including the poorest people.

Also, I can't recall you ever being concerned for Americas' working poor. You have consistently attacked the minimum wage, for example.

YOU ARE A FILTHY LIAR!!!! The Minimum Wage FORCES THE POOR INTO UNEMPLOYMENT!!! I proved that in a VERY lengthy thread!

You take the same dishonest tactic of all socialists: I show how your failed big government programs don't work, and your only response is how I hate the poor!

As you would well know if you were paying attention, I led a team this year at a local MS Walk that received the Top Average Donations award, and I'm leading a team in the CROP Walk later this month. BTW, this team is the Libertarian Party of Lincoln County, NC. For years, I have worked with food drives and other charitable work to help feed the hungry. I do this because it works a H*LL of a lot better than your wasteful, failed big government boondoggles!

You want to help the poor? How about making a donation? (http://www.kintera.org/faf/r.asp?t=4&i=31175&u=31175-10662617) Or does your generosity only extend to using other people's money?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek


You want to help the poor? How about making a donation? (http://www.kintera.org/faf/r.asp?t=4&i=31175&u=31175-10662617) Or does your generosity only extend to using other people's money?

I have already been giving money to charity for many years, not that it is any business of yours. I have also been paying taxes, which are used for various government programs, some of which I approve of, some I don't.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Earthborn
'The false dichotomy lies in your statement that someone is either Libertarian or thinks initiation of force is justified.

That's not a false dichotomy! It's the definition of Libertarian! If you believe that the initiation of force or fraud is never justified, you're a Libertarian!

If you say that thinking initiation of force is unjustified is all that is needed to be Libertarian, you include a whole lot of people who disagree with much of the Libertarian agenda.

So? Someone can still be a Libertarian and disagree with parts of the platform.

If you think the debates around here get heated, you should see the Libertarian lists!

Of course you can't make epidemics pay for the expenses of epidemics. It will have to go from someone else.

So you can: 1) charge the person benefitting directly from the medical care, 2) pay for it with voluntary donations, and/or 3) force others to pay for it whether they want to or not. 1 and 2 are not initiations of force; 3 is.

True, but they also get something in return: health. The benefit he receives from it outweighs the cost.

Don't look now, but you're justifying.

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I have already been giving money to charity for many years, not that it is any business of yours. I have also been paying taxes, which are used for various government programs, some of which I approve of, some I don't.

Does that mean you take back your accusation that I don't care about the poor?

[jj]

Originally posted by shanek


That's not a false dichotomy! It's the definition of Libertarian! If you believe that the initiation of force or fraud is never justified, you're a Libertarian!



Since (for example, this is not suggesting you'd do such a thing) I'd cheerfully use force to keep you from injuring me or taking my posessions for no reason at all, I guess I'll never be a libertarian.

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by shanek
The Minimum Wage FORCES THE POOR INTO UNEMPLOYMENT!!! I proved that in a VERY lengthy thread!That's not exactly how I remember that thread. The way I remember it is that many have critized what you consider to be proof, and you haven't answered that criticism to their satisfaction.

In fact the proof you offered at the beginning of that thread was either unavailable to most people, not available at all, or didn't even adress what you wanted to prove.

And you haven't even adressed the questions for quantifiable data I asked for in my last post.

And calling someone a 'filthy liar' is way over the top. Why should anyone continue to adress your arguments if you start verbal abuse like that?

[shanek]

Originally posted by jj
Since (for example, this is not suggesting you'd do such a thing) I'd cheerfully use force to keep you from injuring me or taking my posessions for no reason at all, I guess I'll never be a libertarian.

No, because that's not an INITIATION of force! You would be defending yourself against MY initiation of force!

Why don't you people read?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Earthborn
That's not exactly how I remember that thread. The way I remember it is that many have critized what you consider to be proof, and you haven't answered that criticism to their satisfaction.

I answered them all with rational, logical rebuttals. It's not my fault if they're not satisfied with that.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek


Does that mean you take back your accusation that I don't care about the poor?

It was just curious how, when I said that China was going to be more wealthy than the US, you questioned about whether or not the wealth was going to be fairly distributed. You may feel sorry for the poor, but you have never indicated that you think that wealth distribution is an issue.

[EvilYeti]

First, anyone interested in studying the myths of Libertarianism needs to read this site.

Critiques Of Libertarianism (http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html)

The crux of Libertarian mythology in my opinion is that individuals will respect the rights of others in the absence of enforcement of those rights. Some Libertarians will argue that they just want a "smaller" government, but their idea of smaller is something like less than 10% of the current government. Its that extremity is what bothers me.

Its particulary irritating as those of us that are involved in causes that intersect with Libertarian beliefs. For example, I am an anti-prohibitionist. I believe drugs should be de-criminilized and regulated. Unfortunately the LP says drugs should be decriminalized and deregulated. The prohibitionists point to THAT argument as what anti-prohibs want and we get tarred with the same brush. Its the LP that wants to sell crack in vending machines, not us.

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by shanek
If you think the debates around here get heated, you should see the Libertarian lists!So there are Libertarians who are in favour of universal healthcare (as long as it isn't mandatory like the WHO demands) and big government (as long as doesn't forcibly tax people) ? So you can: 1) charge the person benefitting directly from the medical care,But that may not be an option: the person maybe too poor, may have chosen not to get insurance to save some money hoping s/he wouldn't get anything serious... 2) pay for it with voluntary donations, Hoping enough is raised to cover it. If the fundraising happens before the outbreak people may not be likely to pay for a hypothetical threat. If the outbreak is already happening, you can only hope you raise enough and on time.and/or 3) force others to pay for it whether they want to or not.Yes, it makes sense. You make them pay so the lives of many of them can be saved when more difficult times arrive.

Even the prevention of epidemics can justify use of force (I'd call it defensive force): when someone in poor a neighbourhood suffers from tuberculosis, I want a nurse to come to him/her and make absolutely sure s/he takes the medication and I want that to continue until the cure is finished. And I also want someone to pay for it, and don't see why the poor person should be responsible for that.Don't look now, but you're justifying. Shocks! :)

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by shanek
I answered them all with rational, logical rebuttals.But not a whole lot of convincing evidence.It's not my fault...I imagine that's the way people greet eachother in Libertopia: "It's not my fault!", "It's not my responsibility!" :)

It may not be your fault but, please try to understand this, you are the one who can do something about it!


Just imagine what would have happened if some of the great scientists had the same mentality as you...



"We are not quite convinced yet, Albert."

"Oh, well, it is not my fault you don't understand Relativity."

[EvilYeti]

<BODY text=#000000 bgColor=#ffffff>
<H1 align=center>Libertarianism in One Lesson </H1>
<P align=center><A href="http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html">Part of the
"Critiques of Libertarianism" site.

http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html </A>
<P align=center>Last updated 01/04/03.


No, this isn't David Bergland's evangelistic text. This is an outsider's view
of the precepts of libertarianism. I hope you can laugh at how close this is to
real libertarianism!


Introduction


One of the most attractive features of libertarianism is that it is basically
a very simple ideology. Maybe even simpler than Marxism, since you don't have to
learn foreign words like "proletariat".


This brief outline will give you most of the tools you need to hit the ground
running as a freshly indoctrinated libertarian ideologue. Go forth and
proselytize!



<LI>Philosophy
<UL>
<LI>In the beginning, man dwelt in a state of Nature, until the serpent
Government tempted man into Initial Coercion.
<LI>Government is the Great Satan. All Evil comes from Government, and all
Good from the Market, according to the Ayatollah Rand.
<LI>We must worship the Horatio Alger fantasy that the meritorious few will
just happen to have the lucky breaks that make them rich. Libertarians happen
to be the meritorious few by ideological correctness. The rest can go hang.
<LI>Government cannot own things because only individuals can own things.
Except for corporations, partnerships, joint ownership, marriage, and anything
else we except but government.
<LI>Parrot these arguments, and you too will be a singular, creative,
reasoning individualist.
<LI>Parents cannot choose a government for their children any more than they
can choose language, residence, school, or religion.
<LI>Taxation is theft because we have a
right to squat in the US and benefit from defense, infrastructure, police,
courts, etc. without obligation. <!-- Taxation is theft! (Unless it is private: then it's called condo fees,
sharecropping, rent, etc.) -->
<LI>Magic incantations can overturn society and bring about libertopia.
Sovereign citizenry! The 16th Amendment is invalid! States rights!
<LI>Objectivist/Neo-Tech Advantage #69i : The true measure of fully integrated
honesty is whether the sucker has opened his wallet. Thus sayeth the Profit
Wallace. Zonpower Rules Nerdspace!
<LI>The great Zen riddle of libertarianism: minimal government is necessary
and unnecessary. The answer is only to be found by individuals. </LI>[/list]


</P>
<LI>Government
<UL>
<LI>Libertarians invented outrage over government waste, bureaucracy,
injustice, etc. Nobody else thinks they are bad, knows they exist, or works to
stop them.
<LI>Enlightenment comes only through repetition of the sacred mantra
"Government does not work" according to Guru Browne.
<LI>Only government is force, no matter how many Indians were killed by
settlers to acquire their property, no matter how many blacks were enslaved
and sold by private companies, no matter how many heads of union members are
broken by private police.
<LI>Money that government touches spontaneously combusts, destroying the
economy. Money retained by individuals grows the economy, even if literally
burnt.
<LI>Private education works, public education doesn't. The publicly educated
masses that have grown the modern economies of the past 150 years are an
illusion.
<LI>Market failures, trusts, and oligopolies are lies spread by the evil
economists serving the government as described in the "Protocols of the Elders
of Statism".
<LI>Central planning cannot work. Which is why all businesses internally are
run like little markets, with no centralized leadership.
<LI>Paternalism is the worst thing that can be inflicted upon people, as
everyone knows that fathers are the most hated and reviled figures in the
world.
<LI>Government is like fire, a dangerous servant and a fearsome master.
Therefore, we should avoid it entirely, as we do all forms of combustion.
</LI>[/list]


</P>
<LI>Regulation
<UL>
<LI>The FDA is solely responsible for any death or sickness where it might
have prevented treatment by the latest unproven fad.
<LI>Children, criminals, death cultists, and you all have the same inalienable
right to own any weaponry: conventional, chemical, biological, or nuclear.
<LI>All food, drugs, and medical treatments should be entirely unregulated:
every industry should be able to kill 300,000 per year in the US like the
tobacco industry.
<LI>If you don't have a gun, you are not a libertarian. If you do have a gun,
why don't you have even more powerful armament?
<LI>Better to abolish all regulations, consider everything as property, and
solve all controversy by civil lawsuit over damages. The US doesn't have
enough lawyers, and people who can't afford to invest many thousands of
dollars in lawsuits should shut up. </LI>[/list]


</P>
<LI>Libertarian Party
<UL>
<LI>The Libertarian Party is well on its way to dominating the political
landscape, judging from its power base of 100+ elected dogcatchers and other
important officials after 25 years of effort.
<LI>The "Party of Oxymoron": "Individualists unite!"
<LI>Flip answers are more powerful than the best reasoned arguments, which is
why so many libertarians are in important government positions.
<LI>It's time the new pro-freedom libertarian platform was implemented; child
labor, orphanages, sweatshops, poorhouses, company towns, monopolies, trusts,
cartels, blacklists, private goons, slumlords, etc.
<LI>Libertarianism "rules" Internet political debate the same way US Communism
"ruled" pamphleteering.
<LI>No compromise from the "Party of Principle". Justice, happiness, liberty,
guns, and other good stuff come only from rigidly adhering to inflexible
dogmas.
<LI>Minimal government is whatever we say it is, and we don't agree.
<LI>Government is "moving steadily in a libertarian direction" with every
change libertarians approve of; no matter if it takes one step forward and two
steps backwards.
<LI>Yes, the symbol of the Libertarian Party is a Big Government Statue. It's
not supposed to be funny or ironic! </LI>[/list]


</P>
<LI>Political Debate Strategy
<UL>
<LI>Count only the benefits of libertarianism, count only the costs of
government.
<LI>Five of a factoid beats a full argument.
<LI>All historical examples are tainted by statism, except when they favor
libertarian claims.
<LI>Spiritually baptize the deceased as libertarians because they cannot
protest the anachronism: Locke, Smith, Paine, Jefferson, Spooner, etc.
<LI>The most heavily armed libertarian has the biggest dick and thus the best
argument.
<LI>The best multi-party democratic republics should be equated to the worst
dictatorships for the purposes of denouncing statism. It's only a matter of
degree.
<LI>Inviolate private property is the only true measure of freedom. Those
without property have the freedom to try to acquire it. If they can't, let
them find somebody else's property to complain on.
<LI>Private ownership is the cure for all problems, despite the historical
record of privately owned states such as Nazi Germany, Czarist and Stalinist
Russia, and Maoist China.
<LI>Require perfection as the only applicable standard to judge government:
libertarianism, being imaginary, cannot be fairly judged to have flaws.
<LI>Only libertarian economists' Nobel Prizes count: the other economists and
Nobel Prize Committee are mistaken.
<LI>Any exceptional case of private production proves that government ought
not to be involved. </LI>[/list]



<P align=center>Copyright 2002 by Mike Huben</A>

This document may be freely distributed for non-commercial purposes if it is
reproduced in its textual entirety, with this notice intact.
</P></LI></BODY></HTML>

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by shanek
A Libertarian is someone who believes that the initiation of force or fraud is [i]never[i] justified. If you aren't a Libertarian, then you must mean that the initiation of force or fraud is, at least sometimes, justified in some way.

In 1720 the plague arrived in Marseilles (fittingly enouch because merchants circumvented the quarantine restrictions imposed by the government.) In two years 50 000 of Marseille's 90 000 population died. To contain the plague, the French government sealed off Marseilles - imposing the death penalty on any attempts to communicate between Marseilles and the rest of Provence.

(As it happens, this was not enough to prevent the plague from spreading beyond Marseilles - but there was no way of knowing that ahead of time.)

This is a pretty clear occasion when the government initiated the use of force, and I would personally claim that it was also clearly justifiable use of force. Do you disagree?

[Cain]

May I suggest anyone interested in Libertarianism reads Will Kymlicka's book _Contemporary Political Philosophy_, particularly chapter four. See also the British philosopher Jonathon Wolff's excellent examination of _A,S, and U_ called _Reading Nozick_.

First of all, Libertarians aren't really libertarians. They're fake libertarians. I've mentioned this before. Libertarianism has traditionally referred to left-anarchist movements, and still does today in europe. The term started taking on a new meaning after World War II before becoming completely co-opted in the 70s.

If I'm on my land, using it, and you come onto my land and try to stop me from using it, that's an initiation of force and I am personally justified in defending myself from it. To this end, "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed." So a government which recognizes and defends my property rights is a tool for the protection of those rights.

This is a point I'll harp until no end: what non-arbitrary moral justification do Libertarians have for seizing land? I've yet to see a convincing "natural right" argument (the best justification is that private property increases overall wealth, as Victor D, a liberal, argued in a previous thread. But that argument suggests it's okay to take property away from the ultra-rich if it increases overall happiness). There are further problems with the initiation of force in the form of negative externalities.

Other problems include the limited "Libertarian" understanding of freedom -- restricted to the absence of interference. Any serious understanding of liberty, I believe, incorporates positive freedom and ideals of self-mastery (and concomitant values of equality and self-management).

Following from the previous ideal of freedom is the notion that everyone's life ought to be determined by personal choices rather than uncontrollable circumstances. If a person is born into abject poverty, not provided with a decent education, then the system itself is fundamentally immoral. Similarly, a person lucky enough to be born as a heir to the Hilton hotel chain (say), has made no choices or personal sacrifices for her riches and leisurely lifestyle. This implies equality of opportunity (and liberal philosophers John Rawls and Ronald Dworkin do an admirable job of undermining the Libertarian arguments here. So much so that Robert Nozick, the most famous and brilliant libertarian, conceded important parst of _A,S, & U_ pertaining to estate taxes. (see also Chris Wilson's essay on critiques of Libertarianism website).


There are plenty other very good reasons for rejecting Libertarianism. As an ex-Libertarian, I should know.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Silicon;
How about the fact that concessions made to the working poor kept this country from going communist. The Ballot box, the jury box and the cartridge box, as Shanek I believe quotes.

No country on earth ever went communist by popular assent, rather the communists seized power by force.

When the poor are really really hungry and desperate, as they were about 100 years ago, scary things start to happen. And folks like Bill Gates are the first ones against the wall when the revolution comes.

Strange as it may seem I don't recall the hungry and desperate masses revolting against the ruling classes in Britain and the UK 100 years ago.

[Cain]

No country on earth ever went communist by popular assent, rather the communists seized power by force.

"I don't see why we have to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people." -- Henry Kissinger on Chile.

Don't worry, capitalism reasserted itself in a, um, popular uprising of the, uh, people. Yeah, the people, not some CIA supported military coup. It was the people. The people.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Cain:
Don't worry, capitalism came about by the, uh, popular consent of the people.

Your point being?

Originally posted by a_unique_person:
BTW. Did you know that China is tipped to pass the US as the worlds largest economy in 20 years? This from a country that is anything but the libertarian dream.

Will the average Chinese person enjoy the same or a greater standard of living than the average American in 20 years? And what about the government enforced one child policy, will that have any effect on future growth? What about India?

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Shane Costello


No country on earth ever went communist by popular assent, rather the communists seized power by force.
Italy.

Strange as it may seem I don't recall the hungry and desperate masses revolting against the ruling classes in Britain and the UK 100 years ago.
That's quite correct. it was about 70-80 years ago.
Edited to add
You might be interested in the motive behind gun regulation legislation introduced in the 1920s.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by BillyTK:
Italy.

Are you sure? IIRC no single Italian party ever gained an electoral majority, and until a few years ago the Christian Democrats formed part of every Italian administration since the war.

That's quite correct. it was about 70-80 years ago.

The General Strike was not a popular uprising against the ruling classes, as was witnessed in ireland at that time. The Jarrow amrchers didn't come south to behead the King. And the Tories remained in power for most of that time. Some uprising!

(Any link on the gun legislation BTW?)


Originally posted by Cain:
Don't worry, capitalism reasserted itself in a, um, popular uprising of the, uh, people. Yeah, the people, not some CIA supported military coup. It was the people. The people.

If the coup was supported by Exxon-Mobil rather than the CIA, you may have had a point.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by BillyTK

Italy.


That's quite correct. it was about 70-80 years ago.
Edited to add
You might be interested in the motive behind gun regulation legislation introduced in the 1920s.

Part of the reason communism was feared so much before nukes were around was because it had captured the imagination of many people. Australia nearly had a South American style coup during the depression, but the commander of the armed forces, (IIRC, he was Jewish), turned them down. It was *that* close. Militias had been training.

Due to this stroke of good fortune, Australia is still stable and wealthy and has missed out on a lot of the misfortune that still plagues South America.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Cain
First of all, Libertarians aren't really libertarians. They're fake libertarians. I've mentioned this before. Libertarianism has traditionally referred to left-anarchist movements, and still does today in europe. The term started taking on a new meaning after World War II before becoming completely co-opted in the 70s.
Thank you, thank you for making this point!

This is a point I'll harp until no end: what non-arbitrary moral justification do Libertarians have for seizing land?[...]

Uh, cuz John Locke sed so, and Adam Smith sed so too? ;) I do remember reading something by Smith to the effect of a piece of owned land left neglected whilst people lived in poverty was a crime, but there you go...

[Cain]

Shane, before commenting further I want to know if your retract your previous statement about a country never willingly going communist.


If the coup was supported by Exxon-Mobil rather than the CIA, you may have had a point.

If you're talking specifically about oil companies then look at almost any African country (Shell and Chevron in particular) or Bahrain (Unocal) and there are many other examples. The problem is that the United States acts on behalf of corporations. One of the more explicit examples is the United Fruit Company (renamed Chiquita) in Guatemala. Where do you think the term "banana republic" comes from? Oh, but that's not capitalism, right? It's, um, government intervention. Libertarians must now feign moral outrage: "THAT'S THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT CAPITALISM STANDS FOR!"

I'd be more willing to accept these terms if fake libertarians consistently applied the same standards to Russian "communism." In fact, I'd rather avoid these grossly perverted terms altogether.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Shane Costello


Are you sure? IIRC no single Italian party ever gained an electoral majority, and until a few years ago the Christian Democrats formed part of every Italian administration since the war.
Yes. Your observation was that, "No country on earth ever went communist by popular assent, rather the communists seized power by force." Regardless of the complexity of Italy's democratic system, the success of the Communist party implies some degree of... popularity.

The General Strike was not a popular uprising against the ruling classes, as was witnessed in ireland at that time. The Jarrow amrchers didn't come south to behead the King. And the Tories remained in power for most of that time. Some uprising!
The General Strike was a popular uprising against the ruling classes, by definition. Particularly of interest is the miners' strike, and why they suddenly capitulated when they appeared to have such a strong position.

(Any link on the gun legislation BTW?)
Here (http://www.claytoncramer.com/firear~1.htm). The guy who wrote it is of a libertarian bent, irony of ironies!

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by BillyTK:
Yes. Your observation was that, "No country on earth ever went communist by popular assent, rather the communists seized power by force." Regardless of the complexity of Italy's democratic system, the success of the Communist party implies some degree of... popularity.

The communists enjoyed some degree of popularity in Russia in 1917. But "some degree" wasn't enough to transform Russia into a Communist state, it took an armed uprising against the provisional government to achieve that. The leap of logic that concdudes that Italy was a communist state because the communists enjpyed some degree of popular support is amazing.

The General Strike was a popular uprising against the ruling classes, by definition. Particularly of interest is the miners' strike, and why they suddenly capitulated when they appeared to have such a strong position.

So how come this "popular uprising" failed to translate into a Labour majority in parliament?

