Libertarians and a shipwreck

[Selvedge]

In the "Why aren't you a libertarian" thread, Suddenly and others have been asking questions about how, in a libertarian worldview, stuff becomes property legitimately, i.e. without anyone initiating force in the process of claiming it.

Here is a thought experiment for envisioning a more or less pure libertarian society, where property ownership is not tainted by any past history of force.

A boatload of people -- say 100 or so -- are shipwrecked on an island and stuck there permanently. A preliminary survey of the island shows that everything needed to sustain life is there -- some freshwater springs, a fishpond or two, edible plants, banana & coconut trees, flint for making fire, caves and timber for shelter, etc., etc.

The people are an ordinary lot, all ages from families with little kids up to elderly folks, and the usual human mix of smart, slow, nice, obnoxious, kind, selfish, talented, inept, honest, crooked, etc.

They have one great advantage over other Gilliganesque marooned people. They have with them an official libertarian consultant. Right now, they are gathered on the beach and asking the consultant how to deal with all this unclaimed stuff. Who gets to own which bits of land? Who should own the fruit trees? The springs? How about that nice desirable dry cave with the pretty view of the waterfall? ;) When is it legitimate for one person rather than another to say of anything on this island "this is now mine"?

Libertarians, does this seem like an o.k. scenario to play with? I've tried not to make this a set-up for or against libertarianism, but an opportunity to clarify for those of us who are having trouble understanding how property ownership is meant to come about.

If you think I've inadvertently stacked the deck in some way, please let me know. Otherwise. . . what if you were the consultant? Here's your chance to guide a fledgling society in the right direction -- how would you tell them to go about it?

[EvilYeti]

Many, many people have posed this question to the Libertarians. None of them have gotten an answer.

I predict you won't either.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
Many, many people have posed this question to the Libertarians. None of them have gotten an answer.

I predict you won't either.

Oh, he'll likely get an answer.

Heck, I can do this one. If I were the consultant the people would negotiate a solution. That way ownership can be established by consent, with no initiation of force.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Suddenly

Heck, I can do this one. If I were the consultant the people would negotiate a solution. That way ownership can be established by consent, with no initiation of force.

Oh, I hadn't thought of that. What do you think of my first draft?

http://www.berghuis.co.nz/abiator/pick/lotf/lotfmap.jpg

[Selvedge]

Originally posted by Suddenly


Oh, he'll likely get an answer.

Heck, I can do this one. If I were the consultant the people would negotiate a solution. That way ownership can be established by consent, with no initiation of force.

Negotiate based on what, though? The strong, fast people say that the first person who comes upon an object or an area should have the right to claim it. The people with children, the elderly, and physically vulnerable say that distribution should be based on need. Bob, who has a potassium deficiency, simply will not shut up unless he gets his own banana tree. And so on.

Besides, if they're left on their own to negotiate, suppose they decide to hold everything in common, take turns living in the cave by the waterfall, and have no private property at all? Surely no libertarian consultant would advocate that -- so what is the preferred approach? What do libertarians say should be the basis for property claims?

Bummer if no one answers this, since we have some articulate libertarians around here. Surely someone can explain how "stuff" legitimately becomes "property."

Oh -- btw, for your pronoun-using convenience, I'm a "she." ;)

[a_unique_person]

I think it should be divided up according to how much wealth each person had back in the place they came from.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Selvedge


Negotiate based on what, though? The strong, fast people say that the first person who comes upon an object or an area should have the right to claim it. The people with children, the elderly, and physically vulnerable say that distribution should be based on need. Bob, who has a potassium deficiency, simply will not shut up unless he gets his own banana tree. And so on.

If they can't agree on particulars, they can agree on a process, agree on a vote, an agreement on some level would solve the problem of "initiation of force."

Besides, if they're left on their own to negotiate, suppose they decide to hold everything in common, take turns living in the cave by the waterfall, and have no private property at all? Surely no libertarian consultant would advocate that -- so what is the preferred approach? What do libertarians say should be the basis for property claims? The group deciding to live together and hold things in common does not contradict libertarianism. It really isn't a problem. They are using the property owned by the group as they please. It isn't like libertarians require families to divide title to their home. People can choose to do what they want. As long as everyone consents, a commune isn't a problem.

Bummer if no one answers this, since we have some articulate libertarians around here. Surely someone can explain how "stuff" legitimately becomes "property." Your hypo doesn't really hit that question. There needs to be a circumstance where agreement and compromise is unlikely.

Oh -- btw, for your pronoun-using convenience, I'm a "she." ;)

I'll try to remember, but I'll apologize in advance for messing it up in the future, as I surely will. I try to avoid the unwieldy "he/she" and just stick to he as a default. You would think somebody could come up with a gender neutral third person singular pronoun. They can put a man on the moon, but ....

[jj]

Originally posted by Suddenly
You would think somebody could come up with a gender neutral third person singular pronoun. They can put a man on the moon, but ....
I've proposed s/he/it, but somehow people don't go for that :)

Since I'm not a Libertarian I won't comment on how to do the island.

[shanek]

Well, Suddenly's pretty much said it all.

(And ignore EvilYeti. He's an anti-libertarian troll.)

"However they all agree to" is a perfectly acceptable answer. The Libertarian would NOT force any particular way on them. That's not what Libertarianism is about.

If I were the Libertarian, and they were willing to hear my suggestion, it would be to establish a minimal Constitutional government that would protect everyone's rights and be able to redress grievances properly. The issue of how they get property would be largely irrelevant in this situation.

[UnrepentantSinner]

The would distribute the goodies in a series of Reward Challenges and every three days they'd vote somebody off.

[evildave]

Well, it's according to the situation at marooning, and what mix of useful skills are available, versus the number we need to develop.

How was the survey organised?

Obviously, whoever gets things initially rolling will be defacto "leader" for a little while. Until everyone's fed and sheltered and settled enough to consider the future and think about politics.

What is there to govern? Collecting resources to feed, clothe and shelter 100 people. That will be about 40~50 able to work. Probably less who are initially willing to work very hard.

Identifying what people are "good at" and "capable of" are key problems. You sure want someone who can plan and build in charge of getting permanent shelter up. Someone with far better survival skills will be the most important initially. The first weeks will be the worst, and maybe some of the very young and very old will die if you don't get the shelter, food, water and waste sorted out well. People with appropriate training for this will be heroes or villains, according to their success. Dig latrines where they won't get into the springs. Get temporary shelters and bedding organised. Get food gathering and food preparation up and running.

Everyone will need to work very hard, or a LOT of people will starve, get sick and die. Possibly enough attrition to kill the colony. "Adequate available resources" does not mean a roof over your head and reliable meals on the table. It won't take long for pickings to get slim from basic foraging. What has made every communal arrangement fail is a lack of work ethic.

Get everyone working at least to some level. Weaving, fishing, watching kids, whatever. Some people will become depressed at this sudden change in lifestyle, and may try to "opt out". Keep people together and busy for at least the first week or two. Especially don't let anyone go wandering off on their own. Give this new life a little time to settle in.

Permanent and formal government is not exactly what you have the bodies for right now, but organising some sort of informal democracy among the concerned adults on this small scale would help. Initially, every night, have a big talk at the camp fire, get people's gripes in the open. Try to tune things that are in progress and get information about what is really going on out to everyone, and get people's participation and input about how to take care of problems. This can become every week, or as often as rescheduled after the first few weeks, and everyone's settled into routines.

The council would also serve as court. If (and when) someone starts behaving badly, it will decide on how to approach the problem, and what to do with the naughty people.

The real politics will come in when there aren't any more critical and obvious priorities, and people begin competing for labor to dedicate to their pet projects. Build a nursery, a school or a church? More housing, and to what level, given the available resources (labor among them) to build with? Obviously you can't have everyone living in one longhouse, but you probably can't afford to get everyone who wants a seperate home of their own for a while. Order and method to be decided by the whole group. Construction is a major undertaking, and will necessarily divert effort from other production (such as food, farming, etc.) with a very limited work force.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by shanek

(And ignore EvilYeti. He's an anti-libertarian troll.)


Unsurprisingly the poster boy for Libertarianism tries to silence dissent. Freedom of speech is only for Libertarians, you know.