Here. The guy who wrote it is of a libertarian bent, irony of ironies!

Thanks. I'll read it later.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Shane Costello


The communists enjoyed some degree of popularity in Russia in 1917. But "some degree" wasn't enough to transform Russia into a Communist state, it took an armed uprising against the provisional government to achieve that.
My knowledge of this period is turning out to be a little rusty--provisional government? Whose provisional government exactly?
The leap of logic that concdudes that Italy was a communist state because the communists enjpyed some degree of popular support is amazing.
Agreed. Though I've seen such leaps of logic on this forum a number of terms, it's not a mistake I would make.

So how come this "popular uprising" failed to translate into a Labour majority in parliament?
I've no idea, or even why it should. This is relevant to what exactly?

Thanks. I'll read it later.
Yr welcome.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by BillyTK:
My knowledge of this period is turning out to be a little rusty--provisional government? Whose provisional government exactly?

The one that came to power following the February revolution (as opposed to the one in October) uunder Alexander Keretsky. IIRC Lenin called elections after the Bolsheviks seized power, but abandoned any notions of democratic rule when the Bolsheviks only gained a quarter of the popular vote.

I've no idea, or even why it should. This is relevant to what exactly?

Well, if the mood of the times was for revolutionary change of the status quo, surely the Labour party would have been swept to power?

Originally posted by Cain:
Shane, before commenting further I want to know if your retract your previous statement about a country never willingly going communist.

No.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Shane Costello


The one that came to power following the February revolution (as opposed to the one in October) uunder Alexander Keretsky. IIRC Lenin called elections after the Bolsheviks seized power, but abandoned any notions of democratic rule when the Bolsheviks only gained a quarter of the popular vote.
Do you mean Alexander Kerensky? The guy who came to leadership in July 1917 replacing Prince George Lvov? The guy who peed everyone off for his continuing support for Russia's involvement in WWI, which was influential in the Bolsheviks's decision to overthrow him?

Well, if the mood of the times was for revolutionary change of the status quo, surely the Labour party would have been swept to power?
:confused: Why? Do the Labour Party advocate revolutionary change of the status quo?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cain
May I suggest anyone interested in Libertarianism reads Will Kymlicka's book _Contemporary Political Philosophy_, particularly chapter four. See also the British philosopher Jonathon Wolff's excellent examination of _A,S, and U_ called _Reading Nozick_.

First of all, Libertarians aren't really libertarians. They're fake libertarians. I've mentioned this before. Libertarianism has traditionally referred to left-anarchist movements, and still does today in europe. The term started taking on a new meaning after World War II before becoming completely co-opted in the 70s.



What it means now is "Don't touch my money".

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek


If I'm on my land, using it, and you come onto my land and try to stop me from using it, that's an initiation of force and I am personally justified in defending myself from it.

How did that become "your" land absent some initiation of force? Ownership of land is claiming right of use exclusive and hostile to the claims of use of another. How is making "land" into "your land" not force?

To simplify, if you and I somehow wind up on a desert island, and I regain conciousness before you do from the ordeal that put us there, and I start to "use" all the land on the island for legitimate survival purposes, do you have a moral duty to go for a rather long swim? I guess you were using the very small part of land on which you lay unconcious, and have a right to that litle piece of land. Otherwise, you are on "my" land, and I don't want to share with you because when you disagree with people you call them "Filthy Liars." Plus, while the land could possibly support us both the standard of living for me would be lower, and since it is "my" land I can do what I want.

What then? I used no force in making that land "mine" according to you did I?

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Earthborn
I imagine that's the way people greet eachother in Libertopia: "It's not my fault!", "It's not my responsibility!" :)

Huh. I thought that in Libertopia, all that the people could say is "mine". Isn't that why shanek changed his avatar? To show the clearest example of the libertarian ideal ever portrayed on film?

[Occasional Chemist]

Originally posted by Thanz

Huh. I thought that in Libertopia, all that the people could say is "mine".

Or, more formally, "Get off my property!"

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
It was just curious how, when I said that China was going to be more wealthy than the US, you questioned about whether or not the wealth was going to be fairly distributed.

That wasn't what I asked. I asked whether or not the poor are improving as well, which as I have shown is the case in a free market even with this increasing "unfairness" in wealth distribution.

[shanek]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
First, anyone interested in studying the myths of Libertarianism needs to read this site.

Huben's long-refuted nonsense again...

The crux of Libertarian mythology in my opinion is that individuals will respect the rights of others in the absence of enforcement of those rights.

Libertarianism doesn't claim that. In fact, Libertarianism claims that the only legitimate function of government is the enforcement and preservation of those rights!

Some Libertarians will argue that they just want a "smaller" government, but their idea of smaller is something like less than 10% of the current government. Its that extremity is what bothers me.

That's the kind of government our Constitution says we should have. Why is that an extremity?

Its the LP that wants to sell crack in vending machines

Another bald-faced lie. Do you actually KNOW anything about Libertarianism, or do you just love belittling others without cause?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Earthborn
So there are Libertarians who are in favour of universal healthcare (as long as it isn't mandatory like the WHO demands) and big government (as long as doesn't forcibly tax people)?

I don't know of any. And no one seems to know of any way to make healthcare universal without force except for the free market solution. Likewise, no one seems to know how you can have a big government without forced taxation.

If anyone has any ideas on those regards, I'd be more than happy to listen.

Yes, it makes sense. You make them pay so the lives of many of them can be saved when more difficult times arrive.

Even the prevention of epidemics can justify use of force (I'd call it defensive force): when someone in poor a neighbourhood suffers from tuberculosis, I want a nurse to come to him/her and make absolutely sure s/he takes the medication and I want that to continue until the cure is finished. And I also want someone to pay for it, and don't see why the poor person should be responsible for that.Shocks! :)

Then you're justifying the initiation of force, just like I said!

So, we're back to: If you aren't a libertarian, then that means you believe the initiation of force or fraud is, at least in some cases, justified.

Do you still have a problem with that conclusion?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Earthborn
But not a whole lot of convincing evidence.

You refused to state precisely what you would find convincing and stick to it. Whenever I did to the research to show an effect, you waffled on it. I told you then I wasn't willing to do it again unless you were willing to state definitively and without the ability to back out of it exactly what sort of evidence you would require.

"We are not quite convinced yet, Albert."

"Oh, well, it is not my fault you don't understand Relativity."

Many people today don't understand Relativity. Is that his fault?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
This is a pretty clear occasion when the government initiated the use of force, and I would personally claim that it was also clearly justifiable use of force. Do you disagree?

I do not disagree that it was justified. I disagree that it was initiated. These people were a danger to others. Just like stopping someone from driving drunk is not an initiation of force.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
To simplify, if you and I somehow wind up on a desert island, and I regain conciousness before you do from the ordeal that put us there, and I start to "use" all the land on the island for legitimate survival purposes,

You'd be pretty stupid if you didn't realize that I couldn't make a contribution to the survival of us both and offer me concessions in exchange for my help. And if I end up being able to manage things better than you, those concessions would would increase and increase until I was more powerful than you.

Plus, while the land could possibly support us both the standard of living for me would be lower,

No, it wouldn't. For both of us working together, our individual standard of living would increase. In fact, I used this exact example in another thread to illustrate why!

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek


You'd be pretty stupid if you didn't realize that I couldn't make a contribution to the survival of us both and offer me concessions in exchange for my help. And if I end up being able to manage things better than you, those concessions would would increase and increase until I was more powerful than you.



No, it wouldn't. For both of us working together, our individual standard of living would increase. In fact, I used this exact example in another thread to illustrate why!

No, I own the land. You must bargain from an inferior postion now.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by shanek


I do not disagree that it was justified. I disagree that it was initiated. These people were a danger to others. Just like stopping someone from driving drunk is not an initiation of force.
Being sick is an initiation of force? Really?

The problem I have with your philosophy is that it seems that "inititation of force" is a highly variable concept. I prefer to think that the government may use force when justified, and of course wee can debate when that use is justified. But I don't think that simply looking at who initiated force is adequate.

When you see kids squabbling, the excuse that "he started it" is rarely accepted as an excuse. It is the same thing here.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


No, I own the land. You must bargain from an inferior postion now.

Damn, you beat me to it. Cool avatar, by the way.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Thanz


I prefer to think that the government may use force when justified, and of course wee can debate when that use is justified.


Do you think individuals can use force when justified?

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek


You'd be pretty stupid if you didn't realize that I couldn't make a contribution to the survival of us both and offer me concessions in exchange for my help. And if I end up being able to manage things better than you, those concessions would would increase and increase until I was more powerful than you.



No, it wouldn't. For both of us working together, our individual standard of living would increase. In fact, I used this exact example in another thread to illustrate why!

You are changing the facts and avoiding the question. The fact is for purposes of the hypothetical situation is that I don't like you and do not want you on "my" property. Stupid or not, there are no concessions. I am fully resolute in my defense of my property.

So, do you swim or not? Compromise is not an option. Do you think you have some moral right to share the land, and if so how can you justify that without use of force, considering I made productive use of the land peacefully and before you did?

[Peach Jr.]

I took the World's Smallest quiz a while back. It pegged me as a "left-leaning Libertarian". Which made me think.

Frankly, the one issue I have that has never been satisfactorily explained to me is doing away with government-sponsored schooling. I grew up in a poor urban area. While we weren't so bad off, there were a vast majority of my classmates who were. How would they be able to educate themselves to leave that "cycle of poverty" without the assistance of state governments? (Contrary to popular opinion, the federal gov't has very little to do with education)

[thaiboxerken]

How would they be able to educate themselves to leave that "cycle of poverty" without the assistance of state governments?

Education should be publicly funded and it is. For some reason, people still remain in that cycle of poverty. You can lead a horse to water....

When you see kids squabbling, the excuse that "he started it" is rarely accepted as an excuse.

When you see adults fighting, who started it is important to figure out if someone was merely defending himself. Strange how that works.

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by shanek
I do not disagree that it was justified. I disagree that it was initiated. These people were a danger to others. Just like stopping someone from driving drunk is not an initiation of force. So this is defensive force, while my tuberculosis example isn't? What's the difference?

In fact the Marseilles example is worse: by closing an entire city, the government forced people to stay in who weren't even infected. They weren't a danger to others, but the measure was still forced on them. To them, it is an 'initiation of force'.

[Cain]

Originally posted by shanek
You'd be pretty stupid if you didn't realize that I couldn't make a contribution to the survival of us both and offer me concessions in exchange for my help. And if I end up being able to manage things better than you, those concessions would would increase and increase until I was more powerful than you.

Suddenly, he's right. You're missing an important point. Assume you seize the entire island and claim it as your property before he regains consciousness. Sure, you could sentence Shanek to a suicidal swim. The island is, after all, your property, and you can even resort to lethal ("retalitory") force to expel him from impinging on this natural right. I assure you, however, that working that entire land all by yourself will be extremely difficult. Extremely difficult. Instead you should create a labor market where Shanek is allowed to live on the condition that he becomes your slave. Everybody wins! He doesn't have to go for a swim, and you don't have to work! A free contract in a free market free from government intervention dramatically improves both of your positions!

And there are built-in free-market mechanisms preventing you from abusing Shanek, as well (F*ck off OSHA). If you beat him too harshly, then he may grow resentful and leave (note: he can't attack you back because that's an initiation of force). All types of economic incentives compel you to assure he's eating a well-balanced diet and getting plenty of sleep. Jesus, overseeing him sounds burdensome. With any luck someone else will wash upon your island. You can enter a voluntary agreement with that person to supervise and manage.

Granted, Shanek may complain about the hardships of bondage (statist!) -- but it's a helluva lot better than drowning out at sea! And besides, he's making the choice to work for you. If he doesn't like it then he's always FREE to wash ashore another island and become someone else's willing slave. Heh, don't worry though. In all likelihood those other islands will be inhabitated by collectivist tribes. He'll soon regret fleeing your capitalist paradise for a life characterized by egalitarianism and cooperation. He's an individualist -- just like you! If that means doing all the work alone, so be it.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by shanek


I do not disagree that it was justified. I disagree that it was initiated. These people were a danger to others. Just like stopping someone from driving drunk is not an initiation of force.

The citizens of Marseilles did not use force, so they couldn't have initiated the use of force. That leaves the government as the sole party who could have.

Yes, they were a danger to others. In which way does that mysteriously prevent the government shooting anybody who tried to escape from Marseilles an initiation of force?

Would it be acceptable of the government to use force to ensure children got vaccinated against diseases? Would it be acceptable of the government to use force to set fire to your house if it was a danger to other people? Would it be acceptable of the government to use force to get hold of your property to avert a danger to other people?

Furthermore, who decides what's an acceptable danger to other people which does not entail the goverment to use force and what's inacceptable danger which the government is entitled to use force to prevent? What amount of danger should entail what amount of force and why? Where do you draw the line and why just there?

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by shanek
You refused to state precisely what you would find convincing and stick to it.Yes, and I explained why. But when you finally got me to state some quantifiable figures I'd like to see, you never posted again.Whenever I did to the research to show an effect, you waffled on it.If by waffling you mean: showing that the articles you cited don't agree with what you are trying to prove, or are too limited in their scope to prove it, then yes: I waffled on it.I told you then I wasn't willing to do it again unless you were willing to state definitively and without the ability to back out of it exactly what sort of evidence you would require.Well, my last post is still there. No, I can't say beforehand that the figures I asked for will completely convince me, but it would be a nice start.Many people today don't understand Relativity. Is that his fault? No, which is exactly the point. It isn't his fault that people don't understand it. But he did do everything he could to convince others, even those who were skeptical of it at first.

By citing articles that argue for state regulation of minimum wage you are not doing your best to convince others that minimum wage is a bad idea. And arguing that welfare is bad by citing an highly opinionated column by someone who argues that welfare recipients should made to apply for jobs, isn't doing much to convince any of us either.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Tony

Do you think individuals can use force when justified?
Yes. Of course, debate will rage over what constitutes "justification" and whether the degree of force was necessary or justified as well.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Cain


Suddenly, he's right. You're missing an important point. Assume you seize the entire island and claim it as your property before he regains consciousness. Sure, you could sentence Shanek to a suicidal swim. The island is, after all, your property, and you can even resort to lethal ("retalitory") force to expel him from impinging on this natural right. I assure you, however, that working that entire land all by yourself will be extremely difficult. Extremely difficult. Instead you should create a labor market where Shanek is allowed to live on the condition that he becomes your slave. Everybody wins! He doesn't have to go for a swim, and you don't have to work! A free contract in a free market free from government intervention dramatically improves both of your positions!

And there are built-in free-market mechanisms preventing you from abusing Shanek, as well (F*ck off OSHA). If you beat him too harshly, then he may grow resentful and leave (note: he can't attack you back because that's an initiation of force). All types of economic incentives compel you to assure he's eating a well-balanced diet and getting plenty of sleep. Jesus, overseeing him sounds burdensome. With any luck someone else will wash upon your island. You can enter a voluntary agreement with that person to supervise and manage.

Granted, Shanek may complain about the hardships of bondage (statist!) -- but it's a helluva lot better than drowning out at sea! And besides, he's making the choice to work for you. If he doesn't like it then he's always FREE to wash ashore another island and become someone else's willing slave. Heh, don't worry though. In all likelihood those other islands will be inhabitated by collectivist tribes. He'll soon regret fleeing your capitalist paradise for a life characterized by egalitarianism and cooperation. He's an individualist -- just like you! If that means doing all the work alone, so be it.

:D

Maybe I should throw into the agreement letting him stay that part of the consideration is that even if he is rescued I am entitled to 50% of his pre-tax income for the rest of his life. Plus any assets he owns at the time of agreement.

I can think of lots of weird things I could require of him, and if he agrees not intending to perform his end, that would be fraud, no?

Nah. He swims.

[bignickel]

I want to hear more about the adventures on Suddenly Island.

Now sit right back and hear a tale
a tale of a fateful trip
that started on this tropic shore
aboard this tiny ship....

Who gets the top bunk? Skipper or Gilligan... I mean Suddenly or Shanek?

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by bignickel
I want to hear more about the adventures on Suddenly Island.

Now sit right back and hear a tale
a tale of a fateful trip
that started on this tropic shore
aboard this tiny ship....

Who gets the top bunk? Skipper or Gilligan... I mean Suddenly or Shanek?

We can make a movie.

We may need Mark Spitz to play shanek though. Ice Cube could play me.

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
No, I own the land. You must bargain from an inferior postion now.

No, you don't! This is what you refuse to understand. I have skills you can use. I can make your life easier. You don't have to get all of your own food, build all of your own shelter...I've detailed this exact scenario for you before.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Thanz
Being sick is an initiation of force?

Now you're moving the goalposts.

Being sick is not an initiation of force. Being contagious and running the risk of infecting others is.

Just like being drunk is not an initiation of force, but being drunk behind the wheel of a car is.

When you see kids squabbling, the excuse that "he started it" is rarely accepted as an excuse.

Really? That is exactly the criteria used in the courts.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by shanek


No, you don't! This is what you refuse to understand. I have skills you can use. I can make your life easier. You don't have to get all of your own food, build all of your own shelter...I've detailed this exact scenario for you before.

The point is that he has something you need. You have something he could benefit from, but nothing he truly needs. So, yes, you have to bargain from an inferior position.

Anyway, he's under no obligation to behave rationally or reasonably - so if he simply dislikes you enough to not want to have you around, despite the work you could do for him, what are you then going to do?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
You are changing the facts and avoiding the question.

No, I'm not. I'm addressing aspects of your hypothetical you seem to want to avoid.

Compromise is not an option.

Compromise is always an option.

[Cain]

Maybe I should throw into the agreement letting him stay that part of the consideration is that even if he is rescued I am entitled to 50% of his pre-tax income for the rest of his life. Plus any assets he owns at the time of agreement.

I can think of lots of weird things I could require of him, and if he agrees not intending to perform his end, that would be fraud, no?

Nah. He swims.

Hehe :)

Originally posted by Tony



Do you think individuals can use force when justified?

This is a truism. Just as individuals can use force when it's "necessary." The non-initiation of force principle (really a non-consent principle) makes sense, but only in a more systematic framework. Shanek's offerings here leave much to be desired.

A similiar idea is the notion that people ought to be allowed to influence institutions and behavior in proportion to their effect on you. For instance, the color socks people wear do not really affect others in a negative way (unless they're the hideous kind popular in the mid-70s). The automobiles people drive does affect others in terms of pollution, global warming etc, so proportional interferences are warranted in the form of emissions requirements etc (democratic societies can weigh and debate the costs and benefits -- but the idea that ANY type of regulation is immoral is absurd). A person with a deadly contagious disease could exert a catastrophic influence on a citizenery, so preventing entry of the infected individual is warranted (and maybe even killing her). The last case exposes the counter-intuitive conclusions offered by a strict natural rights view.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by shanek

Compromise is always an option.

Not when one of the parties refuses to compromise.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Peach Jr.
Frankly, the one issue I have that has never been satisfactorily explained to me is doing away with government-sponsored schooling. I grew up in a poor urban area. While we weren't so bad off, there were a vast majority of my classmates who were. How would they be able to educate themselves to leave that "cycle of poverty" without the assistance of state governments?

Were it not for the government taking 50% of the National Income in taxes, families could afford to have one parent stay at home full time. That would increase the option of homeschooling. Parents could get together and, under the same aegis as the homeschoolers, form a community school. This actually happens all the time. Individuals and businesses could fund the tuition of low income children in much the same way scholarship programs now work. On and on and on. There are a LOT of alternatives.

What you have to realize is that the government does not make any money. All they can do is move it around, losing at the very least 20% of it in the process. The money would still be there without the government.

(Contrary to popular opinion, the federal gov't has very little to do with education)

Federal regulations comprise about 50% of the bureaucracy of the government schools, even though they only provide about 5-7% of the funding. You and I might reasonable disagree on the removal of state governments from the schools, but I don't see any benefit the Federal government is giving them at all. They're just making it more expensive. Government schools now cost more per child than many private schools.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Earthborn
So this is defensive force, while my tuberculosis example isn't? What's the difference?

Looking back on that post, I think I must have misread it. If I'm understanding it correctly now, then no, it is not an initiation of force so long as the person is in a position to infect others.

In fact the Marseilles example is worse: by closing an entire city, the government forced people to stay in who weren't even infected. They weren't a danger to others,

I'm asking because I don't know too much about this example, but couldn't the others have been carriers even if they weren't infected?

[shanek]

Why do some people stubbornly refuse to understand the most simple of points?

Originally posted by Cain
Instead you should create a labor market where Shanek is allowed to live on the condition that he becomes your slave.

No, I wouldn't be a slave. As I showed, I would be compensated for my work. If I didn't think it was fair, I would simply refuse to do the work and Suddenly would be put back in a pickle. It's in Suddenly's best interests to work with me.

If you beat him too harshly, then he may grow resentful and leave (note: he can't attack you back because that's an initiation of force).

Do you even THINK about what you write? Attacking back when being beaten is DEFENSE! It's NOT an initiation of force!

I don't think you even WANT to understand what I'm saying.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
The citizens of Marseilles did not use force, so they couldn't have initiated the use of force.

Infecting someone with a disease isn't force?

Yes, they were a danger to others.

In which case, that constitutes force; just like drunk driving.

As for the rest of your post, there are acceptable levels of defense and retaliation as well as unacceptable ones. Taking someone's wallet is an initiation of force, but torturing them to death for it is not an appropriate response.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Yes, and I explained why. But when you finally got me to state some quantifiable figures I'd like to see, you never posted again.

That's just not true.

Well, my last post is still there.

And didn't say anything you hadn't already said before.

No, I can't say beforehand that the figures I asked for will completely convince me,

Then why should I waste my time trying?

No, which is exactly the point. It isn't his fault that people don't understand it. But he did do everything he could to convince others, even those who were skeptical of it at first.

And I did convince a lot of people with the minimum wage thread. The ones who were left were the ones like you who had a bias against it.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
The point is that he has something you need.

And I have something he needs.

You have something he could benefit from, but nothing he truly needs.

Not true. He may have the land, but that's no good at all without the labor to make use of it. Just surviving would be a 24-hour-a-day job. With my help, we could cut that in half.

[Occasional Chemist]

Originally posted by shanek
No, I wouldn't be a slave. As I showed, I would be compensated for my work. If I didn't think it was fair, I would simply refuse to do the work and Suddenly would be put back in a pickle. It's in Suddenly's best interests to work with me.

Why? He can just kill you (with a nice big log, or by putting you out to sea to die if necessary). After all, you're trespassing on his property, and you taking some for yourself is an initation of force.

We know what you're trying to say, by the way. RATIONALLY, it's in Suddenly's best interests to keep you alive enough to gather his food for him. But is Suddenly obligated to behave rationally?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
Not when one of the parties refuses to compromise.

In this case, they do so to their own detriment. We sink or swim together.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Occasional Chemist
Why? He can just kill you

In which case, he loses valuable labor and his chances for survival plummet.

[Occasional Chemist]

Originally posted by shanek
Government schools now cost more per child than many private schools.

No sh*t, sherlock. They educate different kinds of people. Costs per pupil go up when you have to take just ANYONE. Some people require more resources to train than others do.

Have you ever worked in the education business, by the way?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Occasional Chemist
Have you ever worked in the education business, by the way?

Yes. And there are many private schools that help special needs children. They are able to do so better and more cheaply than the government schools.

[Jude]

They're just making it more expensive. Government schools now cost more per child than many private schools.
I attended Jesuit High School in Oregon for two years and tuition was around $6500. I'm not sure exactly how much Oregon spent per student for state schools, but it was $7000+. We had art programs, music programs and extracurriculars up the wazoo; and championship sports and academic teams to boot. Meanwhile, parents of public school kids were in an uproar over music program slashing and more off days to cut costs.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek


No, I'm not. I'm addressing aspects of your hypothetical you seem to want to avoid.

Because they aren't in play. You are making assumptions about how my motivations. In my hypothetical it is I who own the land. You are saying I will bargain in my best interests. Fact is you have no way of saying what my best interests are. We can even assume you are some sort of nature expert and you can turn the island into paradise. Makes no difference. I want no part of your help. It could be that I'm a loner and hate people, whatever. I just don't want your help. Period. It is not really a novel occurence where one sacrifices weath for bigoted ideals.

It is not unusual to reject help for silly personal bigoted reasons. My character in the hypo does likewise.



Compromise is always an option.

Real simple. I own land. I tell you to go. The only compromise is that I'll allow free passage to the water. That is if you leave now. If you keep arguing I'm going to drive you off with my coconut cannon. Sample exchange:

You: "I could make life better-

Me: "Swim"

You: I have skills-

Me: "No. Leave. Your continued presence here is unwanted. Go back to your spot or hit the water."

You: "But your best inter-"

Me: "Are you deaf?" (goes for the cannon)

You: "I'll do anything. Just let me stay. Please?"

Me: (aims cannon)

You: (Splash)


You can swim or you can claim and enforce some right to stay. If you respect my ownership, you swim (or I guess go back to the speck of land you were "using" and starve).

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek


In which case, he loses valuable labor and his chances for survival plummet.

So? Maybe to me being rid of your presence is worth it?

[Jude]

Originally posted by Suddenly


So? Maybe to me being rid of your presence is worth it?

I think the argument would be that, in general, most people act in their bests interests; and in general, that would be cooperating.

[Occasional Chemist]

Originally posted by shanek
In which case, he loses valuable labor and his chances for survival plummet.

Do I take this as you admitting that you ARE bargaining from an inferior position when he's the "owner" and you aren't?

"Him losing valuable labor" is not equivalent to "you dying of thirst at sea".

Besides, if Suddenly's had any sort of survival training (or been in scouts), he might not be so bad off. You, on the other hand, cannot use any of the resources on Suddenly's property. :)

[roger]

Originally posted by Jude

I attended Jesuit High School in Oregon for two years and tuition was around $6500. I'm not sure exactly how much Oregon spent per student for state schools, but it was $7000+.

Be careful not to confuse tuition with what is spent per student. Did the school have any other sources of income besides tuition (money from the church, grants, land/building owned by the church, etc)? Were labor costs, etc, comparable?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
It is not unusual to reject help for silly personal bigoted reasons.

But it's not the usual behavior of people. So you've just made your entire hypothetical completely invalid and revealed it for the bigoted rant you apparently intended it to be all along, instead of a simlified, realistic examination of how property values are used in society. You just made your hypothetical completely, 100% invalid.

[Jude]

Originally posted by roger


Be careful not to confuse tuition with what is spent per student. Did the school have any other sources of income besides tuition (money from the church, grants, land/building owned by the church, etc)? Were labor costs, etc, comparable?

I'm really not sure. It'd be interesting to find out, though. I know there were religious donations.

[roger]

Suddenly, I think you are forgetting an important part of US history that proves your scenerio is wrong. As we all know, the slaves had a commodity (skilled & unskilled labor) that benefitted the plantation owners. Thus, they refused to be slaves, and the owners had no choice but to comply. In a few short months, the slaves had all the power.

Um, it's been awhile since I took American history, but I'm pretty sure that's how it happened.....

[shanek]

Originally posted by Jude
I think the argument would be that, in general, most people act in their bests interests; and in general, that would be cooperating.

And that is the only reasonable way to look at the hypothetical. Otherwise, you've set up a system that doesn't work the same way it does in the real world.

[Thanz]

Let's use a different example.

Adam owns a mushroom farm, and it is completely contained on his own property. The property around the farm is vacant, and owned by other people.

Bob buys the piece of land next door and builds his dream home on it. When he moves in, he realizes that mushroom farms stink. A lot. So much so, that on some days he cannot sit out in his own yard without becoming ill.

One of the two has to go - either Bob or Adam's mushroom farm operation. In this example, who is "initiating force"? Who should have the right to stay in Libertopia?

[Occasional Chemist]

Originally posted by shanek
Yes. And there are many private schools that help special needs children.

Sure there are. And they'll have higher costs per pupil than the ones that don't. ALL public schools, though, have to deal with all types of students. The numbers that you brought to the table the last time this point came up did not address this issue.

Did you work for a public or private school? In what capacity?

They are able to do so better and more cheaply than the government schools.

I hope you have better data to back that up than you did in the last thread. :)

[Occasional Chemist]

Originally posted by Thanz
Let's use a different example.

Adam owns a mushroom farm, and it is completely contained on his own property.

A better example, familiar to those in the South, is a hog farm. Otherwise, same scenario.

[Earthborn]

That's just not true.I'll be darned. You are right. It wasn't my last post. I made the last two posts and it was in the post before the last. I apologize.

You claimed some figures about different drug policies, but I couldn't find them on the site you linked to. I couldn't find them and I asked whether you could direct me to them.

This is what I said:You have seen the figures, so you have a better idea on where to find them then I do. Show them to me, show that they can be compared, and then I'll take your claim seriously.Concerning your claims about the correlation between government intervention and minimum income I asked:Now if you want to convince me, combine the data from the two and show me what the correlation is between government intervention and number of people with a minimum income. Don't ask of me that I uncritically accept that the direct correlation between the two is strong, just show that the direct correlation between the two is strong.
Then why should I waste my time trying?To try to convince me? Well, you don't have to if you don't want to. But if you don't I wonder why you waste your time trying anything on this board.And I did convince a lot of people with the minimum wage thread. The ones who were left were the ones like you who had a bias against it.And who were those? Didn't they have a bias in favour of it?

Of course I have a bias against it. I am human, I have biases like everybody else. If you don't even try to convince people with a bias against it, then why even bother to convince anyone? You'll convince only those who are already convinced.

[Jude]

Originally posted by Thanz
Let's use a different example.

Adam owns a mushroom farm, and it is completely contained on his own property. The property around the farm is vacant, and owned by other people.

Bob buys the piece of land next door and builds his dream home on it. When he moves in, he realizes that mushroom farms stink. A lot. So much so, that on some days he cannot sit out in his own yard without becoming ill.

One of the two has to go - either Bob or Adam's mushroom farm operation. In this example, who is "initiating force"? Who should have the right to stay in Libertopia?

I think the mushroom fumes that wander into Bob's property would constitute as a violation, albeit not as dramatic as violence. I suspect either Adam would have to compensate Bob for damages, or devise some way to prevent the disagreeable fumes from crossing over onto Bob's property.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Thanz
Adam owns a mushroom farm, and it is completely contained on his own property. The property around the farm is vacant, and owned by other people.

Bob buys the piece of land next door and builds his dream home on it. When he moves in, he realizes that mushroom farms stink. A lot. So much so, that on some days he cannot sit out in his own yard without becoming ill.

One of the two has to go - either Bob or Adam's mushroom farm operation. In this example, who is "initiating force"? Who should have the right to stay in Libertopia?

It's Bob's fault for not properly checking out the property in the first place. He purchased the property with every piece of information available to him. He is merely experiencing the consequences of a deal he agreed to. He has no right to force anyone else to do anything just because he made a bad deal. He can either make the best of it and try to work out some form of voluntary accomodation with the farmer, or he can sell the property and buy somewhere else.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Jude
I think the mushroom fumes that wander into Bob's property would constitute as a violation, albeit not as dramatic as violence. I suspect either Adam would have to compensate Bob for damages, or devise some way to prevent the disagreeable fumes from crossing over onto Bob's property.

I think that would only be justified if the mushrooms were not there when Bob purchased the property. As presented, Bob should have checked it out and known what he was getting into. Caveat emptor.

[Jude]

Originally posted by shanek


I think that would only be justified if the mushrooms were not there when Bob purchased the property. As presented, Bob should have checked it out and known what he was getting into. Caveat emptor.

I disagree. Irregardless, the neighboring property now belongs to Bob. If he doesn't want mushroom fumes, he really shouldn't have to put up with it. That is, if the fumes are as dreadful as Thanz described.

[Occasional Chemist]

Originally posted by Thanz
Let's use a different example.

Adam owns a mushroom farm, and it is completely contained on his own property. The property around the farm is vacant, and owned by other people.

Bob buys the piece of land next door and builds his dream home on it. When he moves in, he realizes that mushroom farms stink. A lot. So much so, that on some days he cannot sit out in his own yard without becoming ill.

One of the two has to go - either Bob or Adam's mushroom farm operation. In this example, who is "initiating force"? Who should have the right to stay in Libertopia?

Flip it around, too. Adam owns the dream home, and Bob buys land and opens the mushroom farm.

How's it work them?

[roger]

Originally posted by shanek


I think that would only be justified if the mushrooms were not there when Bob purchased the property. As presented, Bob should have checked it out and known what he was getting into. Caveat emptor.

That makes a lot of sense. Similar problems happen in rural areas that start to get built up - the people who moved out from the city for the "peace and quiet" of the countryside get annoyed with the farmer who starts his tractor at 5am. In this case, I'd also say they have no cause for complaint, because they moved into an agricultural area. It doesn't matter if the farm lying next to their property was fallow when that purchased; they have to recognize that this kind of noise/smell/etc is part and parcel of where they live.

And this is where zoning laws come in handy :D

(edited to change 5pm to 5am!)

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by shanek

Infecting someone with a disease isn't force?


Not unless you're using a very pequliar definition of "force", no. Deliberatedly infecting someone with a disease would be using force, but merely walking past someone on the street and incidentally infecting them? No force is involved there.


In which case, that constitutes force; just like drunk driving.


Just what force is the drunk driver initiating? He isn't using any force against anyone.

[SNIP]

[Occasional Chemist]

Originally posted by roger

And this is where zoning laws come in handy :D


But ... they're a violation of an owner's property rights! :D

[shanek]

Originally posted by Jude
I disagree. Irregardless, the neighboring property now belongs to Bob. If he doesn't want mushroom fumes, he really shouldn't have to put up with it. That is, if the fumes are as dreadful as Thanz described.

Didn't he have sufficient opportunity to discover the fumes before purchasing the property?

[shanek]

Originally posted by roger
And this is where zoning laws come in handy

Zoning laws are a violation of property rights.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
Not unless you're using a very pequliar definition of "force", no. Deliberatedly infecting someone with a disease would be using force, but merely walking past someone on the street and incidentally infecting them? No force is involved there.

Are you saying that there's no such thing as accidental use of force?

Just what force is the drunk driver initiating? He isn't using any force against anyone.

See, comments like this are what lead me to conclude that people like you don't really want to understand what I'm talking about...

[Jude]

Originally posted by shanek


Didn't he have sufficient opportunity to discover the fumes before purchasing the property?

Sure, but the fumes didn't originate on the property he purchased. Bob didn't purchase the fumes.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by shanek


And I have something he needs.


Not really - he doesn't need your work. He'll survive on his own.


Not true. He may have the land, but that's no good at all without the labor to make use of it. Just surviving would be a 24-hour-a-day job. With my help, we could cut that in half.

It's generally not a 24 hour a day job to survive in the wilderness. Anyway, you're missing the obvious point that if he allows you to stay on his island, there will be twice as much work because there is now twice as many people to keep alive. For basic survival there's not really much work that benefits from multiple hands - you'll have to gather twice as much food, cut down twice as much bedding, make twice as much clothes - and that's assuming the island even have enough resources for two people to thrive. It's quite likely that there's enough food on the island to barely feed two people or properly feed one.

[Jude]

Originally posted by Leif Roar


Not really - he doesn't need your work. He'll survive on his own.



It's generally not a 24 hour a day job to survive in the wilderness. Anyway, you're missing the obvious point that if he allows you to stay on his island, there will be twice as much work because there is now twice as many people to keep alive. For basic survival there's not really much work that benefits from multiple hands - you'll have to gather twice as much food, cut down twice as much bedding, make twice as much clothes - and that's assuming the island even have enough resources for two people to thrive. It's quite likely that there's enough food on the island to barely feed two people or properly feed one.

Yes, yes, there -is- twice as much work to be done. The difference is each of the islanders has specific skills to contribute. Joe can cut more wood than Jack can, and Jack is a better deer hunter than Joe. If Joe cuts wood for the both of them and Jack hunts deer for the both of them, then they'll end up having more timber and meat than if they labored on wood chopping and hunting equally.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by shanek


Are you saying that there's no such thing as accidental use of force?


I'm saying that I'm not familiar with any definition of the term "force" which would cover accidentally infecting someone with a disease.


See, comments like this are what lead me to conclude that people like you don't really want to understand what I'm talking about...

Then perhaps you should explain? In what way is a drunk driver initiating force? Just how do you define 'force' in this context? I'll openly admit I don't understand at all how you use the term "initiating force".

[Occasional Chemist]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
It's generally not a 24 hour a day job to survive in the wilderness. Anyway, you're missing the obvious point that if he allows you to stay on his island, there will be twice as much work because there is now twice as many people to keep alive. For basic survival there's not really much work that benefits from multiple hands - you'll have to gather twice as much food, cut down twice as much bedding, make twice as much clothes - and that's assuming the island even have enough resources for two people to thrive. It's quite likely that there's enough food on the island to barely feed two people or properly feed one.

Excellent point. If resources are scarce and you (as a good Libertarian) believe in Suddenly's property rights, then you should have the decency to pop off and kill yourself. Heck, Suddenly might just kill you and eat you, you having trespassed on his land and all ...

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by shanek
I'm asking because I don't know too much about this example, but couldn't the others have been carriers even if they weren't infected?No, because carrier=infected. And there is absolutely no reason to assume that all people inside the city were infected (=carrier). The government just couldn't take the risk. During that time it was impossible to know who was infected but wasn't suffering the illness, so the government had no other choice but to force many people who were healthy to stay in the city. They didn't initiate force on others, and neither did many of the unknowing carriers, but the government still used force against them.If I'm understanding it correctly now, then no, it is not an initiation of force so long as the person is in a position to infect others.Okay. Now who is going to pay for the expenses? Let's assume the poor person can't. Let's further assume that tuberculosis charities don't raise much money because most people are never confronted with the disease and mistakenly think it is conquered.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek


But it's not the usual behavior of people. So you've just made your entire hypothetical completely invalid and revealed it for the bigoted rant you apparently intended it to be all along, instead of a simlified, realistic examination of how property values are used in society. You just made your hypothetical completely, 100% invalid.

The question was about whether my seizure of the land as my own was an initiation of force to illustrate the absurdity of the "initiation of force" doctrine. Property values? What? The fact is if I can legally take the property it means I can legally kill you. Unless you can swim well and are real, real lucky.

Your claims that I shouldn't kill you for economic reasons make several assumptions and is on the whole irrelevent. It doesn't change the above fact and it doesn't make a bit of difference as I could easily decide I don't want you around. I still have the effective power to kill.

Calling it bigoted seems desperate. You will do anything to avoid admitting that your position can possibly lead to absurd consequences. You add facts, and when I point out those facts aren't present, you accuse me of some sort of bigotry.

So, is my seizure of the land, which gives me the power of life and death over you a legal act? Or is it an initiation of force? Can you answer that single question? Or will you continue to dodge?

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Jude


Yes, yes, there -is- twice as much work to be done. The difference is each of the islanders has specific skills to contribute. Joe can cut more wood than Jack can, and Jack is a better deer hunter than Joe. If Joe cuts wood for the both of them and Jack hunts deer for the both of them, then they'll end up having more timber and meat than if they labored on wood chopping and hunting equally.

This assumes there is wood to cut or deer to hunt, and that having more is necessary. It could be that the island has nothing but coconut trees and fishing locations. I've monopolized and automated the fishing through multiple fixed poles. I have use for all available coconuts. I have no use for extra labor.

We could make it simple and just assume for the purposes of the scenerio that demand for labor is virtually nil.

[Jude]

We could make it simple and just assume for the purposes of the scenerio that demand for labor is virtually nil.
Well, I'd say such a scenario is very unlikely, and quite unfair to use as an argument.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Jude

Well, I'd say such a scenario is very unlikely, and quite unfair to use as an argument.

And your basis for saying it is more likely that there will be ample resources on a desert island is what?

Why unfair? Because libertarianism seems to reach an unfavorable conclusion?

The fact that seizing ownership of land is an initiation of force was raised several times in this thread. There has been no response. He has launched into some collateral issue which doesn't really bear on the question at hand.

Plus it really doesn't matter. Ownership gives me absolute power over him. Even playing his game, he is not going to be better off if I let him help because no matter his skills, if he doesn't agree to my terms, he dies, and I will live. I am in a position where I can extract a rather burdonsome agreement. Unless he is willing to die, he has to agree to anything I say.

The point is, is it legitimate that I have that power in the first place? The rest of it is squabbling over detail.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
In what way is a drunk driver initiating force? Just how do you define 'force' in this context? I'll openly admit I don't understand at all how you use the term "initiating force".

Because he's putting others in a dangerous situation that they didn't agree to be in. Other drivers on the road are now at a much greater risk of an accident, even a fatal accident, than they ordinarily would have been.

Every Libertarian I know considers drunk driving to be a violation of the non-initiation of force principle.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Earthborn
No, because carrier=infected.

I've heard of several cases of people carrying a disease but not being infected with it because of a natural immunity. My understanding is that Typhoid Mary spread typhoid without actually being sick. I think anyone would agree that her initial punishment was extreme, but her eventual sentence of simply not being able to cook for others was reasonable and justifiable.

Okay. Now who is going to pay for the expenses? Let's assume the poor person can't. Let's further assume that tuberculosis charities don't raise much money because most people are never confronted with the disease and mistakenly think it is conquered.

Why do you throw out assumptions that have nothing to do at all with reality?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
Calling it bigoted seems desperate. You will do anything to avoid admitting that your position can possibly lead to absurd consequences.

Only with absurd hypotheticals.

You add facts, and when I point out those facts aren't present, you accuse me of some sort of bigotry.

Because those facts are necessary to make your hypothetical applicable in the real world.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by shanek


Because he's putting others in a dangerous situation that they didn't agree to be in. Other drivers on the road are now at a much greater risk of an accident, even a fatal accident, than they ordinarily would have been.


But everybody already knows that there are drunk drivers on the road, so if you get in the car and head out onto the roads you're obviously voluntarily accepting that risk.

I'm a pretty inexperienced driver and not "top of the class" in driving skills. Is it an initiation of force from me to go driving as well? After all, me being inexperienced puts other people in a danger they didn't agree to be in.

What's the qualitative difference in this context between being a worse driver than average and driving while drunk? Why is one an initiation of force and the other not?

[Jude]

And your basis for saying it is more likely that there will be ample resources on a desert island is what?

Why unfair? Because libertarianism seems to reach an unfavorable conclusion?

No, I think it's unfair because it doesn't really have any basis in our society. We live in a place where the land is already owned by somebody somewhere (and what doesn't belong to individuals belongs to government, which could be auctioned off just as well). You can't just erase the chalkboard and pretend all of history hasn't happened. I don't think an isolated (and farfetched) incident where two individuals become stranded on a desert island has any bearing on how things operate in an actual society.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek


Only with absurd hypotheticals.

I guess you define absurd as "incompatable with my beliefs." Fair enough. Still doesn't explain how seizure of land isn't an initiation of force. Keep trying to distract from that.


Because those facts are necessary to make your hypothetical applicable in the real world.

The purpose of a hypothetical is to simplify by removing detail irrelevent to the question at hand. You tried to add favorable detail back in order to go on a tangent. The question is not what I do with the power, it is the existence of that power, and the concept of initiation of force and land ownership.

You could say: "Yes, in that hypothetical you would have the power of life and death over me by virtue of your ownership of the land. Lets hope if we are shipwrecked I wake up first. I'll be a nice master of your fate. Regardless, I dont see how that hypothetical means anything, because ......" and so on.