Here's my solution to the dilemma.

Kill the Libertarian and use his body fat to light a signal fire.

[Chaon]

All of the noise has awakened me from my fitful sleep in my cave. I storm out, to find 101 people on my beach, one of them a pretentious looking fellow in a bowtie, who keeps droning on about 'natural rights' and 'free markets'.

This island belongs to me, and has belonged to my family ever since my Daddy and I shipwrecked here 14 years ago. At that time, my Daddy used his Winchester rifle to kill all the savage inhabitants and stake his claim to this land and all on it.

I still have my Daddy's rifle. I run and get it, and charge onto the beach, demanding that the disreputable riffraff standing there get the hell off my property.

They'd best start swimming. I'm gonna shoot the guy in the bowtie first.

[Underemployed]

Divide the island property and resources up into 100 equal packets. Each person gets one packet randomly assigned. Allow the people to trade/rent/sell their 'property' freely. Maybe invent an island currency if you need to.

Everybody will start out equal and free, at least.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Underemployed
Divide the island property and resources up into 100 equal packets. Each person gets one packet randomly assigned. Allow the people to trade/rent/sell their 'property' freely. Maybe invent an island currency if you need to.

Everybody will start out equal and free, at least.

Wow, thats actually a pretty good idea. You must not be a Libertarian. :D

[Chaon]

It's a TERRIBLE idea. This is MY island. All y'all need to GET AWAY FROM MY BANANA TREES.

[Ladewig]

I like the hypothetical. Say you divide up the tasks and assign all able-bodied people 50 hours of tasks each week. If a weaver puts in 50 hours of weaving and then spends a few extra hours weaving something for himself, will that extra something be his private property? Will that idea be clear to everyone?

Divide the island property and resources up into 100 equal packets. Each person gets one packet randomly assigned. Allow the people to trade/rent/sell their 'property' freely. Maybe invent an island currency if you need to.

Everybody will start out equal and free, at least.

If you were on the island, is that what you would suggest as the most efficient and fair method?

As for the currency, once that is introduced you will move from everyone having a trade to a few people having professions. :wink:

[Ladewig]

shanek-
If I were the Libertarian, and they were willing to hear my suggestion, it would be to establish a minimal Constitutional government that would protect everyone's rights and be able to redress grievances properly.

What if in trying to decide how to construct a government and constitution, you have some people saying only able-bodied workers should get a vote while others say everyone gets a vote?

As for protecting rights, say one of the survivors has a pocket full of fishhooks, needles, axeheads, and first aid supplies. Does this person have the right to keep all these things? Does the group have the right to take some or all of them from the person?




Please, please, please tell me that Madonna is not in this hypothetical.

[Jude]

Besides, if they're left on their own to negotiate, suppose they decide to hold everything in common, take turns living in the cave by the waterfall, and have no private property at all? Surely no libertarian consultant would advocate that

No, a Libertarian wouldn't advocate that. However, I don't think you'll find any Libertarian who says this arrangement is immoral, seeing as it was derived from the consent of the islanders. Libertarians have no moral qualms with consentual contracts.

Anyway, as for the issue at hand, survival would supercede any Libertarian ideal. Ergo, until our mini-civilization was self-sufficient, the needs of the many would outweigh the needs of the few (*cringe*). So in Ladewig's hypothetical where one survivor has a variety of useful tools in his pockets, they would be taken from him to benefit the whole, by force if necessary.

Obviously when the danger of extinction has subsided, I would advocate installing a minimalist, pro-capitalist government.

[The Fool]

Might I be the first to congratulate Selvedge on a great thread. I hope it continues and evolves into something other than a slagfest over grievances built up in previous threads. This is the sort of thread we should be encouraging expanded and enriching...surely you don't want to see yet another "you're a Doofus" thread?

yea, I know, no need to post it ...I'm a Doofus....

So my contribution to this thead (lame as it is)..... is....

I think initially the Island would breakdown into 2 groups.... One group would see themselves as the "contributors" the other group would see them as the "control freaks"....one group would be arguing about where the next hut should be built. The other group would be lying on the beach arguing who should fetch a Banana.... Which group do you see yourself belonging to? The first to answer can fetch me a banana.

[Ian Osborne]

The libertarian would wail endlessly about how Government regulation caused the shipwreck by lulling the ship owners into a false sense of security, when a free market would've made them far more safedy concious.

He would then write an essay on how private rescue services are far more efficient than Government-sponsored organisations. He'd keep this essay safe until such a time he could type it up and post it on the internet.

[Agammamon]

Or we could come to the conclusion that property rights, like all other rights are backed up by the threat of force. That, ultimately, might is what makes right.

[shanek]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
Unsurprisingly the poster boy for Libertarianism tries to silence dissent. Freedom of speech is only for Libertarians, you know.

And now he's accusing me of censorship. Is there any doubt left that this guy's a troll?

[Skeptic]

If I were the Libertarian, and they were willing to hear my suggestion, it would be to establish a minimal Constitutional government that would protect everyone's rights and be able to redress grievances properly. The issue of how they get property would be largely irrelevant in this situation.

Indeed so; which is why, since "how they get property" is "largely irrelevant" to what this government would deal with, the strongest, quickest, most ruthless, etc.--once they finish grabbing 90% of the territory by threats and violence--would be perfectly willing to establish it.

It is, you see, a government who would refuse to deal with such "irrelevancies" as how they got to own most of the island in the first place, not wanting to be against "private enterprise" and "property rights". Surely, after all, the majority of property-less survivors are just whining because they are losers who cannot make it without a nanny government, or whatever.

Thomas Hobbes, who could hardly be considered a "liberal" of any sort, considered this question long ago in Leviathan. He saw that, under such "libertarianism" in a similar situation (his "state of nature"), life would be "nasty, brutish, and short".

[Lothian]

Not knowing much about libertarianism I nevertheless have a fair answer.

Similar to the how do you fairly divide a cake between three people with only a knife?

First Person A cuts of a slice of cake he would like.

Person B looks at the slice and either agrees that A can have it or he shaves a piece off and he becomes the new ‘owner’ of that piece of cake.

Person C then decides whether he is happy with B having that piece or he slices a sliver off and becomes the new owner.

Then A gets another go and so on until no one wants to make another cut in which case the last person to cut the cake keeps the slice.

When thy are down to two one cuts the cake and the other chooses which piece they want.

Similar with the island. Someone fences off a piece of land. If someone thinks that the person has taken too much they move the fence making the area smaller. This continues until no one else is willing to move the fence and the last person to move it has their very own piece of land and is out of the great land division game! Repeat 99 times.

[Michael Redman]

While everyone is employed going around counting all the stuff, measuring all the land, building all the fences, checking that all is distributed equally, and then keeping track of who owns what, they're all going to starve to death. These are tasks that require bureaucrats for christ's sake. You can't have a scheme anywhere near that complex and expect it to work with 100 people.

Damn you Ian, I wanted to be the first to say that the libertarian would blame the wreck on the government! :D

[Skeptic]

The libertarian would wail endlessly about how Government regulation caused the shipwreck by lulling the ship owners into a false sense of security, when a free market would've made them far more safedy concious.

In particular signalling out that silly "ship MUST be able to float when put in water" government nonsense as the cause of the "false security". Then again, perhaps the ship's skipper was distracted by a headache at the time of the wreck, since he couldn't get the aspirin in time due to those #@$!! safety caps...

:p

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Lothian
Not knowing much about libertarianism I nevertheless have a fair answer.

Similar to the how do you fairly divide a cake between three people with only a knife?

First Person A cuts of a slice of cake he would like.

Person B looks at the slice and either agrees that A can have it or he shaves a piece off and he becomes the new ‘owner’ of that piece of cake.

Person C then decides whether he is happy with B having that piece or he slices a sliver off and becomes the new owner.

Then A gets another go and so on until no one wants to make another cut in which case the last person to cut the cake keeps the slice.

When thy are down to two one cuts the cake and the other chooses which piece they want.

Similar with the island. Someone fences off a piece of land. If someone thinks that the person has taken too much they move the fence making the area smaller. This continues until no one else is willing to move the fence and the last person to move it has their very own piece of land and is out of the great land division game! Repeat 99 times.