That would be answering the question and still objecting to whatever bothers you about it. I'm still stuck on how seizure of land is not some sort of initiation of force.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by shanek

I've heard of several cases of people carrying a disease but not being infected with it because of a natural immunity. My understanding is that Typhoid Mary spread typhoid without actually being sick. I think anyone would agree that her initial punishment was extreme, but her eventual sentence of simply not being able to cook for others was reasonable and justifiable.

Typhoid Mary and other carriers are infected, they are simply not experiencing symptoms. Infected means they have the germ, not that they have a disease.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek


Because he's putting others in a dangerous situation that they didn't agree to be in. Other drivers on the road are now at a much greater risk of an accident, even a fatal accident, than they ordinarily would have been.

Every Libertarian I know considers drunk driving to be a violation of the non-initiation of force principle.

Isn't saying that "increasing risk of harm to others" is an "initiation of force" a concept that could bring all sorts of troubling results?

How about: private gun ownership increases my risk of being shot. Therefore private gun ownership is an initiation of force.

Big corporations that lay off people increase my risk of being killed during a shooting spree by a disgruntled worker. Thus laying people off is an inititation of force.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by shanek


It's Bob's fault for not properly checking out the property in the first place. He purchased the property with every piece of information available to him. He is merely experiencing the consequences of a deal he agreed to. He has no right to force anyone else to do anything just because he made a bad deal. He can either make the best of it and try to work out some form of voluntary accomodation with the farmer, or he can sell the property and buy somewhere else.
How is Bob initiating any force by buying the land and building his home? It is his land, and he can do what he wants with it. Adam has no right to pollute the air or to interfere with Bob's enjoyment of the land. The fact that no one complained previously or that the farm was there first is irrelevant. By stinking up the air, Adam is initiating force against Bob, and is therefore in the wrong. Isn't that how the Libertarian ideal works? You can do whatever you want with your property, as long as you don't affect the rights of others? Well, now Adam is affecting the rights of Bob.

He was also affecting the rights of the person who owned the land before Bob, but they didn't complain. Are you saying that by not complaining you lose your property rights? Is that how libertarianism works?

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Jude


No, I think it's unfair because it doesn't really have any basis in our society. We live in a place where the land is already owned by somebody somewhere (and what doesn't belong to individuals belongs to government, which could be auctioned off just as well). You can't just erase the chalkboard and pretend all of history hasn't happened. I don't think an isolated (and farfetched) incident where two individuals become stranded on a desert island has any bearing on how things operate in an actual society.


Lets take this point by point.

The contention is that no initiation of force is justified. Shanek says this permits him to defend "his" property.

Problem is, the process of establishing land ownership is in itself an initiation of force. This is my contention. At some point, Shanek recieved his ownership interest from someone else, that person from someone else, and so on until you reach a point in time before land is owned by anyone. At some point some person just simply declared that a piece of land was his, and no other person was allowed to use it. I submit this is an initiation of force against other people.

Thus the contradiction. In a way, this libertarian principle is changing rules once an advantage is achieved. Land is seized by an initiation of force, and once land is seized the initiation of force is outlawed. Regardless of need, equitable considerations or pain and suffering, it remains immoral to take property that "belongs" to others. While property ownership should be protected, making it an absolute right seems absurd and baseless.

My hypothetical attempts to cut to the heart of this question, but it became badly sidetracted. The point of philosophical hypotheticals is to eliminate irrelevent details. I fail to see how usefullness of shanek's labor changes the fundamental question at play, that when push comes to shove, my property right unquestionably trumps any rights he has as a human being to the resources he needs to survive.

[Cain]

But it's not the usual behavior of people. So you've just made your entire hypothetical completely invalid and revealed it for the bigoted rant you apparently intended it to be all along, instead of a simlified, realistic examination of how property values are used in society. You just made your hypothetical completely, 100% invalid.

The hypothetical is only as unrealistic as libertarian assumptions. No sane person would subject herself to the authoritarian whims of another person. No sane person would acknowledge an autocrat's unearned, arbitrary power.

If you want to get realpolitick, it might be in Suddenly's best interests to murder the other inhabitant. The laborer may grow resentful for missing out on the best bed, the easiest jobs and the tastiest food. Instead of shouldering chores for himself and the owner, his position can be improved by murdering the capitalist. In the real world owners and depsots are thoroughly aware of these outcomes, and respond accordingly. That is, they respond to threat of force (don't piss others off). But in Libertopia nobody initiates force because that's wrong. Uh huh.

The asymmetry in power necessarily results in hidden coercion. First, the owner exploits the background of coercion (do as I say or swim to your death). The laborer -- again, under REAL world circumstances -- gets fed up and threatens violence. But this latter type of force is the only kind viewed as immoral because it's viewed, somehow, as an initiation of force. Fake libertarianism is absurd.

Here's a socialistic solution: the two individuals own the island together and expend their efforts equally. French anarchists (i.e. real libertarians) have a famous saying, "No master, no slave."

Edit to fix errors.

Edited again to add comment:


Problem is, the process of establishing land ownership is in itself an initiation of force. This is my contention. At some point, Shanek recieved his ownership interest from someone else, that person from someone else, and so on until you reach a point in time before land is owned by anyone. At some point some person just simply declared that a piece of land was his, and no other person was allowed to use it. I submit this is an initiation of force against other people.

As mentioned in passing earlier, the non-initaition of force principle really deals with consent rather than physical force. Mike Tyson does not have a moral claim against Lennox Lewis if the Brit punches him first. Both consented to getting hit before entering the ring. On an island, there should be consent between affected parties (the principle of influencing decisions in proportion to their affect you has mechanisms to deal with the situation). Fake libertarianism worships ownership at the expense of liberty and equality, and cannot properly handle first acquisition scenarios (imaginary and especially real). All land has been stolen at some point. Does Shanek want to return our land to Native Americans? Hardy har har.

[Tormac]

The gods are cruel! Why do I always miss the begining of these threads!

Cain asked
Fake libertarianism worships ownership at the expense of liberty and equality, and cannot properly handle first acquisition scenarios (imaginary and especially real). All land has been stolen at some point. Does Shanek want to return our land to Native Americans? Hardy har har.


Well accualy Cain, while the Libertarian party does not come out and say they are going to give the new world back to the indians, they do imply that the Native Americans should be given the right to autonomy. This is taken from the Libertarian Party Platform at

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/platform_all.html


The rights of American Indians have been usurped over the years. We support the following remedies: (1) individuals should be free to select their own citizenship and tribes should be free to select the level of autonomy the tribe wishes, (2) Indians should have their property rights restored, including rights of easement, access, hunting, and fishing, (3) the Bureau of Indian Affairs should be abolished leaving tribal members to determine their own system of governance, and (4) negotiations should be undertaken to resolve all outstanding differences between the tribes and the government.

[billydkid]

Originally posted by Jude


Irregardless......

PLease, there is no such word.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
I guess you define absurd as "incompatable with my beliefs."

No, I define absurd as "incompatible with the real world."

Still doesn't explain how seizure of land isn't an initiation of force. Keep trying to distract from that.

Wait a minute&mdash;first you were talking ownership, now you're talking siezure! Hey, where'd those goalposts go? Oh, here they are&mdash;waaaaay over here...

The purpose of a hypothetical is to simplify by removing detail irrelevent to the question at hand.

But you removed details that were relevant to the question and added in a bunch of stuff that was irrelevant.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Thanz

How is Bob initiating any force by buying the land and building his home?

He's not. But he IS initiating force if he tries to stop the farmer from doing what he's been doing all along.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
At some point some person just simply declared that a piece of land was his, and no other person was allowed to use it. I submit this is an initiation of force against other people.

That is patently absurd, since there were no "other people" to initiate force against!

My hypothetical attempts to cut to the heart of this question,

No, your hypothetical continues with this tortured logic.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Cain
The hypothetical is only as unrealistic as libertarian assumptions. No sane person would subject herself to the authoritarian whims of another person. No sane person would acknowledge an autocrat's unearned, arbitrary power.

And no sane person would kick an innocent person off the island, condemning them to death, just to be a butt-head.

The rest of your post is just more of your strawman bull$#!7 that doesn't have anything to do with real Libertarianism.

[Tormac]

Come on Cain, you're just trying to bait Shanek into blowing a gasket for your own amusement aren't you?

To claim that anarco-syndacalism (or other forms of limited communism or syndicalism), are the real form of libertarianism and the Libertarian party does not represent libertarianisms is laughable.

While you are spot on that asymmetry in power necessarily results in hidden coercion, I have to ask, how are you ever going to develop a society that is symmetrical in its power? The idea that libertarians will be at each other's throats, while socialists will live in love and harmony is a silly straw man.

Anarcho-socialists are libertarians. Libertarians are libertarians. Both systems of government seek to form a system of government that maximizes freedom and opportunity for its citizens. The difference lies in where they see the stronger danger. The tyranny of the collective is certainly just as serious a problem as the tyranny by an oligarch. Which is more dangerous, an ever present government, either at a centralized level, or at confederated level, or being under the economic thumb of a wealthy oligarch, it seems to me the correct answer is, witch ever one is able to able to wield power. A freedom loving government must be able to recognize the dangers in both.

Libertarianism has its flaws. No system of government is perfect. I agree that Libertarians can be ideologues, and I doubt any idealized goal is tenable in the nitty gritty world that we live in, but to claim that

“Fake libertarianism [the Liberatrian party] worships ownership at the expense of liberty and equality”

is hardly fair, or reasonable.

[Theodore Kurita]

Originally posted by Shane Costello


No country on earth ever went communist by popular assent, rather the communists seized power by force.



Strange as it may seem I don't recall the hungry and desperate masses revolting against the ruling classes in Britain and the UK 100 years ago.


You might want to look at Cuba before Fidel Castro took over.

Laissez Faire capitalism ran rampant before Fidel seized power!!!

There was a cities worth of people living in Cardboard Boxes before Fidel Castro took over!

[EvilYeti]

Shanek seems to be claiming this hypothetical situation isn't realistic enough, so why don't we clarify it a bit?

Suppose the island is owned by me, I purchased it from another country whom has relinquished all claim to it. I declare this my own country, Libertania. I hire Harry Browne to write the Constitution.

I've just created a Libertarian paradise, owned and governed by yours truly. The island is lightly developed with a few small buildings and an airstrip. Supplies are airdropped in monthly. The only inhabitants are myself and my guard dogs. Since the island is already developed and supplied, there is little to do other then the daily upkeep and landscaping.

Does everyone agree this is a realistic scenario? Good, lets move on.

So one day shanek washes up the beach. Being the good Libertarian that I am, I immediately declare him in violation of my property rights and arrest, convict and sentence him. He is guilty of trespassing and must leave my property at once, or be shot.

Shanek, being in possession of no property other than himself, offers to sell his labor to me, on the Libertania open market, in exchange for food and shelter.

I agree and we draw up a contract. Shanek will now be known as Mr. Slave, will report to me every morning for labor duties, will speak only when spoken too and will be sequestered as I see fit. After all, I don't want the help scaring my guests.

As compensation he will recieve a gallon of water and one MRE a day in addition to being provided with a canvas tent for shelter.

If at any time he finds this arrangement unacceptable he is free to leave Libertania and never return. Of course, since I have a monopoly on transportation and communication on the island, it will be up to him to figure out how to do that. I already own him, so to speak, so he has nothing else to trade to pay for transportation.

So here we have a very believeable scenario, based on real world examples and following the Libertarian manifesto to a T. Nothing I have done has in any way violated the Libertarian Constitution drafted by Harry Browne himself and is based entirely on free market transactions. And the second citizen of Libertania is, for all intents and purposes, a slave. Some utopia. :rolleyes:

Am I missing something here?

[Tormac]

Fah EvilYeti, show me where in the Libertarian Platform the party favors enslaving those who wash up on our shores. Enslaving others is hardly an orthodox Libertarian goal. The Libertarian party certainly does not hold that people are little tyrants in their own property, and can abuse people if they step on the wrong side of the sidewalk.

I posted the Libertarian Party Platform earlier. I’ll post it again. See if you can show me what plank makes people tyrants within their own private property.

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/platform_all.html

There is certainly a difference between supporting property rights, and giving property right owners absolute power over their piece of dirt. You seem to have Libertarianism confused with Feudalism. Dictionary.com might help you.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Tormac
Fah EvilYeti, show me where in the Libertarian Platform the party favors enslaving those who wash up on our shores. Enslaving others is hardly an orthodox Libertarian goal. The Libertarian party certainly does not hold that people are little tyrants in their own property, and can abuse people if they step on the wrong side of the sidewalk.

You are making the same error shanek constantly does. The LP doesn't specificaly favor it, but there is nothing in the rules prohibiting it. Ergo, folks are going to do it, especially if its in their own best interest.

I posted the Libertarian Party Platform earlier. I’ll post it again. See if you can show me what plank makes people tyrants within their own private property.

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/platform_all.html

There is certainly a difference between supporting property rights, and giving property right owners absolute power over their piece of dirt. You seem to have Libertarianism confused with Feudalism. Dictionary.com might help you.

I've read the platform already, its the Constitution of Libertania as a matter of fact! And in my previous example neither I nor shanek violated any of its principles. Every transaction was perfectly legal. Shanek engaged in a free market transaction, exchanging his only thing of value, himself, for use of my property. YOU show me how that is illegal according to the Libertarian charter! If an individual is considered his own property there is no reason he cannot sell himself to someone else. Or in this case, rent for as long as Mr. Slave is using my property.

You as a Libertarian may not like how I treat Mr. Slave, but as long as he is under contract he belongs to me. He is my property and none of your business. Mine.

Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek


That is patently absurd, since there were no "other people" to initiate force against!

Please explain to me how you can have a concept of ownership when there are no other people. If there are no other persons, there is no reason to "own" anything as you can use whatever you want. The concept of ownership of property wouldn't exist until there is someone to exclude.

If you can come up with a concept of property that doesn't include exclusion, then the original "taking possession" is not an act of force against others. However, if property does not include exclusion, you have no right to exclude others.

If it does include the right to exclude, how is the original act of exclusion not an act of force? Where does the right to exclude come from? What gives an individual the right to own a particular piece of property when up to that point it has gone unowned?

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek


No, I define absurd as "incompatible with the real world."

Like I said. You are too emotionaly invested to see the world in other ways. That's OK. It happens.



Wait a minute&mdash;first you were talking ownership, now you're talking siezure! Hey, where'd those goalposts go? Oh, here they are&mdash;waaaaay over here...
No, I was talking about seizure. That was the whole purpose of the hypothetical. Because I seized the land I achieved the moral power of life and death over your person. I think that is stupid. You seem to think it is fine, but that you will get a fair shake. Seizure refers to the initial act that establishes ownership. Clear now?



But you removed details that were relevant to the question and added in a bunch of stuff that was irrelevant.

Good grief. You went on a tangent with assumed facts that I would treat you well. I then tried to point out why that was an assumption because it assumes 1) labor would be useful to me and 2) lack of an external reason to get rid of you.

For some reason you wanted to tangent from the property question by making these assumptions and concluding I would bargain with you, when the question I asked was quite direct. Note the bold:

To simplify, if you and I somehow wind up on a desert island, and I regain conciousness before you do from the ordeal that put us there, and I start to "use" all the land on the island for legitimate survival purposes, do you have a moral duty to go for a rather long swim? I guess you were using the very small part of land on which you lay unconcious, and have a right to that litle piece of land. Otherwise, you are on "my" land, and I don't want to share with you because when you disagree with people you call them "Filthy Liars." Plus, while the land could possibly support us both the standard of living for me would be lower, and since it is "my" land I can do what I want.

I explicitly say I am not going to share. Any "facts" I added were in context of your unfounded assumption that I should simply let you stay. The fact of the matter is, if you go by you stated principles, and I tell you to leave, you must swim willingly. End of story.

You say such a decision would be stupid. Does that give you a right to stay? Why?

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek


And no sane person would kick an innocent person off the island, condemning them to death, just to be a butt-head.

Not exactly a strong philosophical case, is it? How is exercising my property rights being a "butt-head" or evidence of insanity? Do you believe that those rights should be subject to value judgments made by others? Are you implying that you have moral rights as a human being that would trump my property rights? :eek:

[Tormac]

EvilYeti said (to my request to relate his notion of a "Libertarian paradise" to the accual Libertarian Party Platform)

I've read the platform already, its the Constitution of Libertania as a matter of fact!

Well, I can not say that in you own fantasy world the fantasy Libertarian Party would not back your dictatorship of your fantasy island. Maybe a fantasy Harry Browne would love to write your fantasy Constitution of Libertania, maybe not. I assure you that I am not a willing participant in your fantasies.

However if the Libertarian party won the 2004 election, and you owned a lovely island in the keys, and someone washed ashore, heck even if someone climbed over your chain link fence toped with razor wire and defecated on your beachfront property, you would not have the right to "declare him in violation of my property rights and arrest, convict and sentence him." You would certainly not have the right to coerce him into signing some silly document that makes him your virtual slave.

Come on Yeti, this silly straw man sounds like something a grade school bully would dream of while he is fantasizing being “King of Fantasy Island"

I was speaking of the real world. In this real world there is a real Libertarian Party. There is a real Mr. Browne. There is a real Libertarian Party Platform, and hundreds of books that discuss a real philosophy of said Party. Your fantasy of coercing someone to sign a contract of slavery or be shot is not even repugnant, just silly. It is contrary fundamental notions of the real Libertarian Party.

[Cain]

Come on Cain, you're just trying to bait Shanek into blowing a gasket for your own amusement aren't you?

To claim that anarco-syndacalism (or other forms of limited communism or syndicalism), are the real form of libertarianism and the Libertarian party does not represent libertarianisms is laughable.

Travel to any academic library and check, oh say, the periodicals section. Libertarianism has only until recently been firmly associated with the anarchist left.

While you are spot on that asymmetry in power necessarily results in hidden coercion, I have to ask, how are you ever going to develop a society that is symmetrical in its power? The idea that libertarians will be at each other's throats, while socialists will live in love and harmony is a silly straw man.

A straw man of your own creation. Where did I say, hint, suggestion, or imply that socialists will "live in love and harmony"? Where too did I say (fake) libertarians would be at each other's throats? That sort of implies a balance of power. There's not a great deal of squabbling in authoritarian, one-sided relationships.

“Fake libertarianism [the Liberatrian party] worships ownership at the expense of liberty and equality”

is hardly fair, or reasonable.

I'd object to "the Libertarian Party" in brackets. If I meant the Libertarian Party, then I probably would have written "the Libertarian Party." But as it stands I did not write "the Libertarian Party," but something different than "the Libertarian Party." I think the quote is reasonable: indeed, many fake libertarians define freedom in terms of onwership.

Fah EvilYeti, show me where in the Libertarian Platform the party favors enslaving those who wash up on our shores.

The Libertarian Party apparently wants people to do with their property as they please. If that means exploiting dire circumstances to enslave another human being, fine. You have no right to restrict such a "free contract." Many libertarians may personally disapprove of smoking pot, but they still defend the rights of others to blaze up.

QUOTE OF THE DAY: You are too emotionaly invested to see the world in other ways.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Suddenly


Not exactly a strong philosophical case, is it? How is exercising my property rights being a "butt-head" or evidence of insanity? Do you believe that those rights should be subject to value judgments made by others? Are you implying that you have moral rights as a human being that would trump my property rights? :eek: [/B]

I just pretend I didn't hear you say that.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Tormac
Fah EvilYeti, show me where in the Libertarian Platform the party favors enslaving those who wash up on our shores. Enslaving others is hardly an orthodox Libertarian goal. The Libertarian party certainly does not hold that people are little tyrants in their own property, and can abuse people if they step on the wrong side of the sidewalk.

I posted the Libertarian Party Platform earlier. I’ll post it again. See if you can show me what plank makes people tyrants within their own private property.

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/platform_all.html

There is certainly a difference between supporting property rights, and giving property right owners absolute power over their piece of dirt. You seem to have Libertarianism confused with Feudalism. Dictionary.com might help you.

To be fair I don't think this is really a discussion of their platform. It is rather an examination of the principle that initiating force is never justified. Of course the Libertarian party doesn't take lunatic positions. I was just trying to examine the results of taking the principle of the ban on initiating force and applying it to a sort of Locke/Hobbes/Rousseau state of nature situation. The whole thesis was that ownership of property derives from the use of force. Scarcity exasperates the problem. I think EY may have went a little too far. In my initial hypothetical an assertion that the other person (shanek) has a right to stay and share that trumps my property right solves the problem, as well as the assertion that my seizing property was in itself an initiation of force.

I may have used the big L at times, but some of those were in context to other claims and do not sound well out of context. Plus I type poorly

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


I just pretend I didn't hear you say that.

Pretend away. As long as you do so on your own property.

:p

(You do get the context, no? I hear you are Austrailian and I guess being upside-down all the time messes up the blood flow to the brain, so I worry. ;) )

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Tormac

Well, I can not say that in you own fantasy world the fantasy Libertarian Party would not back your dictatorship of your fantasy island. Maybe a fantasy Harry Browne would love to write your fantasy Constitution of Libertania, maybe not. I assure you that I am not a willing participant in your fantasies.

There is no fantasy here. The Consitution of Libertania is identical to the LP party charter. If you don't like how this turns out in the real world, maybe you should re-think your endorsement of it?

You would certainly not have the right to coerce him into signing some silly document that makes him your virtual slave.

Shanek wasn't coerced at all, it was his free choice when faced with the alternative of being expelled from my property, which is legal to do under the Libertarian charter. I'm not bound by any law to provide quarter for trespassers. He's lucky I didn't sic my dogs on him.