This reminded me of a developmental psychology experiment to test the moral development of children; the children are put into pairs and one of the children is given some sweets. The rules are simple; the kid with the sweets can do with the sweets as she likes, either keep them for herself or give as few or as many as she wants to her partner, but the only way they get to keep the sweets is if both of them agree on how the sweets have been shared out. If the other person disagrees then all the sweets are taken away.

Actually I was going to do a big arse post on communal ownership and whether it is consistent with Libertarian views, but it's Friday afternoon and I'm off to the pub.

[Larspeart]

Great thread. Lets NOT turn this into a flame-fest of pro and anti-libertarian-ness-es.

If it was a libertarian island, and NO ONE owned anything on the island initially, and everyone came ashore with essentially the same amount of stuff (slim to none at all), then you can argue for two initial scenarios, depending on the personalities involved.

1. A single person, or a small group takes the 'might makes right' approach and begins to lay claim to large swaths of land, in the best parts of the island. They then defend their claim (think the Old West or America when we crossed the mountains into Kentucky/Ohio/Alabama/Kansas/etc) as their rightful property. They have the power, will, and intelligence to claim it and to hold it, thus making it theirs. The remaining population bands together to make the limited resources that they have work on the remaining parcels of land, and develops them. In time, you will have what most small nations had after a dominant person/group came- a lord and peasants, or an aristocracy.

or. . .

2. They divide the island into roughly equal parcels, giving everyone as close as possible to an equal amount of land, resources, food/freshwater access, building materials, etc. They establish a limited constitutional government (after all immediate needs are taken care of), laying out the groundwork for basic civil defense, laws, and such. The Viking Allthing is a good model for this. Essentially, you are free to do as you please on your own land, as long as you are not infriging on someone else's land, property,or rights. There are NO public works and such (because you are on a simple island, and they don't exist, at least yet) so there is no need for any real taxes. Laws are established to handle grievences between land-owners (there are no serfs or peasants) and all matters of punishment come in the form of money/goods paid. A Weirgeld, if you will. If you steal, you have to give it back plus 'X' number of bananas. Something like that. THIS WAY, there is no need to fund a police force, jails, etc. All land-owners are entitled and encouraged to serve as a Jury at the AllThing, and decide the fate of the accused (innocent or free).

Property can be defended with force, and all who enter someone else's property must accept that.

In the situation of when 'what about when people want to establish churchs, schools, etc' they are fully entitled to do so on their land, and can ask/pay for others to come and assist them with the process. If the community project will benefit the greater good of everyone, it is more likely that others will chip in the resources and manpower to help it get done.

please excuse spelling errors. I type waaay too fast.

[Ladewig]

Anyway, as for the issue at hand, survival would supercede any Libertarian ideal. Ergo, until our mini-civilization was self-sufficient, the needs of the many would outweigh the needs of the few (*cringe*). So in Ladewig's hypothetical where one survivor has a variety of useful tools in his pockets, they would be taken from him to benefit the whole, by force if necessary.

Eminent domain without even a payment of any kind? I think you are moving away from pure Libertarianism.

In my opinion, Larspeart's post seems closest to fundamental Libertarianism. Of course with no police or jails, murder must be a capital offense.

[Ladewig]

This reminded me of a developmental psychology experiment to test the moral development of children; the children are put into pairs and one of the children is given some sweets. The rules are simple; the kid with the sweets can do with the sweets as she likes, either keep them for herself or give as few or as many as she wants to her partner, but the only way they get to keep the sweets is if both of them agree on how the sweets have been shared out. If the other person disagrees then all the sweets are taken away.


You left out the most important part: how often were all the sweets taken away?

[Cain]

Good God, am I the only one that thinks the "solutions" thus offered are too bourgeois, unrealistic, and downright silly.

Dividing an island into one hundred separate parcels of land? That's a nifty idea-- atomize everyone. Should small children get an equal share? If so, do we assume their parent or guardian assumes that vote?

Of course the new island ought to try to gain the consent of everyone, but that's obviously going to be difficult. Suppose 90 of the islanders want to set up a system where everybody owns and controls the island together. There are ten holdouts, we can call them Libertarians, who say, "No, I want to work for myself, not some collective. I don't want to share." How do they reconcile these views?

Is it just a grabfest? Maybe once the ship crashes people should just start running out, claiming whatever they can get their hands on. So one person gets the only cave, another person marks the coconut trees for herself and so on. What, they shouldn't get those resources? Oh, then you're just penalizing them for their abilities.

What about people who are hurt or injured and cannot support themselves? A Libertarian system, one predicated on indifference, says all the other islanders can let that person die.

Not to mention isolating everyone into separate quarters makes zero sense, especially given their very limited knowledge of the island. Okay, so one group of people manage to obtain a wonderful parcel of land for the great sunny weather. Oh, but wait, a storm hits and the only safe place on the island is the cave. Can the person who owns it begin writing up contracts requiring others to pay him tribute. "I want 25 percent of whatever you gather." If this person becomes especially wealthy he can hire others to do nothing but enforce contracts (that's right Shanek, because everyone in a Libertarian society won't act quite so Libertarian). And so on.

Michael Albert has a worthwhile discussion of this exact scenario in his wonderful book _Parecon: Life After Capitalism_.

I love how everyone here immediately considers walling off "their" land. White people say the craziest things. Why don't you think natives who lived under precisely these circumstances for generations have never thought of privitizatizing resources? Because they're dumb?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Indeed so; which is why, since "how they get property" is "largely irrelevant" to what this government would deal with, the strongest, quickest, most ruthless, etc.--once they finish grabbing 90% of the territory by threats and violence--would be perfectly willing to establish it.

There's no reason to assume that. And with a Libertarian government, they wouldn't be allowed to initiate force against anyone else to get the land.

It is, you see, a government who would refuse to deal with such "irrelevancies" as how they got to own most of the island in the first place, not wanting to be against "private enterprise" and "property rights". Surely, after all, the majority of property-less survivors are just whining because they are losers who cannot make it without a nanny government, or whatever.

As usual, you're (deliberately?) misreading the argument. Letting people decide on their method of ownership for themselves is NOT the same thing as refusing to deal with the issue. That is ONE WAY of dealing with the issue.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
While everyone is employed going around counting all the stuff, measuring all the land, building all the fences, checking that all is distributed equally, and then keeping track of who owns what, they're all going to starve to death.

I thought we established that this was after the basic survival needs were met?

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by shanek
I thought we established that this was after the basic survival needs were met?

But would you blame the shipwreck on the government?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Larspeart
If I was a libertarian island, and NO ONE owned anything on the island initially, and everyone came ashore with essentially the smae amount of stuff (slim to none at all), then you can argue for two initial scenarios, depending on the personalities involved.

I can envision a third one:

3. Land credits. Take a certain amount—100, 1000, whatever; it's fairly arbitrary but you don't want to make it too big or too small—and distribute the land credits equally among the people. The land credits are not tied to any particular piece of land, but someone can use the land credits to claim land. They can claim one large area, several small areas, or anything in between.

Of course, land credits would be tradeable and shareable, encouraging cooperating and the beginning of a free market economy. Someone might claim only enough land they need to live on and trade the others in exchange for having a shelter built, for example. One might also work on someone else's land to pick oranges, say, in exchange for land credits. Pretty soon, the land credits would turn into money and off you go!

[shanek]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
But would you blame the shipwreck on the government?

I know this is a troll question, but I'll answer it anyway.

I wouldn't, merely because, regardless of whether or not it was, the question would be moot. It might become relevant later if we decide to start building boats, to see what went wrong, but there would be no purpose at all in doing so in this scenario and would only waste valuable time.

Libertarians don't complain about the government just because we don't like government; we complain about it because we want the problems fixed.

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by shanek
Land credits. Take a certain amount—100, 1000, whatever; it's fairly arbitrary but you don't want to make it too big or too small—and distribute the land credits equally among the people. The land credits are not tied to any particular piece of land, but someone can use the land credits to claim land. They can claim one large area, several small areas, or anything in between.

Of course, land credits would be tradeable and shareable, encouraging cooperating and the beginning of a free market economy. Someone might claim only enough land they need to live on and trade the others in exchange for having a shelter built, for example. One might also work on someone else's land to pick oranges, say, in exchange for land credits. Pretty soon, the land credits would turn into money and off you go!

Anyone remember the end of The Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy, when the spaceship full of bureaucrats, social workers and telephone sanitisers crashed on the newly-reconstructed planet Earth? Remember what happened next? :D

[Larspeart]

Shane, while you're idea sounds great, and looks better then mine, in a semi-crisis situation, with no established currency, and a barely-existent barter system, human nature (and the fact that the average human isn't intelligent enough to figure your system out) would prevent that from happening, at least in the short term.

Shane, I am a libertarian in beliefs and ideals, but I only go so far. I never discount human nature's role in everything, and unfortunately, I subscribe to the belief that humans are inherently greedy. If I use my own beliefs on humanity, the only two options I can envision are the two that I posted, and to me at least, number 1 seems more likely.

Number 2, in my opinion, is far more realistic then the example you gave, and requires far less time and planning to impliment. Plus, it would be harder to enforce your option, particularily if the constitution was to be significantly limited in it's powers and resources I had at its disposal.

I can't buy a utopian communism, nor can I buy a utopian libertarianism. We just aren't wired that way.

[Larspeart]

In regards to the weak, the young, and the old. . .

True libertarianism details that you are at the mercy of the kindness of others, so yes, you would have to rely on the other people on the island to help you. In situations of crisis, it is often best to let the weak and infirm die. They hinder the larger groups chances at survival.

Now, children are (lets assume) there with their parents, who OUGHT to take care of them. The elderly (lets assume) are likely with family. Grandparents, for instance, and will likely have their younger and more able-bodied relatives and kin take care of them.

Land distribution- You have 100 people. you have 100 parcels. Lets say there is a family of 6 there. Each one DOES get an equal parcel of land, but obviously, a 3 year old can't take care of it. the 3-year old's parcelof land is governed by the childs father/mother, and (should) be an adjacent piece of land. Hence yes, larger families would have more land at their disposal, but this is justified because they still have 1 person PER PARCEL OF LAND. The elderly fall under the same condition.

Now, what if an old guy was traveling alone, and has no kin. Adaptability is a hallmark of a libertarian society. My advice to him is 'Make friends, fast. or perish.'

I am not trying to explain a utopian society. I am instead trying to portray a realistic one.

[Occasional Chemist]

Originally posted by shanek
Take a certain amount—100, 1000, whatever; it's fairly arbitrary but you don't want to make it too big or too small—and distribute the land credits equally among the people. The land credits are not tied to any particular piece of land, but someone can use the land credits to claim land. They can claim one large area, several small areas, or anything in between.

I may be missing something here, but wouldn't this situation be viable only if all land were equally desirable? If twenty people want the cave, for example, who gets it?

If it's first come first served, you're going to have a minor war on your hands.

[Occasional Chemist]

Originally posted by Larspeart
If I use my own beliefs on humanity, the only two options I can envision are the two that I posted, and to me at least, number 1 seems more likely.

Depending on your opinion of human nature, you might come up with the example that EvilYeti posted, which was _Lord of the Flies_. I suppose that's a more self-destructive scenario #1, though.

[Larspeart]

Originally posted by Occasional Chemist


Depending on your opinion of human nature, you might come up with the example that EvilYeti posted, which was _Lord of the Flies_. I suppose that's a more self-destructive scenario #1, though.

Yup.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Larspeart
Shane, while you're idea sounds great, and looks better then mine, in a semi-crisis situation, with no established currency, and a barely-existent barter system, human nature (and the fact that the average human isn't intelligent enough to figure your system out) would prevent that from happening, at least in the short term.

But again, my understanding of this challenge is that the short term needs were taken care of and now we need a long-term solution.

Shane, I am a libertarian in beliefs and ideals, but I only go so far. I never discount human nature's role in everything, and unfortunately, I subscribe to the belief that humans are inherently greedy.

That's why you parcel out the land credits equally to start with. The first thing that would happen is that the people who are producing things on a piece of land would claim that land, and try to obtain any extra credits they needed by exchanging goods or services for them. People who don't need that much land would trade their excess credits for stuff they need.

If I use my own beliefs on humanity, the only two options I can envision are the two that I posted, and to me at least, number 1 seems more likely.

But we aren't talking about a situation where people can do whatever they want. We're talking about establishing property ownership in a Libertarian structure.

Number 2, in my opinion, is far more realistic then the example you gave, and requires far less time and planning to impliment.

I think it's too simplistic, though. My #3 is very similar to your #2 except that people will have greater flexibility in determining how the land is allocated.

Plus, it would be harder to enforce your option,

Why? You have the land credits, you use them to claim the land, you have the property and can therefore defend it.

I can't buy a utopian communism, nor can I buy a utopian libertarianism. We just aren't wired that way.

How is my option in any way utopian?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Occasional Chemist
I may be missing something here, but wouldn't this situation be viable only if all land were equally desirable? If twenty people want the cave, for example, who gets it?

If it's first come first served, you're going to have a minor war on your hands.

Not necessarily. You're acting as if there's no way to arbitrate disputes.

Besides, since the cave would be in higher demand, it would end up being worth more land credits than a less useful piece of land. Supply and demand.

[Larspeart]

Shane said:

"I think it's too simplistic, though. My #3 is very similar to your #2 except that people will have greater flexibility in determining how the land is allocated."

I cordially disagree. What I discribed in my example is a traditional democracy that was practiced by the ancient Greeks and Vikings, combined with a limited constitution that proves basic civil and community protection for the greater good, without demanding or requiring taxation. It also keeps any form of government out of a property owners life, unless he goes onto or otherwise damages someone else, or their stuff.

The property-owners are entitles to do whatever they want on their own property, without encroachment of outside entities, while still using the cooperation of the surronding community (when and if the surronding community wants to) without forcing anyone to do anything.

I can't think any anything more libertarian or (initially) equal than that.

Of course, I am not as literate on all things libertarian as you, and I am not as dyed-in-the-wool as you, but to me at least, thatis about as close as I can get/would want to live in.

[Larspeart]

Originally posted by shanek


Not necessarily. You're acting as if there's no way to arbitrate disputes.

Besides, since the cave would be in higher demand, it would end up being worth more land credits than a less useful piece of land. Supply and demand.

Impractical and cumbersome. Under your planof credits, people would be fitting over every little rock and the quality of every bit of soil, and whatnot. It would takes FOREVER to determine value, and there would be a million disputes for every person.

What if everyone got 100 credits, and because EVERYONE wanted the 'nice cave by the ocean' they all valued JUST the cave at 110 credits? They hold an auction, and people keep bidding on that damn cave until the winner has bid more then he, or anyone else even has, because they all deem it to be do valuable. Now, you have ALREADY over-inflated the market.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Larspeart
I cordially disagree. What I discribed in my example is a traditional democracy that was practiced by the ancient Greeks and Vikings, combined with a limited constitution that proves basic civil and community protection for the greater good, without demanding or requiring taxation. It also keeps any form of government out of a property owners life, unless he goes onto or otherwise damages someone else, or their stuff.

How does mine demand or require taxation, and how does it interfere in the lives of property owners?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Larspeart
Impractical and cumbersome.

Why? It's proved to be a useful and workable concept before.

Under your planof credits, people would be fitting over every little rock and the quality of every bit of soil, and whatnot.

No, they wouldn't. No more than people at an auction fight over every little thing sold. It's just a matter of what price the market for that parcel of land will bear.

What if everyone got 100 credits, and because EVERYONE wanted the 'nice cave by the ocean' they all valued JUST the cave at 110 credits? They hold an auction, and people keep bidding on that damn cave until the winner has bid more then he, or anyone else even has,

It is completely impossible to bid more than you have. That would be an invalid bid. They would have to get the extra land credits from others somehow, meaning that they would have to trade them for something. Like I said, supply and demand.

What good is a cave? It's a very good shelter. But how much is a similar spot of land worth, plus the price of paying someone to build a comparable shelter? It's not like there isn't competition for this kind of thing.

[Larspeart]

I was disagreeing with you calling mine too simplistic. I then went on to explain how mine fulfills the criteria for the original posters intent, and how it plays out.