Come on Yeti, this silly straw man sounds like something a grade school bully would dream of while he is fantasizing being “King of Fantasy Island"

Why? Why can't someone with enough money buy an island and start their own Libertarian society with the Libertarian charter as their constitution? Are you saying that Libertarianism as a real, practical government in unworkable?

I was speaking of the real world. In this real world there is a real Libertarian Party. There is a real Mr. Browne. There is a real Libertarian Party Platform, and hundreds of books that discuss a real philosophy of said Party. Your fantasy of coercing someone to sign a contract of slavery or be shot is not even repugnant, just silly. It is contrary fundamental notions of the real Libertarian Party.

So am I and I'm asking where any of what I have done is prohibited by the Libertarian Manifesto. Will you answer that please? You may not like it of course, but is it illegal under Libertarian Law?

I should remind you that the only difference between what I've done and typical slavery is that I'm contractually bound to allow Mr. Slave to swim off the island at any time. I could have just as easily made the contract for life with a clause allowing capitial punishment for breach of terms.

Before you go and claim no one would do such a thing, I would suggest going to a library and researching slavery in American history. I would also suggest doing a google search of slavery in the modern world.

[Tormac]

Cain explained

Travel to any academic library and check, oh say, the periodicals section. Libertarianism has only until recently been firmly associated with the anarchist left.
I never implied otherwise. In fact I have been in debate with Libertarians defending the notion that anarcho-syndacalism was not a false libertarianism. I’ve heard the argument flow both ways. That ararcho-socialism, and syndicalism has a longer history than Libertarianism was never at issue, what was at issue was your use of the word “fake”, implying that the Libertarian party does not desire a libertarian form of government. That they have a differing model that the anarcho-syndacalists is true. It may be irreconcilable in some mind, but I can see both systems working together easily in one society, and in fact have posted such scenarios.

Cain latter wrote

A straw man of your own creation. Where did I say, hint, suggestion, or imply that socialists will "live in love and harmony"? Where too did I say (fake) libertarians would be at each other's throats? That sort of implies a balance of power. There's not a great deal of squabbling in authoritarian, one-sided relationships.

I suppose I was a bit melodramatic, however you did suggest that the "socialist" model would be to share the island, and in the assumed "Libertarian" model the owner may be better off murdering the worker. It sounds rather like they are at each other's throats. (shrug) Maybe someone else logged onto your account and wrote those things instead of you, or maybe I do not understand what you mean by sharing the island and murder. For the state of people to be at each other’s throats in no way implies a balance of power. All it implies is that there are two opposing sides that are willing to fight. In the real world there is never a “balance of power”. Sometimes those who look strong are over thrown by those who look weak, and vice versa. Is there ever a state of equality in man? Some people are born rich, some are born poor, and some are stillborn. There is never a balance of power.

Cain later wrote

I'd object to "the Libertarian Party" in brackets. If I meant the Libertarian Party, then I probably would have written "the Libertarian Party." But as it stands I did not write "the Libertarian Party," but something different than "the Libertarian Party." I think the quote is reasonable: indeed, many fake libertarians define freedom in terms of onwership.

My apologies if I am putting words in your mouth. With all these libertarians, fake libertarians etc, I may have lost my place. I thought that you had claimed the Libertarian Party was a party of fakes, while anarcho-socialist were the real libertarians. If I had miss read that, please set me straight, as I have been misunderstanding much of your post.

Cain then wrote
The Libertarian Party apparently wants people to do with their property as they please. If that means exploiting dire circumstances to enslave another human being, fine. You have no right to restrict such a "free contract." Many libertarians may personally disapprove of smoking pot, but they still defend the rights of others to blaze up.

The idea of enslaving human beings, or using coercion and the threat of violence to force someone to come to is certainly not an orthodox value of the Libertarian Party, nor the Libertarian writers. If I am following you, you imply that although I do not smoke pot personaly, but think that it should be legalized, and adults should have the right to smoke it if the choose, I would not object to others using the threat of coercion to abuse the rights of others. I hope I am misunderstanding you, as, to be blunt, it is rather insulting. If you can show me an instance of a prominent Libertarian author who suggests this, I would be curious to read it. As I pointed out in previous threads orthodox Libertarianism dose not hold that everyone is a king on his own piece of land. The Libertarian party is defiantly in favor of property rights, but they are not in favor of some nuevo feudalism.

[shanek]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
Am I missing something here?

Yes: The fact that not a single one of your actions is consistent with being a "good Libertarian." Only your blatantly false made-up version of Libertarianism you use so that your ego can feel so superior to people who have opinions you don't genuinely want to consider.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tormac
Fah EvilYeti, show me where in the Libertarian Platform the party favors enslaving those who wash up on our shores. Enslaving others is hardly an orthodox Libertarian goal. The Libertarian party certainly does not hold that people are little tyrants in their own property, and can abuse people if they step on the wrong side of the sidewalk.

Exactly. Just because someone steps on my property doesn't mean I get to rape or murder them.

[shanek]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
I've read the platform already,

You obviously don't understand it.

its the Constitution of Libertania as a matter of fact!

Then you, in your hypothetical scenario, were in violation of your own Constitution:

We further hold that the owners of property have the full right to control, use, dispose of, or in any manner enjoy, their property without interference, until and unless the exercise of their control infringes the valid rights of others.

&mdash;Libertarian Party Platform, I.12

Not only that, but you violated my rights of free speech and free assembly.

And in my previous example neither I nor shanek violated any of its principles.

Either you didn't read the platform, in which case you're lying about making this scenario consistent with the platform, or you did, which means you deliberately made it contrary to the above while concluding otherwise, which, again, would be a lie.

Which is it?

You as a Libertarian may not like how I treat Mr. Slave, but as long as he is under contract he belongs to me. He is my property and none of your business. Mine.

Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine.

No. There is NOTHING in the Libertarian philosophy that EVER allows one person to own another. YOU OWN YOU, AND I OWN ME.

Such rights as the freedom from involuntary servitude as well as the freedom of speech and the freedom of press are based on self-ownership. Our bodies are our property every bit as much as is justly acquired land or material objects.

That's from I.12 again.

You know NOTHING about Libertarianism and either did not bother to read the LP platform or deliberately lied about its contents.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
Please explain to me how you can have a concept of ownership when there are no other people.

You said it yourself: There were no other people when the land was first claimed. After that, the claimant had property rights he could exercise against anyone who came along later and tried to take it from him.

Are you deliberately avoiding the question?

[Tormac]

Evil Yeti asked
So am I and I'm asking where any of what I have done is prohibited by the Libertarian Manifesto. Will you answer that please? You may not like it of course, but is it illegal under Libertarian Law?

Well, as I tried to imply with my repeted use of Fantasy, since your island is governed not by the Libertarian Party Platform, but by a mythical constitution you calim a fantastical Harry Browne wrote, it is hard for me to say. There is no such thing as "Libertarian Law" I do not know what the "Libertarian Manifesto" is.

I will not say noone would abuse another, take advantage of another, or take away their rights if they could. As I pointed out in the previous post though, under the Libertarian model one would not have the ability to claim that they are the sovereign of their own property. Nowhere in the Libertarian Party Platform, or in the writings and philosophy of any prominent Libertarian that I know of has there ever been a suggestion that people should have the right to claim that their privately owned land was their own kingdom. In no way would a private landowner have the right to arrest, judge, convict, and execute a trespasser. I know shanek has said that Libertarians are not anarchists already in this thread. I will confirm this. The rule of law will still be enforced in the nation, even if a Libertarian government took control of all three branches.

Maybe my references to anarcho-socialism confused you. No serious Libertarian candidate has suggested that private property rights would allow someone to literally make privately owned land a separate nation, and allow them to be a tin-horn dictator and assault anyone who steps past the sidewalk. (shrug) If you will post your fantasy constitution, I will be happy to read it and give you my critique of it, as a moderate Libertarian. If you will read Libertarian Party Platform that I posted you will see that the first tenant of the party platform is

1. “Freedom and Responsibility
Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. “

Some how I think that, as I have mentioned many times, declaring oneself the dictator of your private property, and then drawing up a constitution, and then abusing passers by is a violation of those passers by. Dose it sound like the person in your example is free to make choices for themselves? It would still be a crime to shoot someone according to the actual Libertarian Part Platform, even if they did step on your side of the sidewalk. I certainly cannot see any party that would hold that a contract agreed to under mortal duress is legally binding. It is certainly not a tenant of the Libertarian party that contracts can be so arranged. If Harry Browne was elected president in 2004, you could not abuse others just because they tripped off the sidewalk and fell into your lawn.

If you want to read about what the actual Libertarian Party stands for, I have provided you with the link twice. I have another for you. This is a link to an actual Libertarian Party Candidate, Gail Lightfoot. She is running for a senate seat in CA in 2004.

http://www.lightfootforussenate2004.org/

Now I do admit that nowhere in her web page does she say that she would be opposed to EvilYeti buying and island, declaring it his own nation, and then abusing stranded passersby. Instead she speaks about education reform, gay rights, the rights of Native Americans, the 2nd amendment, and civil defense, and health care. I am not saying that she is right on everything, nor that I expect you to agree with them, but I think you will find that she supports the rights of the marginalized, without abusing the rights of the majority, and she has a happy sense of humor while doing it.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek


You said it yourself: There were no other people when the land was first claimed. After that, the claimant had property rights he could exercise against anyone who came along later and tried to take it from him.

Are you deliberately avoiding the question?

Try it this way:

What does it mean to own something? What rights do you have that you didn't have when nobody owned the property? Before, you could use it as you saw fit. So could anyone else.

Once you own it, they can't use it, but you can.

Exclusion is the essence of ownership. Call it exclusive use, whatever. The idea is "This is mine. I can use this, and you can't."

Without any others ownership is impossible as their are no other people to exclude. There must be at least two people in the world.

At one point, they both have the use of a particular property, in that nothing keeps them from enjoyment. Then all of a sudden, one of them declares an exclusive right to that property due to ownership. What gives this person the right to take that right or ability to use from the other person, and how is this act not a taking by force?

This isn't a trick question. The second person has lost the use of something by no consent his own, and for some reason if he tries to act the same w/r/t that piece of property he would be "initiating force" towards the first person, and could be repelled. Seems arbitrary.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by shanek

You obviously don't understand it.


No, as usual you don't. Which is sad, actually. One would think you could at least get that right. Read the following, it was written by a Libertarian that does understand it:

The Libertarian Case for Slavery (http://cog.kent.edu/lib/Philmore1/Philmore1.htm)

Then you, in your hypothetical scenario, were in violation of your own Constitution:

No I was not, I was minding my own business until you invaded my beach through the initiation of force. YOU violated MY rights!

Not only that, but you violated my rights of free speech and free assembly.

No, you sold your rights to me in exchange for food, water and shelter. Voluntarily. In the free market of Libertania.

Either you didn't read the platform, in which case you're lying about making this scenario consistent with the platform, or you did, which means you deliberately made it contrary to the above while concluding otherwise, which, again, would be a lie.

Which is it?

You forget the scenario where you don't know what you are talking about. I'll give you a hint, thats always the answer.

No. There is NOTHING in the Libertarian philosophy that EVER allows one person to own another. YOU OWN YOU, AND I OWN ME.

If YOU OWN YOU and I OWN ME and we are operating in a FREE MARKET, YOU can VOLUNTARILY sell yourself TO ME in exchange for PROPERTY. Are you saying individuals are not allowed to sell themselves? Wouldn't that be infringing on the very most basic of property rights? If you can't sell something, how can it be property? Or be worth anything at all in a free market?

That's from I.12 again.

So you should be able to sell your body and your rights, just like justly aquired land and material objects, correct?

You know NOTHING about Libertarianism and either did not bother to read the LP platform or deliberately lied about its contents.

Au contraire, monsieur Esclave. I understand it much better than you, just like everything else.

Are you aware some Libertarians are trying to get the charter amended to specifically prohibit slavery? And the LP won't allow it?

[thaiboxerken]

Nowhere in the Libertarian Party Platform, or in the writings and philosophy of any prominent Libertarian that I know of has there ever been a suggestion that people should have the right to claim that their privately owned land was their own kingdom. In no way would a private landowner have the right to arrest, judge, convict, and execute a trespasser.

This is exactly correct, although people of other parties love to build this strawman.

I know shanek has said that Libertarians are not anarchists already in this thread. I will confirm this. The rule of law will still be enforced in the nation, even if a Libertarian government took control of all three branches.

Well, the laws would be different, but there will still be laws. The laws will be more to a philosophy of "do what you want as long as it doesn't impose of the rights of others." Democrats and Republicans hate that.

Maybe my references to anarcho-socialism confused you. No serious Libertarian candidate has suggested that private property rights would allow someone to literally make privately owned land a separate nation, and allow them to be a tin-horn dictator and assault anyone who steps past the sidewalk.

Yes, this is just another strawman that is built.

Freedom and Responsibility
Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make.

Those Libertarians are "EVIL" for even thinking that people should be responsible for their own actions.



I think that the opposition to the Libertarian platform is due to religious reasons and socialist reasons. I, myself, am not religious, I believe in freedom of/from religion. I also do not believe in socialism, good for ants, not for humans. Libertarianism places responsiblility upon people and not society. Maybe, even though I lean Libertarian, people are not smart or responsible enough for the change. I sure do wish for the world to be Libertarian though.

Capitalism is the solution.

[thaiboxerken]

What does it mean to own something?

It means to have the rights and responsibility to that something.

What rights do you have that you didn't have when nobody owned the property?

The rights to that property.

Before, you could use it as you saw fit. So could anyone else.

Yea, but they didn't.

Once you own it, they can't use it, but you can.

Well, they can if I give them permission.

Exclusion is the essence of ownership. Call it exclusive use, whatever. The idea is "This is mine. I can use this, and you can't."

Not entirely, I can rent or borrow the rights out.

Without any others ownership is impossible as their are no other people to exclude. There must be at least two people in the world.

False, ownership is exclusive of population.

At one point, they both have the use of a particular property, in that nothing keeps them from enjoyment. Then all of a sudden, one of them declares an exclusive right to that property due to ownership. What gives this person the right to take that right or ability to use from the other person, and how is this act not a taking by force?

Some seminence of force is there, whether philosophical or physical. The world is ruled by force.

This isn't a trick question. The second person has lost the use of something by no consent his own, and for some reason if he tries to act the same w/r/t that piece of property he would be "initiating force" towards the first person, and could be repelled. Seems arbitrary.

So? What's the point?

[thaiboxerken]

Are you aware some Libertarians are trying to get the charter amended to specifically prohibit slavery? And the LP won't allow it?

What's wrong with slavery, as long as it's voluntary?

[Tony]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Are you aware some Libertarians are trying to get the charter amended to specifically prohibit slavery? And the LP won't allow it?

What's wrong with slavery, as long as it's voluntary?

Hey Thai, sorry for nitpicking, but isn’t slavery, by definition, involuntary?

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Tormac

Well, as I tried to imply with my repeted use of Fantasy, since your island is governed not by the Libertarian Party Platform, but by a mythical constitution you calim a fantastical Harry Browne wrote, it is hard for me to say. There is no such thing as "Libertarian Law" I do not know what the "Libertarian Manifesto" is.

My country is bound by the rules you yourself provided. I'm asking, again, what has been broken in the arrangement between Mr. Slave and I.

In no way would a private landowner have the right to arrest, judge, convict, and execute a trespasser.

Please point to the part of my post where I executed shanek.

(shrug) If you will post your fantasy constitution, I will be happy to read it and give you my critique of it, as a moderate Libertarian. If you will read Libertarian Party Platform that I posted you will see that the first tenant of the party platform is

My constitution is the platform as interpreted by Harry Brown into law. Make your best guess as what he would do.

1. “Freedom and Responsibility
Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. “

Gee, I made the choice to found the first Libertarian country, shanek made the choice of flying an unregulated airline and crashing into the ocean and Mr. Slave has decided he would rather be a live slave than a drowned freeman.

Dose it sound like the person in your example is free to make choices for themselves?

The person has two choices, slavery or swimming. I didn't invite him onto my beach, he invaded it through an act of force, which was his decision. He could have kept swimming!

I certainly cannot see any party that would hold that a contract agreed to under mortal duress is legally binding.

Phew, thats alot of rules to stick onto a contract. Whose going to interpret and enforce all those rules and how do you plan on paying them?

It is certainly not a tenant of the Libertarian party that contracts can be so arranged. If Harry Browne was elected president in 2004, you could not abuse others just because they tripped off the sidewalk and fell into your lawn.

Nor could they stay on my lawn indefinately without my permission. Just like no one is allowed on my island without my permission. As always, shanek voluntarily made the choice to stay as a slave.

Now I do admit that nowhere in her web page does she say that she would be opposed to EvilYeti buying and island, declaring it his own nation, and then abusing stranded passersby.

Its my island and my property to do with as I see fit. You don't like it, stay the hell off my island. Its all mine.

Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

What's wrong with slavery, as long as it's voluntary?

Game. Set. Match.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
What does it mean to own something?

It means to have the rights and responsibility to that something.

What rights do you have that you didn't have when nobody owned the property?

The rights to that property.

What rights exactly? What rights do you now have you didn't have before?

Before, you could use it as you saw fit. So could anyone else.

Yea, but they didn't.

Why is that necessary or significant? Before ownership they had the same right to use that land as you do. That they didn't do so at that time, even if the case, changes what exactly?

Once you own it, they can't use it, but you can.

Well, they can if I give them permission.

In other words, you now have superior title and claim. You use it as you see fit, and that can include renting it.

Exclusion is the essence of ownership. Call it exclusive use, whatever. The idea is "This is mine. I can use this, and you can't."

Not entirely, I can rent or borrow the rights out.

This is part of "use." I'm trying not to type for days so I'm using terms. Use in a legal sense means the right to do what you please. You have as a declaration of ownership assumed those rights. The fact that you could later give those rights away assumes you have something to give

Without any others ownership is impossible as their are no other people to exclude. There must be at least two people in the world.

False, ownership is exclusive of population. Lots of declarations as to this, but little explaination. Plus, this is unclear what you claim. If their is one person in the world, why would that person have a concept of "ownership?" Everything is available for his use anyway, right? This goes back to an examination of what particular rights exist before and after "ownership." Yes, these rights are related to the land, but what are these rights?

At one point, they both have the use of a particular property, in that nothing keeps them from enjoyment. Then all of a sudden, one of them declares an exclusive right to that property due to ownership. What gives this person the right to take that right or ability to use from the other person, and how is this act not a taking by force?

Some seminence of force is there, whether philosophical or physical. The world is ruled by force.

This isn't a trick question. The second person has lost the use of something by no consent his own, and for some reason if he tries to act the same w/r/t that piece of property he would be "initiating force" towards the first person, and could be repelled. Seems arbitrary.

So? What's the point?

The point has to do with the stated principle "initiation of force is never justified." I'm contending that individual property rights derive from such force, so a doctrine that seeks to protect those rights by way of that stated principle is a bit unfair.

One of the tangents dealt with (more or less) the effect of radical inequities in bargaining power, and morphed into some sort of "Libertarians can kill and enslave people" strawman you saw above.

The original point was more along the lines of a situation where by no ill means person A winds up "owning" all available resources, leaving person B with no chance of survival absent dealing with person A. Is there a libertarian principle that limits what demands person A can make of person B in exchange for what B needs to survive? Or can A demand anything he wants from A, including what would be a voluntary contract amounting to virtual slavery, seeing B's only other option is death? In effect, does person A have the right of life or death over B?

[Earthborn]

I also do not believe in socialism, good for ants, not for humans.A very strange thing to say. Since when do ants have a socialistic system? Do they have a state that rules them? Do they have officials that rule them? No, they don't.

All ants in an ant colony are completely free. They can do whatever they want, whenever they want it. No one is forcing them to do anything, and at any time 90% of them do absolutely nothing. When they do something, it is only because they chose to themselves. They bring food to the nest as reserve for others, but only after they have eaten themselves, and only because they want to.

Ants have a perfect anarchistic society. There is absolutely nothing you can remotely call 'socialistic'.

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by Tony
Hey Thai, sorry for nitpicking, but isn’t slavery, by definition, involuntary?I agree. Defining slavery as something that can be done voluntarily makes the term meaningless.

The article EvilYeti linked to equated 'voluntary slavery' with 'a lifetime labour contract'. That makes no sense.

Slavery normally means ownership over another person. And ownership means that you can basically do anything with it you want in the libertarian view. But in the US constitution that libertarians like so much it says that every person's right to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' is inalienable. Even if you own the person you cannot take it away, which basically means you are not actually owning him/her.

It makes no sense that someone should be allowed to sell his or her own life, liberty or happiness. Trading things is meant to increase wealth: two people exchange things in such a way that both end up feeling richer, happier. If someone sells his life, liberty or happiness he loses exactly what the purpose of the trade was!

So someone cannot sell himself in such away that his owner can do anything to him the owner likes. Which means he is not really sell himself completely. Hence no slavery.

A lifetime labour contract in exchange to lifetime benefits is not slavery. It is job security.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Earthborn
I agree. Defining slavery as something that can be done voluntarily makes the term meaningless.

Why? If the result is the same isn't arguing over whether the initial condition was voluntary or involuntary a bit academic? Not to mention in my example it wasn't much of a choice, though it was still technically voluntary.

The article EvilYeti linked to equated 'voluntary slavery' with 'a lifetime labour contract'. That makes no sense.

I sell a lifetime of labor to you in exchange for guaranteed food and shelter.

I am sold to you by a third party for the exchange of currency. You provide food and shelter to protect your investment.

Now, whats the difference?

Slavery normally means ownership over another person. And ownership means that you can basically do anything with it you want in the libertarian view. But in the US constitution that libertarians like so much it says that every person's right to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' is inalienable. Even if you own the person you cannot take it away, which basically means you are not actually owning him/her.