You misuderstood me.

[Larspeart]

I was only using the cave because you and the other guy were. I could care less about the cave. I know how to lash. :)

The 110 credit bid was me trying to oversimplify a point. LEts say several people end up bidding 100 credits on it. They now have nothing else, except a very desirerable (don't ask me why it is. I haven't seen it yet) place to live. They now become slaves to someone else, as they have no means to provide for themselves. Slaves with a good shelter.

Under mine, initially, no one would be subjected to slavery, unless they do so by choice (because they are too dim-witted to make it on their own, for instance), which is entirely allowable under a libertarian system. You are FREE to give up your freedom. Again, this was very common in early societies. Everyone gets their land parcel, which are deemed to be roughly (though they need not be totally) equal, and they can choice to do as they wish with it, including give it away, sell it, or excahnge it for security/safety/sloth.

[evildave]

Gee, my realistic assessment post appears to remain unread.

If we don't cooperate and work our butts off immediately, many of us will not live through the first months here, no matter how "nice" the climate seems now, or how much food there seems to be now. If we just laze around on the beach all day, every day, the first typhoon/hurricane (according to location of island) or other disaster will be our miserable undoing. The food you were relying on will be rotting on the ground. The open spring you relied on can dry up at any time, get salt water in it, or have animals die in it.

We are on an island. While not a completely closed system, it will not provide an infinite bounty for a population this size. We can live for a few weeks on what we gather, but we will pick the island clean of food faster than it produces food if we don't cultivate some for ourselves. THAT MEANS FARM. Dig and secure wells for drinking water. Dig and secure places well away from those wells and springs to "go" in. While there are fish, it takes WORK to actually bring in enough to feed people. Boats. Nets. The clothes on your backs will not last forever. Nor will the shoes on your feet. Within a generation, we will need even more technology and tools to cultivate and irrigate to feed ourselves. We will need to develop the means to get off this island and trade, perhaps find more land for the children.

This is no hippy commune. We will need to be WELL FED and have CLEAN WATER to resist disease. If someone gets sick or hurt, there is no hospital to drive them to. We will need bandages and slings and and equipment to sterilize with READY for mishaps. All of those "third world" diseases you've heard of killing millions? They're OURS now! Diarhea is certain to kill most of the children if we don't have clean water, good waste management and a good enough diet. Malaria? We're sure to get it every so often. Weak people will die of it. Ever heard of an island without mosquitoes?

Some few will probably want to sit on their asses and not contribute. Fine. We can write that off to "shock" for a week, maybe two, and hope that you snap out of it on your own. Most people will actually get up off their own asses and ask to help in at least some small way if they see almost everyone else but themselves working. If you don't know how to do anything, just help! If you do know how to do something - build, make rope, weave, knit, first aid, hunting, carving, farming, fishing, SPEAK UP!

Shelter! Water! Food! Until we have these secured, we are in mortal danger.

If you are going to sit around, then at least try to figure something out. We have at least a hundred problems to specialize in for your free time. How to make a durable net from what we have available? How to make durable tools? Boats? If you can't (or won't) provide hard labor to harvest materials and gather food and build shelter and plant crops, SOLVE PROBLEMS that will make doing these things easier. Each of us seperately does not have the time to do all of this AND feed ourselves (and especially not our children and old folks) well enough to resist disease.

If we don't cooperate, we're doomed to starvation, disease and a lot of death. You'll only end up cooperating LATER when those of us still alive are far weaker and less able to take care of ourselves.

Divide the island up a hundred ways? Great plan! Are there 100 springs with potable water? Are there 100 different pieces of suitable farmland, or 100 different places to build that won't get flooded out when the weather turns. It takes more than one person to build a durable home, even if that one person knows how. You'll only manufacture a few small surviving clans (that actually got around to pooling resources only after starving for a while, and thinning down their populations).

We can all work to become well fed and afford some small luxuries from our own labor, and a future for our children, or we can begin bickering now over who owns what, and watch the children die, and then each other die out.

[Lyle Beaudoin]

While you guys are stuck in committee, I'm taking the 20 survivors who're quickest on the uptake and making for the fresh water supply. Water is life.

Don't worry, I'm generous. Everyone gets as much as they need or want, but I'm the one doling it out. I'm more than happy to pitch in with the hunting or the weaving or the babysitting or whatever mutual survival demands as well.

But shanek gets 1/2 cup, no more. The rest of his portion will be distributed among myself and my colleagues so we can hunt/fish/weave/babysit that much more effectively for the benefit of all. The water (money) still stays in the community (economy), so everything's okay, right? That shanek dies of thirst doesn't matter because the water he lacks is being put to good use by others. Or maybe not. It's my water, I'll do with it what I choose.

Not much different than eliminating the minimum wage, is it?

Of course I wouldn't really do this. We hang together or we hang separately. We develop a system that works, not one according to some philosophical template that someone thinks is right. What's right is what enables us to survive, whatever that may be. Survival is our concern, not property allocation.

Now stop worrying about land credits and free market economies. More important things are afoot. Make yourself useful. Get a fire started to harden these spears. We'll need them to hunt the wild boar. Evildave and I are going to go looking for something we can build shelters from. I'll collect snakes on the way so we won't starve tonight should you fail to find boar.

If survival is at stake and all you can think about is who owns what, you're not an asset and we don't need you. Make yourself an asset.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Larspeart
I was disagreeing with you calling mine too simplistic. I then went on to explain how mine fulfills the criteria for the original posters intent, and how it plays out.

You misuderstood me.

I meant only in comparison to mine. Yours does indeed fulfill that criteria, and is completely consistent with Libertarianism. I never meant to imply otherwise, and if I did I apologize.

[Larspeart]

A couple things Dave.

1st, the intent of the post was not to form a long-term society and to bring up what is needed to survive. The people on the island 'ought' to know at least most of that already.

The INTENT is to demostrate if a libertarian society can exist, and the 'island theory' is being used because it is commonly used in survival/feasibility demostrations as the simplest of all plots.

In other words, the focus here is not going to be onthe need to farm and such, but how will a government function.

Also, you don't need shoes. MOST tropical societies do just fine without them. Your feet will toughen up over time. You don't need clean drinking water. Most desert societies and many tropical island ones do just fine with no standing or ground water. A proper diet can supply more then enough.

Further, you are talking about a centralized government taking care of people. Here, we are talking about a libertarian government, and your systems is clearing missing the point. You're goal on this particular island is to take care of yours and your own. If you have time/energy/desire afterwards, you can worry about everyone else. I know that I personally will not be worried about the 10 old people off the boat who I never met in my life until I know that me and my family are safe, well-fed, and sheltered.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Larspeart
The 110 credit bid was me trying to oversimplify a point. LEts say several people end up bidding 100 credits on it. They now have nothing else,

Why? Only the successful bidder gets the land. Everyone else keeps their land credits.

Or are you saying a group of people get together and pool their land credits to get the cave? If so, they could have more than enough to outbid others for the cave and still have a good bit left over.

Slaves with a good shelter.

Don't knock the value of a good shelter. Ever heard of rent?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Lyle Beaudoin
If survival is at stake and all you can think about is who owns what, you're not an asset and we don't need you. Make yourself an asset.

That wasn't the initial question, though. The question assumes that you're at the point where you need to make the determination as to who owns what, and how to go about doing it.

[Larspeart]

"quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slaves with a good shelter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Don't knock the value of a good shelter. Ever heard of rent?"

Like I said, doesn't matter to me. I can lash pretty damn good, and I'll make my own shelter.

Lyle, I completely agree with you that might makes right, and hence why I gave my 1st example (and made it 1st, because knowing how human greed works, it is the most likely scenario). Still, read my other post on how fresh water isn't as vital as you would believe. If you got to the stream 1st, instead of arguing with everyone else and fighting over it, I'd claim the grove of fruit trees. Then, I'd flip you the bird as I bit into a juicy, succulent mango.

One thing that dictates success or failure in any society (but ESPECIALLY an entirely libertarian one) is adaptability. The guy who can think outside the box will do the best.

[Lyle Beaudoin]

It looks like we all just got here and for some reason we're all on the beach wondering what to do. It doesn't mention that we've tended to short term needs, just that we have the means. That's how the OP reads.

But if we have met our needs, why wouldn't we stick with what's enabled us to get to this point, whatever that may be? No need to argue about who gets the cave because we're all at the point where we've got huts anyway. If you're the one who's been doing the gardening that helped get us to where we can worry about trivial things like land credits, then the garden is yours.

Or...

You've been building while I've been hunting. You've already been trading your services for mine and it's got us to the point where we can discuss this. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If we don't need any more huts at the moment, we can both go hunting, reach the boar quota in half the time, and take the rest of the day off or something. Or start on the corral so we can raise livestock rather than hunting.

We wouldn't be surviving until we can decide on a social system. What survival requires would determine that social system. We figured this one out in eighth grade social studies when we played this exact game.

[Lyle Beaudoin]

Originally posted by Larspeart
"quote:

Lyle, I completely agree with you that might makes right, and hence why I gave my 1st example (and made it 1st, because knowing how human greed works, it is the most likely scenario). Still, read my other post on how fresh water isn't as vital as you would believe. If you got to the stream 1st, instead of arguing with everyone else and fighting over it, I'd claim the grove of fruit trees. Then, I'd flip you the bird as I bit into a juicy, succulent mango.

One thing that dictates success or failure in any society (but ESPECIALLY an entirely libertarian one) is adaptability. The guy who can think outside the box will do the best.

Can you grow mangoes as quickly as you can digest them? Sooner or later, you'll run out. Also, you've gotta sleep sometime. Then my water cadre has both mangoes and long pig. Desperate times and all that.

No, I was just making a point about the minimum wage business. Claiming the waterhole or the mango tree as my own would do us all more harm than good.

[Larspeart]

(slamming head against the desk)

Lyle, you are missing the point of the exercise!

[Michael Redman]

From the original post:Right now, they are gathered on the beach and asking the consultant how to deal with all this unclaimed stuff. Who gets to own which bits of land? Who should own the fruit trees? The springs? How about that nice desirable dry cave with the pretty view of the waterfall? When is it legitimate for one person rather than another to say of anything on this island "this is now mine"?These questions come after all the basics, like providing food, clothing, and shelter? Then what's the point of the shipwreck? If the exercise is simply to determine how to run a stable society, then why not start with a stable society?

I think it's pretty clear that the question is asking how the libertarian would recommend that the people go about their buisness from the moment they arrive, not starting once all the actual problems have been solved.

Or is libertarianism only valid once all the basic social issues have been solved?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Larspeart
Like I said, doesn't matter to me. I can lash pretty damn good, and I'll make my own shelter.

But not everyone can. Whomever winds up with the cave, even if it's co-owned, still has an asset they can benefit from without having to do the labor.

Still, read my other post on how fresh water isn't as vital as you would believe. If you got to the stream 1st, instead of arguing with everyone else and fighting over it, I'd claim the grove of fruit trees. Then, I'd flip you the bird as I bit into a juicy, succulent mango.

And you might be able to benefit from that to your advantage for awhile...but before too long, you're going to get sick of mangos, and the smell of that fish will be awfully inviting...

[shanek]

Originally posted by Lyle Beaudoin
But if we have met our needs, why wouldn't we stick with what's enabled us to get to this point, whatever that may be?

Because what works in the short term won't necessarily work in the long term. And few if any of the islanders will be thinking long term right away.

No need to argue about who gets the cave because we're all at the point where we've got huts anyway.

This is a good point. We can't assume people are starting from square one if the needs are met.

If you're the one who's been doing the gardening that helped get us to where we can worry about trivial things like land credits, then the garden is yours.

You might default ownership of things like gardens and huts, and that would solve part of the problem. Land credits could be used for any land that hasn't yet been claimed by that point.

You've been building while I've been hunting. You've already been trading your services for mine and it's got us to the point where we can discuss this. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Except that barter only works so far. What if someone you want a service from doesn't need yours? And what if people who want your service don't have anything you want to trade for it?

This is the point where you have an economy. And you're going to have to worry about things like property and money.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
From the original post:These questions come after all the basics, like providing food, clothing, and shelter? Then what's the point of the shipwreck?

My understanding was that it was to examine how you would set up a system of property ownership in a very limited situation with no precedent in place.

I think it's pretty clear that the question is asking how the libertarian would recommend that the people go about their buisness from the moment they arrive, not starting once all the actual problems have been solved.

The question dealt with ownership of property, not survival. And if you think the problems have been solved once the basic survival needs are taken care of, you're fooling yourself.

[Lyle Beaudoin]

Originally posted by Larspeart
(slamming head against the desk)

Lyle, you are missing the point of the exercise!

Perhaps. We'll see next week, as I'm heading out of town.

[evildave]

And while someone is out camping at their favorite water hole, it's also perfectly fair and equitable for someone else to dig a well closer to town, so everyone else can get their clean water more locally, for free, decommoditizing the water hole.

Originally posted by Larspeart
A couple things Dave.

1st, the intent of the post was not to form a long-term society and to bring up what is needed to survive. The people on the island 'ought' to know at least most of that already.

The INTENT is to demostrate if a libertarian society can exist, and the 'island theory' is being used because it is commonly used in survival/feasibility demostrations as the simplest of all plots.

In other words, the focus here is not going to be onthe need to farm and such, but how will a government function.

Also, you don't need shoes. MOST tropical societies do just fine without them. Your feet will toughen up over time. You don't need clean drinking water. Most desert societies and many tropical island ones do just fine with no standing or ground water. A proper diet can supply more then enough.

Further, you are talking about a centralized government taking care of people. Here, we are talking about a libertarian government, and your systems is clearing missing the point. You're goal on this particular island is to take care of yours and your own. If you have time/energy/desire afterwards, you can worry about everyone else. I know that I personally will not be worried about the 10 old people off the boat who I never met in my life until I know that me and my family are safe, well-fed, and sheltered.

Obviously education is required: All of the cases where there is dirty water, there is high rate of infant/child mortality as well. Those "desert places" also happen to be where most of the over two million deaths from diarhea occur. If it's your intent to get people "accustomed" to the local microscopic fauna, I don't think that is wise. No hospital. At the very least, BOILING water is job #1. Better safe than pooping blood.

Sure, the soles of your feet will toughen up, given time. In the meantime there are still sharp rocks, sticks and other things to pierce the toughest of toes. Until your feet are "tough enough" to let you explore the harsher parts of the island, shoes are a requirement. Besides, if you wear no shoes, you leave yourself vulnerable to parasites that don't mind digging through your foot to get at the more tender meat. Remember, the doctor's not in. All you're likely to get is basic first aid.

You are misrepresenting the libertarian position. Pure anarchy will only bring about a feudal system. You could say these are equivalent. At exactly the point where anarchy reigns, warlords rise.

Like your ignorance of what a libertarian ideal might be, and the danger of dirty water, people will be ignorant of how to survive, and what is at stake. For the first week or two, it might be like camping to some people. They literally might think that the great outdoors is a supermarket that's stocked infinitely by the grace of nature. Without a little education, they'll rapidly render the island uninhabitable, and then they'll die.

End of story.

For a government to function, it is necessay to have something for it to govern. A JOB. Why have a government at all if it has no purpose? For the time being, its purpose is to do all it can to make sure nobody starves, gets sick and/or dies. This is exactly the situation you will find with a hundred people stranded on an island with no hope of rescue. Life or death. If nobody is ever going to rescue us, never, ever, ever (and unless we got "shipwrecked" through some sort of interdimensional portal, this is unlikely), then we have to make long term plans. How to stay alive on this island forever. That sounds like an important govermnent job. Finite resources, and a population that grows (if it does its other job of making sure we don't all die) is a permanent job that everyone has a stake in.

A libertarian ideal would be to stop here. The government needs no additional job. Keep people alive in a maintainable way. It doesn't need ministries or or bureaucracies. There are only 100 people. It doesn't need an army (as far as we know). It only needs to make sure we get what we need, and don't deplete our resources like a bunch of damned locusts. Get decisions made in a manner so that everyone understands and generally adheres to it.