Except the US constitution had to be amended to make slavery illegal. Funny that.
And you are correct, ownership does mean you can do anything with your property that want to the Libertarians. Since the fundamental tenet of Libertarianism is self-ownership, it logically follows that the second most basic right is to sell said ownership.

It makes no sense that someone should be allowed to sell his or her own life, liberty or happiness.

It makes perfect sense if you are considered your own property.

Trading things is meant to increase wealth: two people exchange things in such a way that both end up feeling richer, happier. If someone sells his life, liberty or happiness he loses exactly what the purpose of the trade was!

No, in my example the person gains the right to stay on my island, a gallon of water and MRE a day plus a luxurious canvas tent. The alternative was to keep swimming. Sounds like a pretty good deal if you ask me!

So someone cannot sell himself in such away that his owner can do anything to him the owner likes. Which means he is not really sell himself completely. Hence no slavery.

Depends on the contract, in my case Mr. Slave can leave anytime he wants, or I can kick him off the island any time I want. The arrangement is at will. If I decide one day to start performing scientific experiments on Mr. Slave, he may decide he has better odd swimming for it.

A lifetime labour contract in exchange to lifetime benefits is not slavery. It is job security.

Its functionally identical to slavery. Since the Libertarians oppose any regulation of the workplace, the employer is free to abuse his servants any way he sees fit. Call you what you want, I call it slavery.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Tony


Hey Thai, sorry for nitpicking, but isn’t slavery, by definition, involuntary?

You're probably right.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


Its my island and my property to do with as I see fit. You don't like it, stay the hell off my island. Its all mine.


It seems like you are against the idea of land ownership. Hippie.

[thaiboxerken]

What rights exactly? What rights do you now have you didn't have before?

The right to build on that land, to occupy that land. The same rights you have if you buy real-estate today.

Why is that necessary or significant? Before ownership they had the same right to use that land as you do. That they didn't do so at that time, even if the case, changes what exactly?

Ownership.

In other words, you now have superior title and claim. You use it as you see fit, and that can include renting it.

Yep.

This is part of "use." I'm trying not to type for days so I'm using terms. Use in a legal sense means the right to do what you please. You have as a declaration of ownership assumed those rights. The fact that you could later give those rights away assumes you have something to give

Yep.

Lots of declarations as to this, but little explaination. Plus, this is unclear what you claim. If their is one person in the world, why would that person have a concept of "ownership?" Everything is available for his use anyway, right? This goes back to an examination of what particular rights exist before and after "ownership." Yes, these rights are related to the land, but what are these rights?

If you have questions about ownership and land, please visit your local real-estate agent, I'm sure they can settle it out for you. The "one person" analogy is false because it is a situation that will not ever happen.

The point has to do with the stated principle "initiation of force is never justified." I'm contending that individual property rights derive from such force, so a doctrine that seeks to protect those rights by way of that stated principle is a bit unfair.

So? Who says life has to be fair?

he original point was more along the lines of a situation where by no ill means person A winds up "owning" all available resources, leaving person B with no chance of survival absent dealing with person A. Is there a libertarian principle that limits what demands person A can make of person B in exchange for what B needs to survive?

I dunno and I don't really care, it's a hypothetical situation that doesn't demand a solution.

Or can A demand anything he wants from A, including what would be a voluntary contract amounting to virtual slavery, seeing B's only other option is death? In effect, does person A have the right of life or death over B?

A false analogy based on a situation that doesn't exist. Your analogy suggests that ANY capitalism is inherently "evil". I don't agree.

Ants have a perfect anarchistic society. There is absolutely nothing you can remotely call 'socialistic'.

Your description of ants is flawed, ants don't have a choice in what they do. They do their job because if they don't, they are killed by the rest of the ants or die because they are not self sufficient. They do have an official that governs them, it's the queen. It is the perfect socialistic sytem, everything they do is to ensure survival of their society and to protect-serve the queen.

Since the Libertarians oppose any regulation of the workplace, the employer is free to abuse his servants any way he sees fit. Call you what you want, I call it slavery.

ANY regulation of the workplace? LOL. This is a huge strawman.

[Cain]

Originally posted by Tormac
Cain explained


[quote]I never implied otherwise. In fact I have been in debate with Libertarians defending the notion that anarcho-syndacalism was not a false libertarianism. I’ve heard the argument flow both ways. That ararcho-socialism, and syndicalism has a longer history than Libertarianism was never at issue, what was at issue was your use of the word “fake”, implying that the Libertarian party does not desire a libertarian form of government.

There you go again inserting the Libertarian Party where it does not belong. A Libertarian is a member of a political party just as a Democrat is a member of a political party. Democrats are not necessarily democrats anymore than Libertarians are libertarians. Understand?*

That's a first level distinction.

Now for a second level distinction between libertarians and pretend libertarians ("libertarians"). This one is more contentious and open to debate. Historically libertarianism has been associated with leftist anarchists. Indisputable. Now, I recognize that words change, evolve over time (or devolve as the case may be). Fine. That's sort of the purpose of this thread. Political structures and institutions, a libertarian is essentially a person who believes in individual freedom. The libertarianism associated with capitalism has been shown wanting. It's purely negative conception of liberty is inconsistent with freedom of action.

(Libertarianism is also a metaphysical doctrine).


Cain latter wrote

[quote]For the state of people to be at each other’s throats in no way implies a balance of power.

Imagine two people literally at each other's throat. They're attacking each other simultaneously. The figuartive meaning implies back and forth squabbling. As demonstrated a number of times already, this "libertarian" would not have contentious bickering. There's clearly a master-slave relationship (which is anti-libertarian)

In the real world there is never a “balance of power”. Sometimes those who look strong are over thrown by those who look weak, and vice versa. Is there ever a state of equality in man? Some people are born rich, some are born poor, and some are stillborn. There is never a balance of power.

And, again, I never for a moment suggested that we are born into a state of equality. A just society strives to balance power.

The idea of enslaving human beings, or using coercion and the threat of violence to force someone to come to is certainly not an orthodox value of the Libertarian Party, nor the Libertarian writers. If I am following you, you imply that although I do not smoke pot personaly, but think that it should be legalized, and adults should have the right to smoke it if the choose, I would not object to others using the threat of coercion to abuse the rights of others. (emphasis added)

This is completly loaded. Of course I do not believe you advocate the freedom of a person to "abuse the rights of others." I want to know what rights, if any, the island scenario abuses? Shanek, if he decides not to accept the terms of the contract, has not been coerced.

I hope I am misunderstanding you, as, to be blunt, it is rather insulting. If you can show me an instance of a prominent Libertarian author who suggests this, I would be curious to read it. As I pointed out in previous threads orthodox Libertarianism dose not hold that everyone is a king on his own piece of land.

The argument is a reductio ad absurdum. Of course no Libertarian writer advocates this sick scenaro -- I hope nobody does. But it does follow from so-called libertarian premises of non-interference and free-contract.

Take for example a common argument against animal rights. The comical (self-mocking) reply is: "think about the corn! Oh no, there's a potato holocaust taking place right now!" Or other arguments that point out killing insects is absurd, therefore (non-human) animal rights is absurd. Fine, fine. If advocates claimed all living organisms have rights, then yes, it's been shown to be absurd. So of course it would be rather difficult to find a prominent animal liberationist who says killing insects is morally wicked.

Shanek keeps crying straw man. As I habitually point out, we should always be suspicious of someone who squeals straw man on this forum. How is the island hypothetical a straw man? Now, if Shanek was captured by terrorists and dropped on the beach, sure, there'd be no argument that human agents consciously interfered in his life, and that's obviously inconsistent with (fake) libertarianism. But he came upon an island claimed by Suddenly. Now, maybe you can argue that Suddenly didn't acquire the island properly. Maybe he didn't intermix his labor with the land sufficiently for it to become his. I dunno. I've been asking fake libertarians for years how people justly acquire land. The silence so far has been remarkable.

Maybe you can argue Shanek is a victim of circumstances, and other these truly dire and desperate conditions, the island owner *owes* Shanek life-supporting materials. Oh wait, that's a positive obligation that lies outside our (pretend) libertarian understanding of (negative) freedom. Worse, it implies rich people in rich countries owe money and resources to poor people in poor countries -- and we can't have any of that!.

The Libertarian party is defiantly in favor of property rights, but they are not in favor of some nuevo feudalism.

I fail to see how the scenario is at all feudalistic. Well, I guess it's feudalistic in so far that capitalism is feudalistic. Again, though, I'm not sure what the LP has to do with this.

We're having a philosophical discussion; leave party politics out of this.

*Milton Friedman is a (capitalist-i.e fake) libertarian as well as a Republican.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by shanek

He's not. But he IS initiating force if he tries to stop the farmer from doing what he's been doing all along.
No, Bob is just using defensive force to prevent Adam from interfering with his property rights. Adam is initiating the force by stinking up the air to the extent that Bob's house is unliveable. That is the initiation of the force - Bob is just defending himself.

Are you saying that you can initiate force as long as you were there first? Isn't that just a justification of the initiation of force - something that you claim is never justified?

So, which is it - is Adam's initiation of force justified, and therefore an exception to the libertarian rule that has no exceptions, or does Adam have to move his mushroom farm?

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
What rights exactly? What rights do you now have you didn't have before?

The right to build on that land, to occupy that land. The same rights you have if you buy real-estate today.

And those rights are... What I'm saying is that you could have built on or occupied that land without owning it. You just couldn't exclude others from doing likewise. "Possession" and "ownership" are related but distict concepts. You can possess and not own as well as own and not possess.[/B]

Why is that necessary or significant? Before ownership they had the same right to use that land as you do. That they didn't do so at that time, even if the case, changes what exactly?

Ownership.

[/B] What we have here is a failure to communicate. What does ownership mean? Can you break it down into particular rights? I can. I'm not asking because I don't know. My knowledege of property law theory is quite vast, as it was an particular interest of mine in law school. I'm just curious how others view the concept. It seems to me exclusion is an essential element of what we call ownership, but that comes from hundreds of hours of study of law and legal history on the topic.

In other words, you now have superior title and claim. You use it as you see fit, and that can include renting it.

Yep.

This is part of "use." I'm trying not to type for days so I'm using terms. Use in a legal sense means the right to do what you please. You have as a declaration of ownership assumed those rights. The fact that you could later give those rights away assumes you have something to give

Yep.

Lots of declarations as to this, but little explaination. Plus, this is unclear what you claim. If their is one person in the world, why would that person have a concept of "ownership?" Everything is available for his use anyway, right? This goes back to an examination of what particular rights exist before and after "ownership." Yes, these rights are related to the land, but what are these rights?

If you have questions about ownership and land, please visit your local real-estate agent, I'm sure they can settle it out for you. The "one person" analogy is false because it is a situation that will not ever happen. It is a philosophical illustration. Plus, it is in the realm of possibility, just unlikely.

Also, this whole point was in response to an earlier claim that there can be a concept of ownership involving no other people. My point, simply stated was that exclusion is essential to ownership. Without some right to exclude, is ownership not meaningless?

Plus, most real estate agents I know are not versed in the detail of property rights theory. They mainly just sell property and when it gets sticky they tend to use lawyers. This isn't a question of deeds and the like, it's the core question of where does all that come from.

The point has to do with the stated principle "initiation of force is never justified." I'm contending that individual property rights derive from such force, so a doctrine that seeks to protect those rights by way of that stated principle is a bit unfair.

So? Who says life has to be fair? Context of the thread. How can "no initiation of force" be a legitimate statement of morality when it is used to protect rights obtained through conduct violating that principle. Call it fairness, consistency, logical basis, whatever.

he original point was more along the lines of a situation where by no ill means person A winds up "owning" all available resources, leaving person B with no chance of survival absent dealing with person A. Is there a libertarian principle that limits what demands person A can make of person B in exchange for what B needs to survive?

I dunno and I don't really care, it's a hypothetical situation that doesn't demand a solution. Your direct approach of evasiveness is refreshing. Radical Inequity of bargaining power is a big problem that libertarians can't really answer directly, and it becomes worse when death is a possible outcome.

Or can A demand anything he wants from A, including what would be a voluntary contract amounting to virtual slavery, seeing B's only other option is death? In effect, does person A have the right of life or death over B?

A false analogy based on a situation that doesn't exist. Your analogy suggests that ANY capitalism is inherently "evil". I don't agree. [/B] Your words imply that you have no problem with A's power to demand, but that it really doesn't matter much because you doubt that situation would ever come up in real life. That is a fair statement. I never suggested anything about capitalism being "evil."

Market forces are like gravity, they are morally neutral. This doesn't make everything that happens due to either force automatically good. Sometimes the results are not pretty, when one jumps off a cliff or where extreme inequities in bargaining power exist. My hypothetical only exists in a legal enviroment that doesn't allow for any interference in the "free market" in extreme situations.


(The rest of your post refered to someone else, so I snipped it)

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
Without any others ownership is impossible as their are no other people to exclude. There must be at least two people in the world.

That wasn't what I meant by "without any others" and you know it.

"Siezing" of property is only force when someone owns the property previously and doesn't give it up through a voluntary arrangement, such as selling it. The first person to take ownership isn't initiating force against anybody because there isn't any previous owner to initiate force against.

[shanek]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
No, as usual you don't. Which is sad, actually. One would think you could at least get that right. Read the following, it was written by a Libertarian that does understand it:

The Libertarian Case for Slavery

Hoo boy...

J Philmore is a literary fiction, along with his antagonist Allcraft. Neither one of them ever existed. They were meant to portray two extreme sides of the slavery movement, and the book Two Dialogues on the Man-Trade (published in 1760, BTW) was written from Philmore's POV and in his name. But there was no such person.

I'm not surprised that a known liar like you would try to portray a literary fiction from 1760 as a modern Libertarian. You are beneath all contempt.

No I was not,

See the part I quoted.

No,

Yes. You stopped me from speaking unless I was spoken to and from having anything to do with visitors on the island other than in a subservient fashion.

And that's without even getting into the fact that I only entered this agreement under duress!

Voluntarily. In the free market of Libertania.

You're the government of Libertania, moron!

Are you aware some Libertarians are trying to get the charter amended to specifically prohibit slavery? And the LP won't allow it?

I've been going to every Libertarian convention for the last seven years. I've been on the Platform Committee. This is the first I've ever heard about it.

[shanek]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
Except the US constitution had to be amended to make slavery illegal.

Once again, you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.

The only part codified in the initial Constitution that had anything to do with slavery was the clause allowing for the Fugitive Slave Laws. Meaning that a slave couldn't gain his freedom just by escaping to a free state. That was repealed with the 13th Amendment, but that wasn't what stopped slavery.

What stopped slavery was the fact that the 13th Amendment made it so that the STATES could not hold people to involuntary servitude (BTW, note the word "involuntary" there?). Slavery was a state, not a Federal, institution.

[shanek]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
Since the Libertarians oppose any regulation of the workplace, the employer is free to abuse his servants any way he sees fit.

This is another one of your pathetic LIES. Employers CANNOT abuse their employees. It's called "assault." It would still be just as illegal under a Libertarian government as it is under the current one.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Thanz

No, Bob is just using defensive force to prevent Adam from interfering with his property rights. Adam is initiating the force by stinking up the air to the extent that Bob's house is unliveable. That is the initiation of the force - Bob is just defending himself.

How can that be, since the situation already existed when Bob purchased the property? It's like getting into a ring with Mike Tyson and then whining because he hit you!

Are you saying that you can initiate force as long as you were there first?

I'm saying that, by purchasing the property, Bob agreed voluntarily to the current arrangement.

Adam is NOT initiating force.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
What I'm saying is that you could have built on or occupied that land without owning it. You just couldn't exclude others from doing likewise. "Possession" and "ownership" are related but distict concepts. You can possess and not own as well as own and not possess.

If you don't own it, what's to stop someone else from kicking you off of it?

This is the situation we're in today...they can kick you off your land forceably for non-payment of property taxes...they can take it by declaring Eminent Domain...they can take it through Asset Forfieture (where the property itself, not you, is accused of the crime, declared guilty, and confiscated, no trial)...so really, the situation we're in now, we're just possessing the land. The government is declaring ownership of it effectively.

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by shanek
I'm not surprised that a known liar like you would try to portray a literary fiction from 1760 as a modern Libertarian. You are beneath all contempt.I hope I won't get lumped with the likes of EvilYeti, but I'll just say this:
There is absolutely no way the article EvilYeti linked to was written in 1760, as it specifically mentions later dates and even 'post-war Japan'.

Wouldn't be surprised if it still was fiction though.Employers CANNOT abuse their employees. It's called "assault." It would still be just as illegal under a Libertarian government as it is under the current one.Again, I don't agree with EvilYeti's arguments or tactics, so I'll just ask this: don't you think there should be common standards to what constitutes "assault" or "abuse", and if so, don't you think such standards are best defined by elected representatives?

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek


That wasn't what I meant by "without any others" and you know it. !? This is why I clarified. That was what I meant, that exclusion is impossible without anyone to exclude. Not too big of a deal, but I wanted to make sure we were on the same page.

"Siezing" of property is only force when someone owns the property previously and doesn't give it up through a voluntary arrangement, such as selling it. Before a piece of land is owned everone has the right to use. Ownership takes that right from all but the owner, with no consent.

The first person to take ownership isn't initiating force against anybody because there isn't any previous owner to initiate force against.

Read the last sentence again. You are defending an assertion of right based on being the first to assert that right. This assumes the assertion of the right is justified it itself, in effect saying the right to exclude is justified because someone else didn't exclude you first. This doesn't touch upon the central question of how it is justified to exclude in the first place. Isn't this where you make some kind of labor mixing with land argument or something?

[Thanz]

Originally posted by shanek


How can that be, since the situation already existed when Bob purchased the property? It's like getting into a ring with Mike Tyson and then whining because he hit you!
It doesn't matter if the situation already existed. Adam has been initiating force over Bob's property the entire time. The fact that no one complained before does not mean that Adam has not been initiating force over the property.

Also, it is definitely not like stepping into a ring with mike tyson, but if you want to go with that analogy, you need to make it fair. If it is like stepping into the ring, then it is like stepping into the ring as a trainer or ref - you do not expect to get hit by mike as a ref, do you?

A better analogy is taking a walk alone through a bad neighbourhood at night. You know that it is a bad neighbourhood and that something might happen. But if you get mugged, isn't the mugger initiating force? Is he not initiating force even if it is known that he mugs everyone who walks by a particular corner?

Simply, it doesn't matter if Adam was polluting Bob's property before he bought it. He didn't have a right to pollute it then, either. Bob's property rights are being violated by Adam. He didn't consent to the violation by buying the property.

I'm saying that, by purchasing the property, Bob agreed voluntarily to the current arrangement.
I am saying that this is 100% false. Where is that consent? You can't assume the consent of someone to the violation of their property rights, simply because the previous owner may have consented (or not complained).

If someone decided that they were going to cut through your yard every day, do you have a right to stop them? Does that right change if the person you bought the house from did not have a problem with the guy cutting through his yard?
Adam is NOT initiating force.
He obviously is, and has been for some time. Your insistence that he isn't only shows that you use the concept of "initiation of force" to justify whatever other preconceived property rights notions you have - and that as a guide, it seems unreliable.

Let's say that Adam stops mushroom farming for 3 months, then starts again. Is he now initiating force?

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek


If you don't own it, what's to stop someone else from kicking you off of it?

This is the situation we're in today...they can kick you off your land forceably for non-payment of property taxes...they can take it by declaring Eminent Domain...they can take it through Asset Forfieture (where the property itself, not you, is accused of the crime, declared guilty, and confiscated, no trial)...so really, the situation we're in now, we're just possessing the land. The government is declaring ownership of it effectively.


Peaceful possession can be justified on some principle other than "no initiation of force," and it has to be because (by my contention) possession cannot be justified under that principle, because it without consent eliminates the rights of others. Thats the whole argument. There must be some other principle that justifies peaceful possesion of property (not just real property) that is needed to survive.

This isn't an argument against property ownership per se, I just can't see how the principle of not initiating force allows for "ownership" or I guess even "possession" exclusive of others.

Plus, did you catch my property law thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27283&highlight=All+property+belongs+to+the+state)? I gave it kind of a weird title. It is a semi-tongue-in-cheek argument that based on the evolution of the property law we have today from common law, perhaps government does possess an ownership interest in all property.

Plus, for asset forfieture there is a trial, just not a criminal trial with all the protections that would afford, but a civil trial where the assets are alleged to be fruits or instrumentalities of a crime which should be forfieted to the state by law. In theory it makes sense (at least to the principle that an illegal act should not convey respectable title to property), but it has been abused to a rather absurd degree lately, particularly in drug cases.

[thaiboxerken]

Sounds like we have a bunch of hippies in here complaining about land ownership.

[Tormac]

Hi Cain, I'm on my luch brake, so I'll have to try to follow up this after noon (I'm pressed for time :) ), but when you asked
There you go again inserting the Libertarian Party where it does not belong. A Libertarian is a member of a political party just as a Democrat is a member of a political party. Democrats are not necessarily democrats anymore than Libertarians are libertarians. Understand?*

I have to admit Cain either I am not following you, or I think I understand what you are saying, but it seems irrelevant. I agree that the use of the word “Libertarian” is not equivalent to the word “libertarian”. Maybe I am missing something, or maybe you are reading something into my statement that I did not intend. When I said

never implied otherwise. In fact I have been in debate with Libertarians defending the notion that anarcho-syndacalism was not a false libertarianism. I’ve heard the argument flow both ways. That ararcho-socialism, and syndicalism has a longer history than Libertarianism was never at issue, what was at issue was your use of the word “fake”, implying that the Libertarian party does not desire a libertarian form of government.

I was very specific in my usage of Libertarian and libertarian in the quote of mine that you posted. Every time I used the word "Libertarian" I meant Libertarian. Every time I used the word "libertarian" I meant libertarian. I do not understand where you came to a differing understanding of my usage. Are we disagreeing on the use of "libertarian"? I am using it in the common sense (i.e. what dictionary.com would provide). I am beginning to see that you are using it as a specific form of jargon. Is that correct? (shrug)

I have a feeling that quite often you and I are using words very differently. Such as when you claimed

fail to see how the scenario is at all feudalistic. Well, I guess it's feudalistic in so far that capitalism is feudalistic.

I am baffled at how any one can claim that a command economy where the means of production owned and controlled by an oligarch representing the state is somehow embedded in capitalism. (i.e. capitalism is feudalistic.) I have heard others claim that feudalism is capitalistic (although feudalism seems much closer of an authoritarian version of syndacalistic socialism). But I have never heard of anyone claiming that capitalism is feudalistic.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Earthborn
I hope I won't get lumped with the likes of EvilYeti, but I'll just say this:
There is absolutely no way the article EvilYeti linked to was written in 1760, as it specifically mentions later dates and even 'post-war Japan'.

I didn't read the exact article he linked to; I just read the name and the title and remembered it. It's possible someone updated it, but the objection still stands.

Again, I don't agree with EvilYeti's arguments or tactics, so I'll just ask this: don't you think there should be common standards to what constitutes "assault" or "abuse", and if so, don't you think such standards are best defined by elected representatives?

Yes, and yes, as long as everything is done in accordance to the principles of due process, innocent until proven guilty, adversarial representation in a fair and speedy public trial by a jury of one's peers, etc.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
This doesn't touch upon the central question of how it is justified to exclude in the first place.

Because that isn't the central question at all. The central question is whether or not this constitutes an initiation of force; clearly, it doesn't.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Thanz

It doesn't matter if the situation already existed. Adam has been initiating force over Bob's property the entire time. The fact that no one complained before does not mean that Adam has not been initiating force over the property.

The force would have been there before Bob taking the property, though. Are you really saying that you have the right to move into a piece of property next to an airport and then turn around and make the airport stop flying all those noisy planes?

If it is like stepping into the ring, then it is like stepping into the ring as a trainer or ref

No, it isn't, because that isn't at all the relationship between Bob and Adam.

The airport analogy is the best. Do you have the right to shut down the airport?

I am saying that this is 100% false. Where is that consent?

The consent came with the purchase of the property. He probably got that property at a much lower price than it ordinarily would have gone for, just like property around airports is generally cheaper. He knew there was a mushroom farm there. He specifically bought land next to a mushroom farm. If he had had any objections to living next to a mushroom farm, he shouldn't have bought the property in the first place.

If someone decided that they were going to cut through your yard every day, do you have a right to stop them? Does that right change if the person you bought the house from did not have a problem with the guy cutting through his yard?

Oh, come on! There is every bit of difference between a new activity, even if that activity is a repitition of a previous one, and an ongoing situation!

Do you have a right to shut down the airport?

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek


Because that isn't the central question at all. The central question is whether or not this constitutes an initiation of force; clearly, it doesn't.

So if you can cross a field today, and tommorow I claim the right to exclude you from doing so, with force if necessary, I'm not initiating force against you?

[Thanz]

Originally posted by shanek

The force would have been there before Bob taking the property, though.
So what? Why does that matter? Either you have a right to make all of the property around yours unfit for human occupation or you don't. Which is it? Does Adam have the right to pollute the air all around him or not?

Are you really saying that you have the right to move into a piece of property next to an airport and then turn around and make the airport stop flying all those noisy planes?
Let's not go changing the example. An airport is a public undertaking and as such has certain public policy protections and arguments. We are dealing with a dispute between two private landowners, which is different.

The consent came with the purchase of the property. He probably got that property at a much lower price than it ordinarily would have gone for, just like property around airports is generally cheaper.
If he got it for cheaper, that just shows that Adam was violating the rights of the previous owner as well. Adam either has the right to pollute other people's land or he doesn't. Which is it?

He knew there was a mushroom farm there. He specifically bought land next to a mushroom farm. If he had had any objections to living next to a mushroom farm, he shouldn't have bought the property in the first place.
And if I didn't want to get mugged, I shouldn't have walked through the bad neighbourhood at night. It doesn't imply consent to having my rights violated. The mushroom farm either violates the property rights of those around it or it doesn't. Timing is irrelevant. Bob is just peacefully sitting on his porch when the obnoxious odour assaults his nostrils and drops him ot his knees, vomiting violently. But Adam is not initiating force? Bah.

Oh, come on! There is every bit of difference between a new activity, even if that activity is a repitition of a previous one, and an ongoing situation!
But Adam doesn't have a right to that ongoing situation. The fact that others have not complained is irrelevant. He is still violating their property rights. Unless you think that you have to complain in order to maintain your property rights?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
So if you can cross a field today, and tommorow I claim the right to exclude you from doing so, with force if necessary, I'm not initiating force against you?

Not if it's your property. It's your choice to let him, it's your choice not to. But again, that has nothing to do with Thanz's hypothetical.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Thanz
Let's not go changing the example.

Oh, apparently you're the only one allowed to do that... :rolleyes:

It's the exact same thing.

An airport is a public undertaking and as such has certain public policy protections and arguments.

Are you saying you would have the right to do so against a private airport?

If he got it for cheaper, that just shows that Adam was violating the rights of the previous owner as well.

That is just so desperate...


But Adam doesn't have a right to that ongoing situation. The fact that others have not complained is irrelevant. He is still violating their property rights. Unless you think that you have to complain in order to maintain your property rights?

So, what, nobody is allowed to eat mushrooms because of Bob's problem with the land he bought, knowing full well its situation at the time? If you disagree with that and think people should be able to have mushrooms, then where do you propose the mushroom farm be? And what's to stop someone else moving in next door to where it is now and forging him to move again?

Your problem is you're so focused on Bob's "rights" that you don't see Adam's.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek


Not if it's your property. It's your choice to let him, it's your choice not to. But again, that has nothing to do with Thanz's hypothetical.

Turtles all the way down? This has nothing to do with Thanz, so maybe you are answering in a context I'm not getting, but I'll try again:

The way the property becomes "mine" is by excluding you, or by at least insisting you need my permission to enter. I say this act of exclusion is an act of force. You say it isn't. I ask why. You then say "because it's your land."

I am asking about the very act that makes land into "my land", its that simple.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by shanek


Oh, apparently you're the only one allowed to do that... :rolleyes:

It's the exact same thing.
No, it isn't. And when did I change this example? I just wanted to talk about something other than you being a slave on a deserted island, which, I think you agree, is completely different from our discussion.

That is just so desperate...
In what way is it desperate? It is demonstrably true.

So, what, nobody is allowed to eat mushrooms because of Bob's problem with the land he bought, knowing full well its situation at the time?
Adam is suddenly the only source for mushrooms? And you think MY arguments are desperate?
If you disagree with that and think people should be able to have mushrooms, then where do you propose the mushroom farm be? And what's to stop someone else moving in next door to where it is now and forging him to move again?
I don't care where he puts the mushroom farm. Perhaps he should buy enough land so that he is not a nuisance to his neighbours. Perhaps he should invest in other technology to minimize the smell.

Your problem is you're so focused on Bob's "rights" that you don't see Adam's.
No, your problem is that you are too focussed on "I was there first".

But, since you have brought up Adam's rights, let's note that you have not answered the central question: Does Adam have the right to pollute the air and affect the enjoyment of all of the property around him that he does not own? Yes or no. Does Adam have the right to do this?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
The way the property becomes "mine" is by excluding you, or by at least insisting you need my permission to enter. I say this act of exclusion is an act of force. You say it isn't.

No, I don't. I say it's not an initiation of force.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Thanz

No, it isn't.

Yes, it is! Wanting an airport to move because you don't like the noise is exactly the same as wanting a mushroom farm to move because you don't like the fumes!

And when did I change this example?

When you claimed that Adam didn't have a right to pollute the property before Bob got there. You didn't say anything about that initially, leading one to the obvious conclusion that Adam had had the permission of the previous landowner to do so.

In what way is it desperate? It is demonstrably true.

No, it isn't! In NO WAY does the price of the land have ANYTHING to do with whether or not Adam was initiating force on anybody. It only had to do with how many people were willing to pay a certain amount of money to move in next to a mushroom farm.

Adam is suddenly the only source for mushrooms?

They've gotta be grown somewhere! If Bob can stop Adam from growing mushrooms, then anyone can be stopped from growing mushrooms.

Why can't you see that you're trying to argue in favor of a NIMBY attitude?

I don't care where he puts the mushroom farm.

No matter where he puts it, someone can always move next door and complain.

Perhaps he should buy enough land so that he is not a nuisance to his neighbours.

And if his farm doesn't generate enough revenues for him to do so?

Perhaps he should invest in other technology to minimize the smell.

Ditto. Either way, you're making it much more difficult if not impossible to do business.

But, since you have brought up Adam's rights, let's note that you have not answered the central question: Does Adam have the right to pollute the air and affect the enjoyment of all of the property around him that he does not own? Yes or no. Does Adam have the right to do this?

It's not a "yes" or "no" question because it depends on the conditions of whether or not he does so with the consent of the property owner, which is exactly the part you keep changing!

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek


No, I don't. I say it's not an initiation of force.

Are you saying that it is an act of force, only not an initiation of force? If so, how in the world can you possible justify that? What the heck is an initiation of force if not an unprovoked act of force against another?


Can you justify the distinction between "an act of force" and "an initiation of force" in this context?

Remember, I said: The way the property becomes "mine" is by excluding you, or by at least insisting you need my permission to enter. I say this act of exclusion is an act of force. You say it isn't.

This is the statement where you found a difference between the two terms. Was there a substance to your objection, or are you just being difficult?

[Occasional Chemist]

Originally posted by shanek


Yes, it is! Wanting an airport to move because you don't like the noise is exactly the same as wanting a mushroom farm to move because you don't like the fumes!



I think the point is that in either case, the new owner's property is being polluted (noise, toxic fumes, etc.) Does the new owner not have the right to require that the airport's/farm's toxic fumes not go all over his property? In short, can any property owner do what he likes on his land without regard to the consequences of others? You say "what about the rights of the farmer/airport owner?" The other side of the coin is - does the new homeowner not have the right to have his land habitable?

Also, turn the situation around. Someone buys the land next to my dream house and wants to open up the mushroom farm there. Does he still have the right to do so?

When you claimed that Adam didn't have a right to pollute the property before Bob got there. You didn't say anything about that initially, leading one to the obvious conclusion that Adam had had the permission of the previous landowner to do so.


But Bob didn't grant that right. You saying that the new owner of a land is bound to any agreements made by the previous owner? Sounds like a restriction of property rights to me.


They've gotta be grown somewhere! If Bob can stop Adam from growing mushrooms, then anyone can be stopped from growing mushrooms.

Why can't you see that you're trying to argue in favor of a NIMBY attitude?


I still don't see where the farmer has the right to continue polluting Bob's land. He has no agreement with Bob.


No matter where he puts it, someone can always move next door and complain.


Zoning can give Adam a place for his farm. :)

[Thanz]

Originally posted by shanek
When you claimed that Adam didn't have a right to pollute the property before Bob got there. You didn't say anything about that initially, leading one to the obvious conclusion that Adam had had the permission of the previous landowner to do so.
Permission of the previous landowner is irrelevant, just as it was irrelevant if the guy you bought your house from let the neighbourhood kids cut though the property. Once you acquire the property you have the right to put an end to it (most of the time). Also, I said that the land was vacant and no one complained. Lack of complaints does not mean permission.

No, it isn't! In NO WAY does the price of the land have ANYTHING to do with whether or not Adam was initiating force on anybody. It only had to do with how many people were willing to pay a certain amount of money to move in next to a mushroom farm.
The reason it would be cheaper is because of Adam's interference with the property rights of his neighbours.

Why can't you see that you're trying to argue in favor of a NIMBY attitude?
I am arguing in favour of a regime that does not allow you to affect the property rights of your neighbours. One that says you are responsible for the noxious fumes that escape from your property. One that says you do not have a right to be nuisance. I thought libertarians agreed with these concepts.

No matter where he puts it, someone can always move next door and complain.
One of the reasons that I like zoning controls. But of course, in Libertopia, there is no zoning.

And if his farm doesn't generate enough revenues for him to do so?

Ditto. Either way, you're making it much more difficult if not impossible to do business.
If you cannot run your business without taking away my property rights, that's too damn bad for you. How does this justify his initation of force?

It's not a "yes" or "no" question because it depends on the conditions of whether or not he does so with the consent of the property owner, which is exactly the part you keep changing!
I do not keep changing that. Bob is not consenting - that is where the conflict comes from. What kind of an example would it be if I said that Bob moved in next door, but he is fine with the odour? sheesh.

You are just avoiding the question. I can always consent to give up some or all of my property rights to another. My question is, once again: Does Adam have the right to pollute the air and affect the enjoyment of all of the property around him that he does not own? Yes or no. Does Adam have the right to do this? Can he do it without the explicit consent of the other property owners?

[DanishDynamite]

Suddenly:Was there a substance to your objection, or are you just being difficult? I would think the answer is obvious by now. It is simply impossible for shanek to answer your question regarding how property rights aren't ultimately based on an initiation of force. This is, afterall, one of the basic unanswered questions of libertarianism.

shanek's constant evasion is a good example of why I'm not a libertarian. It is the fanatism. They have distilled the complexity of interactions betweeen humans into 2 or 3 ultimate rules and fanatically defend these rules like creationists. The idea that these rules (or principles) might be good rules-of-thumb but perhaps aren't infallible, just isn't an option. They are simply the Truth and must be defended to death.

I'm not comfortable with fanatism, whatever its form. Presumably, a majority of the US population feel likewise (witness the lack of national success by the libs).

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
Are you saying that it is an act of force, only not an initiation of force?

Right. You are defending your property against the initiation of force of others.

If so, how in the world can you possible justify that?

It's not justified? You're honestly saying if I came on your property you wouldn't be within your rights to ask me to leave if you didn't want me there?

This is the statement where you found a difference between the two terms. Was there a substance to your objection, or are you just being difficult?

I could very easily ask this question of you...

[shanek]

Originally posted by Occasional Chemist
I think the point is that in either case, the new owner's property is being polluted (noise, toxic fumes, etc.) Does the new owner not have the right to require that the airport's/farm's toxic fumes not go all over his property? In short, can any property owner do what he likes on his land without regard to the consequences of others?

The latter is NOT an "in short" version of the former. There is a difference between that and agreeing to a situation by purchasing the land and then complaining about what you got yourself into.

The property owner can do what he likes on his own land as long as it does not constitute an initiation of force or fraud against others. I have already explained several times why Thanz's hypothetical does not count as such.

You say "what about the rights of the farmer/airport owner?" The other side of the coin is - does the new homeowner not have the right to have his land habitable?

So does the landowner have the right to shut down the airport? Why does no one want to answer that question?

Also, turn the situation around. Someone buys the land next to my dream house and wants to open up the mushroom farm there. Does he still have the right to do so?

No. Do you really not see the distinction?

But Bob didn't grant that right.

He did when he purchased the property. If he had had a problem with the situation, he should have done something about it before the purchase.

You saying that the new owner of a land is bound to any agreements made by the previous owner?

I'm saying that the act of purchasing the land means you are in agreement to the current situation that land is in.

Sounds like a restriction of property rights to me.

Because you refuse to understand what I'm talking about.

Zoning can give Adam a place for his farm.

Until his neighbors get together and lobby the board to rezone the area.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Thanz

Permission of the previous landowner is irrelevant, just as it was irrelevant if the guy you bought your house from let the neighbourhood kids cut though the property. Once you acquire the property you have the right to put an end to it (most of the time). Also, I said that the land was vacant and no one complained. Lack of complaints does not mean permission.

NONE OF THAT MATTERS!!! WHY DON'T YOU GET THAT???? He KNEW the farm was there when he bought the land! If he had had a problem with living next to a mushroom farm, he shouldn't have bought the land in the first place!


The reason it would be cheaper is because of Adam's interference with the property rights of his neighbours.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with anything.


I am arguing in favour of a regime that does not allow you to affect the property rights of your neighbours. One that says you are responsible for the noxious fumes that escape from your property. One that says you do not have a right to be nuisance. I thought libertarians agreed with these concepts.

So, then you SHOULD be allowed to shut down that airport?

I'm not going to answer any more of your questions until you answer that one.

[roger]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
... of why I'm not a libertarian. It is the fanatism. They have distilled the complexity of interactions betweeen humans into 2 or 3 ultimate rules and fanatically defend these rules like creationists. The idea that these rules (or principles) might be good rules-of-thumb but perhaps aren't infallible, just isn't an option. They are simply the Truth and must be defended to death.
This is what has always turned me off about Libertarianism. For any given social/governmental policy I can think of both benefits and downsides for it. For example, I am mildly Democrat, and don't agree with some of the party platforms of the Republican party, but I do recognize that somebody can weigh concerns different than me and thus prefer different policies. Yet it seems that whenever I hear a Libertarian stating how things should be their argument is always based on the assumption that their principles must be the right ones.

I particularly find their assumptions about how people would behave in a given situation highly surreal, in that history shows that people do not behave w/ enlightened self interest.
Shanek's statement that he would not be made a slave on Suddenly's island floored me, as it ignored thousands of years of history to the contrary. If someone has absolute authority over property, and controls another's existance, slavery can and does flourish, regardless of the potential slave's labor value.

So I end up not taking it very seriously, though I do like some of the concepts (responsibility for self).

[shanek]

Here's a very good example of why zoning is an initiation of force.

Until about a year ago, you couldn't purchase alcohol anywhere within the county lines (except in the city of Lincolnton, which operates under different rules). Last year, the citizens of Lincoln County adopted four separate referenda allowing the sale of alcohol, from ABC (government liquor) stores, to sale of beer and wine in supermarkets, to liquor-by-the-drink in bars and restaurants.

This last April, a man wanted to open a restaurant along an area of the new US 321 that was on an exit; a prime spot for such a business. Small problem: the land must be rezoned. The planning board approved the rezoning unanimously. But at the Commissioner's meeting (and yes, I was there) one lady got up and started going on and on about how he could sell alcohol and she didn't want to dirve by that place and have her kids see it. As a result, the Commissioners denied the rezoning request 4-1. Don't believe me? See for yourself in their official, approved minutes:

http://www.lincolncounty.org/PdfFiles/Minutes/min042103.pdf

On page 13 of the PDF file:

Zoning Map Amendment No. 452 – Kenneth Carpenter, applicant: Randy Hawkins, Zoning Administrator, stated that the Planning Board voted 8 – 0 to recommend approval.

There was a discussion about the fact that a grill could be put on the property with alcoholic beverage sales if this rezoning was approved. Chairman Cochrane stated that the 2 items that were mentioned in the public hearing were traffic and alcoholic beverage sales. He stated that he doesn’t think the Board can do anything about either of these.

Jessie Ruff spoke against the rezoning.

A MOTION by Commissioner Craig to deny Zoning Map Amendment No. 452 – Kenneth Carpenter. VOTE: 4 – 1 AYES: Craig, Anderson, Mitchem, Funderburk NOES: Cochrane

So they abrogated not only Carpenter's property rights but the will of the people to boot. What's the point of voting to approve liquor sales in restaurants if the Commissioners can come along anytime they want and zone your rights away?

If you want another example, just let me know and I'll be glad to tell you why they won't let me have a gutter on the side of my house.

[shanek]

Originally posted by roger
I particularly find their assumptions about how people would behave in a given situation highly surreal, in that history shows that people do not behave w/ enlightened self interest.
Shanek's statement that he would not be made a slave on Suddenly's island floored me, as it ignored thousands of years of history to the contrary. If someone has absolute authority over property, and controls another's existance, slavery can and does flourish, regardless of the potential slave's labor value.

Y'know, I can't help thinking that Libertarianism might make more sense to some people if they'd pay attention to what was actually being said instead of throwing their own assumptions into it.

The problem with EvilYeti's (not Suddenly's) example of the island was not that no one takes people as slaves, but that if he were to do so he would not, despite his claims, be running the island under Libertarian principles.

[Ziggurat]

This isn't strictly libertarianism I'm about to address, but more specifically the sort of Ayn Rand-branded libertarianism I've sometimes come across. The thing that troubled me about Rand from reading Atlas Shrugged is the complete and utter lack of any concept of family. In Atlas Shrugged, everyone was either an orphan or estranged from their parents. It's like Rand just couldn't understand the role that family plays in raising normal, healthy members of society. Families require self-sacrifice on the part of the parents. This doesn't just mean some parents, it means all parents. Much of society MUST behave selflessly in order for society to be able to propagate itself. The acknowlegement of this reality was completely lacking in Atlas Shrugged. I don't know what the hell went wrong in her personal life, but Rand has a deeply troubling concept of family relations, and that more than anything else (even the bad writing) put me off of her work. The fact that so many libertarians hold her up as some sort of example doesn't encourage me either.

Just my 2 cents.;)

[Thanz]

Originally posted by shanek

NONE OF THAT MATTERS!!! WHY DON'T YOU GET THAT???? He KNEW the farm was there when he bought the land! If he had had a problem with living next to a mushroom farm, he shouldn't have bought the land in the first place!
You have not demonstrated why prior knowledge of the mushroom farm makes any difference whatsoever. I know that the neighbourhood is bad when I go for the walk - that doesn't mean I consent to being mugged.

So, then you SHOULD be allowed to shut down that airport?
Public? no. Public airport run by private consortium on behalf of government? no. Some guy running an airfield on his own? maybe - it depends on the level of intrusion. It may not have to be completely shut down.

Now, will you FINALLY answer my question? It is central to our discussion, yet you have avoided it like the plague.