If we posit an initial survival strategy that gets people clean water (boiled is best), housed, and fed then a simple democracy is best. Quorum, order and simple rules, and a schedule everyone can stick to. If you like, let some people come forward and designate a representative for themselves, if they can't be bothered to appear and represent their own interests at all times. Such as the hunter/gatherers, who might be camped out somewhere. They might choose a "gimpy" member of their group who got hurt to represent their interests while they're away. Similarly, if the fishers were out, they could put someone up as the fisher rep. Naturally, whatever the rep does with their votes, if the represented come back and really don't like it, they can go stick his/her head in the commode.

[Selvedge]

Shane is right in saying that the question I meant to explore was one about property rather than survival. But it's fascinating seeing all the directions people are going with this.

What I wanted to get at was this: libertarians see property ownership as legitimate as long as it doesn't involve initiating force. Now, in the world we live in, property and force have been inextricably intertwined for millenia. The world's stuff is distributed the way it is now after a long history of war-mongering, genocide, coercion, slavery, and various other initiations of force, making it hard to say that any property that anyone now holds is held legitimately.

But, at least in theory, libertarians are saying that the concepts of property and force are separable, and legitimate ownership is possible. I wanted to understand how that would work. If no one owns that banana tree, and several of us might want it, does it go to the person who points to it first? The person who needs it most? The person who is best at climbing trees? What's a legitimate basis for distribution?

If I'm understanding Shane and Larspeart, they are saying that the legitimate basis for distribution in this case is equality and choice. For example, everyone starts with the same number of land credits and everyone can make choices about how many of them to bid on which pieces of land.

Setting aside the logistics of how that would work, am I understanding the principles correctly, and does this accurately reflect a libertarian worldview?

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Michael Redman

I think it's pretty clear that the question is asking how the libertarian would recommend that the people go about their buisness from the moment they arrive, not starting once all the actual problems have been solved.

Or is libertarianism only valid once all the basic social issues have been solved?

I've thought about this a bit more and I think the right answer is no government, Libertarian or otherwise, would be appropriate given the initial starting conditions. If the goal is the survival of the group, not the individual, property rights are going to have to take a back seat to basic necessity. If the Libertarian finds the only source of potable water on the island and decides it belongs to him so he can charge for its use, he deserves to get his skull smashed in. If I were on the island, I'd do it myself. We are social animals, when in the wild and the survival of the group is at stake, acting selfishly is a death sentence.

The only realistic solution given the initial starting conditions would be to form a loosely knit hunter/gatherer type society. Divide up into groups based on skill sets, for example fishermen, construction workers, farmers, botanists, etc. Within each group a democratic vote would take place to determine the individual to act as a leader. For large undertakings the groups would band together. Unskilled individuals could join short-handed groups to learn something useful.

Fast forward a year or so and after things have stabalized a bit, NOW we can start talking about some form of limited government and property rights. But even now certain things are going to have remain public resources, such as the dry cave to provide emergency shelter, potable water sources, natural food stores, beach acreage, etc. This is for the safety of the society as well as the individual. If Mr. Libertarian decides some crucial natural resource belongs to him only when times get tough, he is going to be a dead man. No one is going to let their family die out of respect for someone elses political idealism.

I have no problem with the citizens working out plots of land that would be considered "private", to do with as they see fit. They could then develop this land, grow crops, raise livestock, dig a well, store food, build a hut, whatever. And it would be their private property. They could then trade their private goods with others in a free market.

The problem with the Libertarian mindset is the sheer zealotry of it. Shanek will argue till his dying breath that the best solution is for 100% of the islands resources to be privately owned. The ironic thing is on this island the public resources wouldn't belong to the "gummint", they would belong to both everyone and no one to use and share equally. All would be free to walk on the beach, drink from the spring and take shelter in the cave. Contrast this with a Libertarian society, where the individuals are at the mercy of whomever owns the above resources.

Now, I ask the respected members of the JREF forum, can such a society really ever be considered "free"?

[Selvedge]

A few more assumptions to add to this thought experiment:

1. The island is a fairly benign place, with no immediate threats, ex. no erupting volcanoes or large predators to deal with. (Evildave, there are also no parasitic foot-borers, because they give me, the island's creator and presiding deity, the willies. ;) ) Miraculously, no one was injured in the shipwreck, and there's no immediate crisis.

2. There is no triage needed. There are enough resources to support everyone if the resources are allocated that way.

3. An able-bodied, smart, unencumbered individual (a Robinson Crusoe type) could live here just fine indefinitely. However, someone who is more vulnerable -- elderly, mentally or physically disabled, pregnant or encumbered by small children, etc. -- would need help in order to survive.

4. Access to all the resources is needed in order to survive. Not necessarily ownership, of course, but access.

Given this, and given that the libertarian consultant has recommended the land credit/auction approach, here is the next question:

Lyle touched on this with his question about one person owning the fresh water springs. What happens when one person owns a resource that is needed by everyone -- and that person doesn't care if everyone survives? Suppose Fred, who owns all the flint for fire-making, will only rent, not sell it, and only to people who contract not to share it with Fred's ex wife? Or with members of a race Fred doesn't like, or whatever? If Fred can make enough credits doing this that he can sustain himself, is what he's doing o.k? Or can he legitimately be required to do business with people he doesn't like rather than be allowed to threaten their survival?

Or suppose Edna, the successful bidder on the freshwater spring, is quite willing to sell water to anyone who wants it -- but only after she does her laundry and pees in it. Can the others legitimately require her to knock it off?

Does ownership involve power? Does power involve responsibility? What is the libertarian take on this?

[Tormac]

Aww man, I missed the beginning of this one too!
(This is an excellent thread Selvedge)

Well I don’t see why it is unLibertarian to have everybody vote on what part of the island would be designated for homes, then divide that lot up, decide what part of the island would be ripe for farming, fishing and etc. that divide that up. Decide what part may be needed for municipal purposes etc.

Clearly just dividing the land into 100 plots of land and then passing them out is not practical, even at a tribal level more organization that that is required.

Libertarians in general are not violent revolutionaries. The notion that the initiation of violence is wrong prevents this. It is also a new idea (the pro capitalist Libertarianism that is) that was only developed well past the industrialization of the nations were the ideas originate. I’ll come out and say it, Libertarianism does not have much to offer for a need for a need to distribute (or redistribute) property. The only “Libertarian” principals that I can see coming into play are the need to divide the land in a manner that is accepted by the populace. The group should not tolerate coercion and force when someone (inevitably) tries to claim the cave all for him or herself. If people want to trade their plots, its no problem, but when the inevitable bully tries to claim the caves, the group must be able to hold the offending individual in check. People need to be able to pick land that appeals to them. In the beginning though it may be necessary to hold much of the land in common for fields or the waterfall for waterwheel development.

I think the more germane issues would be setting up civic institutions. Clearly some means of exchange needs to be established in a capitalist system. Past that a municipal government with an executive, legislative, and judicial branch needs to be established. The Libertarian Party Platform often calls for increased litigation of individuals or corporations through the courts rather than “special government agencies”, so I suppose on “Libertarian Isle” the judiciary would have more direct influence than in the US’s federal system. If the number of inhabitants is small enough, I think a direct democracy would be best.

An organized constableship needs to be set up as well. I would favor having volunteers form a pool of deputies that serve a rotating shift as constable, and ensure that particular ones do not serve at the same time.

The major problem that the group faces is there may not be enough people to allow for much specialization. For this reason I think that in small settings like this anarcho-syndacalism may be more practical than Libertarianism, but that is not the spirit of the thread.

[Ladewig]

I still want to hear what the libertarians say about private property brought to the island?

say I have a pocket full of fishhooks, needles, axeheads, and first aid supplies that I am not willing to share. Do I have the right to keep all these things? Does the group have the right to take some or all of them from me?

I worked hard for these objects. Swimming to shore with a pocket full of axeheads was not easy.

[evildave]

Well, Mr. Libertarian *here* has said nobody really owns much of anything until we get the situation up to something resembling stability. If you're in a liferaft, and have horded the water and rations, and aren't sharing them while others waste... you're a bastard, and somebody's probably going to kill you one night, search your body, and then toss you out of the raft. I would.

It's pointless to discuss your barbie dream penthouse that overlooks the bay when nobody has anything to eat.