Does Adam have the right to pollute the air and affect the enjoyment of all of the property around him that he does not own? Yes or no. Does Adam have the right to do this? Can he do it without the explicit consent of the other property owners?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
This isn't strictly libertarianism I'm about to address, but more specifically the sort of Ayn Rand-branded libertarianism I've sometimes come across.

That's called "objectivism."

[shanek]

Originally posted by Thanz

You have not demonstrated why prior knowledge of the mushroom farm makes any difference whatsoever. I know that the neighbourhood is bad when I go for the walk - that doesn't mean I consent to being mugged.

I have explained the difference several times. The fact that you fail to even acknowledge it strongly suggests a bias on your part and that it's useless to try and discuss this with you.

Public? no. Public airport run by private consortium on behalf of government? no. Some guy running an airfield on his own? maybe - it depends on the level of intrusion. It may not have to be completely shut down.

Are you claiming the airport is initiating force against the property owner? If so, then why isn't the public airport initiating the same force? Or if it is, why is the public airport justified and the private airport isn't?

Does Adam have the right to pollute the air and affect the enjoyment of all of the property around him that he does not own? Yes or no.

Does he have the RIGHT to? No. CAN he with the proper permission? Yes.

Why does Bob have the right to come into a situation and start telling Adam he has to start doing things differently? Why doesn't Bob just get land somewhere else?

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by shanek

The problem with EvilYeti's (not Suddenly's) example of the island was not that no one takes people as slaves, but that if he were to do so he would not, despite his claims, be running the island under Libertarian principles.

Neither you, or anyone else, has shown where in my example any "Libertarian principles" are being violated. Everything is being done voluntarily through free-market transactions.

I'm buying your labor and liberties in exchange for goods and services. Part of the contract sets limits on your freedom of speech and assembly, which you have agreed to. You are free to break the contract by leaving the island anytime.

Again I ask how any of this is at odds with the LP platform?

If you are going to claim I, as an employer, cannot set limits on your liberties as part of a contract in a Libertarian society, then how really "free" is such a society? In our society private institutions are free to place limits on what their employees can do, are you suggesting that freedom is lost in a Libertarian society? If so, how could it even be enforced? Would the Libertarian government FORCE employers to honor employee rights? Would it be illegal to fire employees for saying things damaging to the employer? Inquiring minds want to know.

Its these types of questions, that Libertarians refuse to answer, that turn me off the party.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by shanek

Why does Bob have the right to come into a situation and start telling Adam he has to start doing things differently? Why doesn't Bob just get land somewhere else?

The great Libertarian hyprocrisy. Everyone has equal rights, except some are more equal than others.

Someone should lend these guys a copy of "Animal Farm".

[Occasional Chemist]

Originally posted by shanek
The latter is NOT an "in short" version of the former. There is a difference between that and agreeing to a situation by purchasing the land and then complaining about what you got yourself into.

Sorry, but that doesn't change the fact that the mushroo m farmer IS POLLUTING SOMEONE ELSE'S PROPERTY - without their consent.

It's the equivalent of the farmer throwing his trash into Bob's front yard. Bob owns the land, not the shroom farmer.

By buying the land, Bob has assumed ownership of the land, not any obligation to put up with the stink of the shroom farm.

[qupte]
The property owner can do what he likes on his own land as long as it does not constitute an initiation of force or fraud against others. I have already explained several times why Thanz's hypothetical does not count as such.
[/quote]

Then you haven't explained it adequately. It's particularly unconvincing how you rationalize that since the shroom farmer may or may not have had an agreement with the previous landowner, he somehow does not have to come to an agreement with the new landowner.


So does the landowner have the right to shut down the airport? Why does no one want to answer that question?


I think what we're trying to get you to see is that by this whole "initiation of force" concept, yes the landowner should have the right to shut down the airport. It's polluting his property.

This is the problem with your concept. It's exactly what we're taying to get you to see!


No. Do you really not see the distinction?


The situations both involve polluting someone else's land without the consent of the landowner. I assume you're saying that the only reason the prospective farmer here can't open his new shroom farm is that my dream house existed first.

I have difficulty reconciling the concept of being allowed to pollute someone else's land merely because you've done it before and nobody complained with your assertions about "initiation of force". It seems like if you dump stuff on someone's land (whether the stuff is macro or microscopic makes no difference), it's an "initation of force".


He did when he purchased the property. If he had had a problem with the situation, he should have done something about it before the purchase.

I'm saying that the act of purchasing the land means you are in agreement to the current situation that land is in.

This is what I don't buy - how is it that Bob gets limited use of his property while Adam the shroom farmer enjoys full use of his?


Because you refuse to understand what I'm talking about.

It's not my fault that libertarianism doesn't always make sense. :)


Until his neighbors get together and lobby the board to rezone the area.

Oh well. That's the price you pay for living in a society.

[Suddenly]

My original post:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by shanek


No, I don't. I say it's not an initiation of force.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Are you saying that it is an act of force, only not an initiation of force? If so, how in the world can you possible justify that? What the heck is an initiation of force if not an unprovoked act of force against another?


Can you justify the distinction between "an act of force" and "an initiation of force" in this context?

Remember, I said:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The way the property becomes "mine" is by excluding you, or by at least insisting you need my permission to enter. I say this act of exclusion is an act of force. You say it isn't.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This is the statement where you found a difference between the two terms. Was there a substance to your objection, or are you just being difficult?



You responded:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Suddenly
Are you saying that it is an act of force, only not an initiation of force?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Right. You are defending your property against the initiation of force of others.

If you go back to my original post, and perhaps beyond that, you will see that the "act of force" I am talking about is the act of exclusion itself. You are saying that making a piece of land "mine" is justified by that piece of land being "my land." You are skipping a step for some reason. Why is that land mine? How do I justify ownership to the exclusion of others?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If so, how in the world can you possible justify that?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



It's not justified? You're honestly saying if I came on your property you wouldn't be within your rights to ask me to leave if you didn't want me there?

It is very clear from the paragraph from where you took this I am asking you how you justify making a distinction between "an act of force" and "an initiation" of force when I make a piece of land mine. Not defending it, but when I all of a sudden make the claim that you no longer use a piece of property without my permission. Just in case you don't want to scroll up:

Are you saying that it is an act of force, only not an initiation of force? If so, how in the world can you possible justify that? What the heck is an initiation of force if not an unprovoked act of force against another?

Funny how meaning changes when you remove the sentence before and after. I guess you wanted to change my question into something easier to answer.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the statement where you found a difference between the two terms. Was there a substance to your objection, or are you just being difficult?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I could very easily ask this question of you...

Yeah. Good answer. Notice you still haven't given reasons for the distinction.

Either way, it is becoming clear that you aren't going to address the point I'm making. I'm not sure you're being difficult, in fact I have a feeling you are getting exasperated. I'm convinced you just don't understand what I am trying to say. As Cain said:

I've been asking ... libertarians for years how people justly acquire land. The silence so far has been remarkable.
(The ellipse eliminated the word "fake," which Cain uses to refer to U.S. style non-anarchist libertarianism.)

So I imagine this exchange has been made before with similar results.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Occasional Chemist

Oh well. That's the price you pay for living in a society.

Huh? This is absolutly pathetic. Should the people in Saudi Arabia, when reacting to the current stoning, just say, "well that's the price you pay for living in society"?

I can't believe you would just accept it if someone trampled your rights.

[Occasional Chemist]

Originally posted by Tony
Huh? This is absolutly pathetic. Should the people in Saudi Arabia, when reacting to the current stoning, just say, "well that's the price you pay for living in society"?


Yes, the loss of some "rights" IS the price you pay for living in society. What things are "rights" and what things aren't is what we're discussing In particular, what "rights" come with the purchase of land, and what "rights" one has to pollute land owned by another.


I can't believe you would just accept it if someone trampled your rights.

I don't see zoning as "trampling my rights". I, of course, would feel differently about stoning.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Occasional Chemist


Yes, the loss of some "rights" IS the price you pay for living in society.

I dont seem to remember that part of the constitution. Care to show it to me?


I don't see zoning as "trampling my rights". I, of course, would feel differently about stoning.

Its funny, some of the women in Saudi Arabia don’t see that getting their clits chopped off or being forced to wear a sheet over their faces as trampling their rights.

Not being aware of your own oppression is the ultimate form of oppression.

[shanek]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
Neither you, or anyone else, has shown where in my example any "Libertarian principles" are being violated.

Except, of course, the part I quoted, and all the other aspects I mentioned.

Everything is being done voluntarily through free-market transactions.

No, it isn't. Duress is NOT part of the free market. And you're the GOVERNMENT.

If you weren't the government, then what ever government you were operating under (assuming it was Libertarian) would give me a forum for redress of grievances, where I could go and claim duress and thus be let out of the contract.

Again I ask how any of this is at odds with the LP platform?

I've already shown you, and you ignored it.

If you are going to claim I, as an employer,

You're the GOVERNMENT!!!

Its these types of questions, that Libertarians refuse to answer, that turn me off the party.

We do answer them. You just ignore us when we do.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Occasional Chemist
By buying the land, Bob has assumed ownership of the land,

He also said he wanted the land, and agreed to every aspect of it, such as its dimensions, whatever buildings were on it, etc. Same thing.

not any obligation to put up with the stink of the shroom farm.

Fine. Show how he would not have known about the stink prior to the sale of the land.

I think what we're trying to get you to see is that by this whole "initiation of force" concept, yes the landowner should have the right to shut down the airport. It's polluting his property.

Well, at least that's honest. It's amazing that you can think someone can shut down something like an airport just by moving into the area...or a farm, or a playground, or anything else that bothers the person.

I know I wouldn't want to live in that world.

I assume you're saying that the only reason the prospective farmer here can't open his new shroom farm is that my dream house existed first.

Yes, because you were not privvy to that situation when you purchased the land.

This is what I don't buy - how is it that Bob gets limited use of his property while Adam the shroom farmer enjoys full use of his?

Already explained it. Several times.

It's not my fault that libertarianism doesn't always make sense.

It's not my fault you don't want to consider my explanations.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tony
I dont seem to remember that part of the constitution. Care to show it to me?

I can't find it. I did find this:

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Seems to say the exact opposite to me!

[Occasional Chemist]

Originally posted by shanek

Well, at least that's honest. It's amazing that you can think someone can shut down something like an airport just by moving into the area...or a farm, or a playground, or anything else that bothers the person.

I know I wouldn't want to live in that world.


The airport and the shroom farm were good examples because they quite literally damage the land around them. The playground isn't.

But actually, I agree with you that I shouldn't be able to move next to an airport and shut it down. The land's not likely zoned residential. Heck, the airport's probably where it is because that's what the majority of the community wanted.

I think that the airport example follows from your initiation of force arguments, though - because damaging someone else's property would be an initiation of force.


It's not my fault you don't want to consider my explanations.

I just don't find them very satisfying, that's all.

[Occasional Chemist]

Originally posted by Tony
I dont seem to remember that part of the constitution. Care to show it to me?

Try the body of law that's been passed by the Congress. A lot of it is things you can't do.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Occasional Chemist


Try the body of law that's been passed by the Congress. A lot of it is things you can't do.


Like the Patriot Act?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Occasional Chemist
The airport and the shroom farm were good examples because they quite literally damage the land around them. The playground isn't.

There isn't that much difference between the airport and the playground. The airport may affect a larger area, but that's about it.

But actually, I agree with you that I shouldn't be able to move next to an airport and shut it down.

Thank you.

[Occasional Chemist]

Originally posted by Tony
Like the Patriot Act?

Are you inferring that because I think that your rights get limited by your participation in a society (mind you, in exchange for that society protecting OTHER of your rights) that I support the Patriot Act?

:confused:

[Thanz]

Originally posted by shanek
Des he have the RIGHT to? No. CAN he with the proper permission? Yes.
Finally, we are getting somewhere.

So, Adam does not have the right to pollute his neighbours property. Of course, if he has permission, there is no problem. You describe it as "proper permission". What is this "proper permission"?

You seem to be arguing that simply purchasing the property with knowledge (or even if he didn't know, but ought to have known) of the mushroom farm is somehow "proper permission" for Adam to keep polluting Bob's land. This is what I disagree with.

There is no explicit permission. That much is certain. The permission, then, is implicit. But if Bob's permission is implicit in simply purchasing the land, how is he ever able to withhold permission from Adam to pollute his land? Once Adam starts polluting, how does anyone ever stop him from polluting? What if the reason that the previous owner sold the land was because of Adam's farm? Does that make any difference?

How is this "implicit permission" of Bob's any different from my mugger example?

If property rights have any meaning, then Bob MUST have an opportunity to withhold permission from Adam to pollute his land. If you do not give Bob that opportunity, you are elevating Adam's pollution to a right of Adam's. You have already stated that it is not a right. If Adam does not have the right, why doesn't Bob have the right to say "No, I don't want you to pollute my land?"

Why does Bob have the right to come into a situation and start telling Adam he has to start doing things differently? Why doesn't Bob just get land somewhere else?
Bob has the right to stop others from interfering with his property, just like you have the right to stop the neighbourhood kids from cutting through yours. Telling Bob to buy other property doesn't solve the problem any more than telling you to move would if you don't want kids cutting through your yard. It is a question of property rights. Bob is not telling Adam what to do in a positive sense - he is just telling him what he can't do. And what he can't do is use his property in such a way that interferes with Bob's property without Bob's permission.

Bob's right is his basic property rights. Adam does not have the right to interfere with them. Right now he is. Bob has the right to tell him to stop interfering.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Thanz
There is no explicit permission. That much is certain. The permission, then, is implicit. But if Bob's permission is implicit in simply purchasing the land, how is he ever able to withhold permission from Adam to pollute his land? Once Adam starts polluting, how does anyone ever stop him from polluting? What if the reason that the previous owner sold the land was because of Adam's farm? Does that make any difference?

How is this "implicit permission" of Bob's any different from my mugger example?

Just go back to the airport comparison. Or do you think people should have the right to shut down the airport after they move near it? You never did answer that question.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by shanek


Just go back to the airport comparison. Or do you think people should have the right to shut down the airport after they move near it? You never did answer that question.
Yes, I have. You have responded to it, in fact.

We are not talking about airports, no matter how much you want to. We are talking about the air pollution from the mushroom farm.

Stop avoiding the question. Where is the "proper permission" from Bob?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Thanz
Yes, I have. You have responded to it, in fact.

But it still wasn't a direct answer, yes or no.

We are not talking about airports, no matter how much you want to.

But the airport situation is VERY similar. You just don't want to deal with it because it shows the fundamental flaw with your reasoning.

[Cain]

Tormac-- I'll briefly reply to your last post. I thought you were going to expand on it:

I have heard others claim that feudalism is capitalistic (although feudalism seems much closer of an authoritarian version of syndacalistic socialism). But I have never heard of anyone claiming that capitalism is feudalistic.

Of course when somebody says it's feudalistic, they're claiming it incorporates elements of feudalism. Specifically, hierarchical relationships, the dominance of capital over labor, and so on. As you fail to see commonalities between feudalism and capitalism, I fail to any meaningful parallels to syndicalism -- the idea that people own and work together democratically, equally.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by shanek

But it still wasn't a direct answer, yes or no.
I have given you the best answer I can given the level of detail you have given me. However, based solely on the initiation of force doctrine, if the airport did actually interfere with the property rights of those next door, the airport would have to take steps to stop that interference, up to and including closing the airport.

But the airport situation is VERY similar. You just don't want to deal with it because it shows the fundamental flaw with your reasoning.
Similar? Maybe. But not the same. And I find it very ironic that you are accusing me of not dealing with something as it exposes a flaw in my reasoning.

Now, will you finally answer my questoin, that you have steadfastly been ignoring?

Where is the "proper permission" from Bob?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Thanz

I have given you the best answer I can given the level of detail you have given me.

And yet, you're trying to pin me down to a better answer than I have given you. Double-standard, anyone?

Similar? Maybe. But not the same. And I find it very ironic that you are accusing me of not dealing with something as it exposes a flaw in my reasoning.

Because it does. I think any reasonable person would conclude that you have no basis to shut down the airport if it was there before you moved in.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by shanek

And yet, you're trying to pin me down to a better answer than I have given you. Double-standard, anyone?
You chopped out the answer, and then accuse me of a double standard? In case you didn't understand, I said that based solely on the "initiation of force" doctrine then yes, you can shut down the airport if necessary to protect your property rights.

Because it does. I think any reasonable person would conclude that you have no basis to shut down the airport if it was there before you moved in.
The reasonable person, however, is not basing this on your libertarian initiation of force doctrine.

Now, answer my questions. I have answered yours.

Where is the "proper permission" from Bob?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Thanz
You chopped out the answer, and then accuse me of a double standard? In case you didn't understand, I said that based solely on the "initiation of force" doctrine then yes, you can shut down the airport if necessary to protect your property rights.

Your "answer" completely butchers the idea of initiation of force. You do NOT have the right to move to an area and force everyone around you to change the way they've been living their lives all along.

The reasonable person, however, is not basing this on your libertarian initiation of force doctrine.

Bull$#!7. I'm a Libertarian, and I'm basing this on the non-initiation of force principle.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by shanek
I'm a Libertarian, and I'm basing this on the non-initiation of force principle.

The more I read this thread, the more confused I get over what you consider to be "initiation of force." Could you elucidate?

[Thanz]

Shanek -

Once again, you ignore my direct question. It is central to the debate.

Where is the "proper permission" from Bob?

Why do you keep avoiding this question? Is it because it shows your arguments are fallacious?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
The more I read this thread, the more confused I get over what you consider to be "initiation of force." Could you elucidate?

If anyone interferes with your right to live your life the way you want to live (so long as you don't similarly interfere with the rights of others), you are free of force. That's what freedom means. If no one is forcing you to do anything, you are free. There is no force unless someone uses it first. Hence, non-initiation of force.

Moving into an area and then telling people you don't like the way they've been living their lives and they have to change to accomodate you is an initiation of force.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Thanz
Once again, you ignore my direct question.

NO I'M F*CKING NOT!!!! I HAVE ANSWERED IT SEVERAL F*CKING TIMES ALREADY!!!! :mad:

Review the f*cking thread. I'm through with you until you show signs of actually listening to me...

[Tormac]

Good evening Cain
You had asked

“Tormac-- I'll briefly reply to your last post. I thought you were going to expand on it:”

You have my apologies for not responding earlier. I had meant to get back online yesterday, but others had already made plans for me by the time I got home :)

I reread my first post to you in this thread and I want to also apologies for the tone of it. It did sound rather angry.

Your post

“Fake libertarianism worships ownership at the expense of liberty and equality, and cannot properly handle first acquisition scenarios (imaginary and especially real). All land has been stolen at some point. Does Shanek want to return our land to Native Americans? Hardy har har.”

did rub me the wrong way, as the Libertarian Party is very active in the Native American Rights movement, and as I had posted, does have a plank in the platform proposing to grant the surviving tribes autonomy.

I will expand on our discussion.

edit-my smiley face turned into a J somehow

[Tormac]

Hi Cain

You had written

“Now for a second level distinction between libertarians and pretend libertarians ("libertarians"). This one is more contentious and open to debate. Historically libertarianism has been associated with leftist anarchists. Indisputable. Now, I recognize that words change, evolve over time (or devolve as the case may be). Fine. That's sort of the purpose of this thread. Political structures and institutions, a libertarian is essentially a person who believes in individual freedom. The libertarianism associated with capitalism has been shown wanting. It's purely negative conception of liberty is inconsistent with freedom of action."

That the

“libertarianism associated with capitalism has been shown wanting”

I will half agree with. There has certainly never been a form of government that is not “wanting” in some way. Libertarianism has flaws. I also suppose that from the standpoint of a dedicated socialist, any system that still holds to capitalism can be “wanting”. I do not think that there has been a practical test of Libertarianism. Libertarianism is not a revolutionary philosophy. As shanek has pointed out, the notion of initiatory violence is contrary to the Libertarian society. No government has fallen to a Libertarian revolution, to emerge a Libertarian paradise yet. As you pointed out Libertarianism is relatively new, and its proponents believe in gathering power through nonviolent means. It may be a while, it may be never, that a “Libertarian” government is formed somewhere.

When you continued with the statement

“It's purely negative conception of liberty is inconsistent with freedom of action.”

You overstate about the compromises of liberty that an adoption of capitalism forces one to make. I will be the first to say that the use of capitalism is not perfect. Inherent in capitalism is an inevitable concentration of economic power. The rich do have a greater freedom of action than the poor. In a Libertarian model this would still be the same. I do not see how it is unavoidable (with a capitalistic system), at least with my limited knowledge of economics. But how is any government system going to lead to a society without this inequity. I see similar inequities arising in an anarcho-syndacalist or anarcho-comunist state. They will take different names and forms, but will be there. (Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying that there is no such thing as a “libertarian” sydacalist or socialist. I am confident that for a nation as large and heterogeneous as the USA to arrive at a more libertarian state without devolving into an olagarch of one form or another, both forms are going to have to function together. In a Libertarian state where there will be a distinct need for forms of syndacalism to support comunities.)

Those with more ecconomic power do have a greater freedom of movement. This can lead to furture concentrations of power when ecconomic power is used to gather social, political, military, and furture ecconomic power. Some fear (as I do) that this is activly corrupting modern democracy. The Libertarian seeks to reverse this process by removing the links that have grown between ecconomic power and political power. As an example, you mentioned the CIA in Chile earlier. The undemocratic influence of western democracies in the third world is a tragedy. Unfortunatly in a democracy the puplic’s perception can be manipulated to the point were enough people see the need for meddeling actions, even if the facts may not warrant it. This is at the heart of the notion that a Libertarian society should not meddel in the internal affairs of others. Nation building (or nation wrecking and rebuilding) for the profit of the corperations that fund a candidate or parties coffers is a sin of our current democracy that no place in a Libertarian State.