The only thing that will be valuable on the island for a very long time will be services and goods. You want Bob the Builder to make you a hot tub? What will make it worth Bob's time and effort? You're a fisher? Maybe a week's worth of dried fish for his family? And take him and is son out fishing next week?

Barter works well, and doesn't need a central bank, or exchangeable currency. If you produce something, it's valuable.

[Selvedge]

Larspeart,

Now, what if an old guy was traveling alone, and has no kin. Adaptability is a hallmark of a libertarian society. My advice to him is 'Make friends, fast. or perish.'

Under mine, initially, no one would be subjected to slavery, unless they do so by choice (because they are too dim-witted to make it on their own, for instance), which is entirely allowable under a libertarian system.

So, let's name a couple more of our maroonees. Ernie, who is elderly, feeble, and not real adaptable. He's not great at making friends -- he's crotchety and when his arthritis acts up, he's kinda ornery.

And Wanda, who is, as my granny would have said, "not right bright." Maybe developmentally disabled, mentally ill, or just slow on the uptake.

Ernie could perish for want of help. Wanda is vulnerable to being taken in as a laborer by someone who will exploit her -- demand long hours, not feed her well, expect sexual favors, whatever.

Am I understanding this right? If so, I appreciate your honesty in the quotes above. Often, libertarians come across to me as a bit Pollyanna; they seem to claim that their principles will necessarily benefit everyone. You seem to be acknowledging that in a libertarian model, some people will suffer and (in this scenario) die. And will do so unnecessarily, since they would survive or suffer less if they were helped by others.

With respect, I can't stomach that. A grumpy, friendless old codger is a human being and does not deserve to die. A dim-witted person is a human being and does not deserve to be exploited.

I see society as bearing responsibility for its more vulnerable members, and I don't think that is something that we can leave up to individuals. For example, I don't want to see Ernie die, but I'm not a physically strong or energetic person. If I try to support Ernie alone, I'm going to hinder my own chances of survival. I shouldn't have to choose between survival and human decency, and neither should anyone else. But if we all chip in a little, we can support Ernie without any of us suffering much for it. Likewise, we could, together, offer Wanda some protection by setting some limits on what her employer can do to her. If libertarianism would forbid this, then that is where libertarianism and I part company.

[TwoShanks]

Originally posted by Ladewig
I worked hard for these objects. Swimming to shore with a pocket full of axeheads was not easy.

I suspect that the Libertarians would claim that by keeping them for yourself when they're needed, you're 'initiating force' against everyone else, thus freeing them to beat you senseless and take the axeheads. Since the definition of 'force initiation' seems slightly loose with them, I'm sure that with a bit of creative thinking you could 'retaliate' your way to the top of the property ladder...

[shanek]

Originally posted by Selvedge
Does ownership involve power? Does power involve responsibility? What is the libertarian take on this?

Even in the unlikely event there were such monopolies arising, they wouldn't last if they were being run under such absurd and undesirable ways. There are other sources of water, albeit maybe not as fresh or not as easy to obtain. And there are other ways of making fire, albeit maybe not as easy. They would go to Fred for flint and Edna for water to make their lives easier, more wealthy. If Fred and Edna putsch that with their behavior, people are going to start turning from them and going to other sources for this need. Then Fred and Edna will suddenly find themselves with a dearth of customers, and could easily find themselves with the decision of having to either improve their service or lose so much money (which is what the land credits have now become) that they're forced out of business and others on the island buy them out.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Ladewig
I still want to hear what the libertarians say about private property brought to the island?

I think you can rightfully claim possession of the things you had upon coming to the island, just like you can rightfully claim possession of your person itself. Of course, if you've brought more fishhooks than you need, you could easily sell them for land credits to get some extra room for yourself, or even to trade to others for other commodities or services you might need. That's how the land credits become money.

[shanek]

Originally posted by evildave
Barter works well, and doesn't need a central bank, or exchangeable currency. If you produce something, it's valuable.

Until you get to a point where you start wanting to obtain things you want since you're already able to get everything you need. Everyone has the same needs: Food, water, and shelter. Beyond that, people may want different things, and that's when barter becomes extremely difficult.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Selvedge
Am I understanding this right? If so, I appreciate your honesty in the quotes above. Often, libertarians come across to me as a bit Pollyanna; they seem to claim that their principles will necessarily benefit everyone.

No matter what situation you set up, no matter what form of government you try and establish, no matter how you divide up land or set up the monetary scheme, nothing is going to help Ernie and Wanda unless someone wants to help them. The only question then is, what form will that help take? You can't force people to be nice and kind and good to them. The best you can do is try to set up a system where their rights are defended from violation and let the people who want to help them do so.

You seem to be acknowledging that in a libertarian model, some people will suffer and (in this scenario) die.

And how is that different in any other model you could possibly come up with?

And will do so unnecessarily, since they would survive or suffer less if they were helped by others.

Where do people keep getting the idea that helping others is somehow antithetical to Libertarianism?

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by evildave
Well, Mr. Libertarian *here* has said nobody really owns much of anything until we get the situation up to something resembling stability. If you're in a liferaft, and have horded the water and rations, and aren't sharing them while others waste... you're a bastard, and somebody's probably going to kill you one night, search your body, and then toss you out of the raft. I would.


Mr. Libertarian meaning you or shanek? I can't imagine him ever admitting there is scenario where Libertarianism is anything less than a perfect solution to every problem.

We both agree that anyone being a d!ck is opening him/herself up to a serious thrashing, especially when the society is just getting off the ground. Perfectly logical.

The question I have is, doesn't it also follow the most critical natural resources of the island, the spring, cave, beaches, bananna trees, etc. should remain shared resources? What possible good could granting exclusive ownership of the only freshwater spring on the island to one person cause. Granted, if the person is generous he might just turn around and let everyone use it for free. More likely he would leverage his water supply to gain goods and services without having to work for them. Half the island sitting on their asses monopolizing their natural resources while the rest work themselves to death supporting themselves PLUS the first half, seems far from an ideal solution.

Allowing everyone equal access to the same natural resources while still being allowed to own some private land seems like the ideal solution. Everyone works and those that chose to work more then others will be rewarded.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Tormac

The major problem that the group faces is there may not be enough people to allow for much specialization. For this reason I think that in small settings like this anarcho-syndacalism may be more practical than Libertarianism, but that is not the spirit of the thread.

I don't think its against the spirit of the thread, its very appropos in fact. I was just about to suggest anarcho-syndicalism as a good model for such a setting. Whats interesting to note is that such a model is what Libertarians preached prior to the movement being co-opted. This is why Cain so often refers to the capitalists as "fake" libertarians. So you could say libertarianism would be a good initial model, as long as it was the socialist flavor.

Whats even more interesting to note is that as time went on and life stabalized they could gradually move towards a more capitalistic society. As long as they stop well short of full-blown anarcho-capitalism they should be fine.

[evildave]

I would say "Yes". It follows. Resources are resources, and finite is finite.

I have very libertarian views, but also fairly striaght-forward views about force and its application. If the health of children (maybe my own) is going to be compromised because someone's being a jerk, the jerk(s) will not rest until either they change their ways, or end up in nice, cozy graves. This isn't necessarily the government's job. A little vigilanteism goes a long way.

You could no more claim to be "owner" of critical resources on the island than you could claim to be "owner" of the food and water on the life raft.

There are a few simple requirements that I would place on real property on the island. Primarily, you worked for it. You didn't just walk over and squat on it and shout "Dibs!".

If you clear the land, build a farm, and cultivate it and operate it... it's your farm. You control the output because you DO control the output. People should exchange goods and labor for the food you produce. Nobody's going to produce what the farm does without farming, and attempting to coerce the production will solve nothing. If the farmers stop producing, there is no output from the farm for anyone else.

If you build a boat and rig it to fish, you're in charge of the boat. You know how it works. Why should anyone else be in charge of it?

If you build compost heaps and dig latrines, and collect and recycle wastes into fertilizer, every farmer will be keen to have your outputs. It's a dirty and unglamorous job, but if you're to keep getting output from the fields, some fertilizer is required.

While you're running your farm or operating your fishing boat, other people are relying on your output, helping when you ask for it, and providing tools and such to sow and harvest, and building structures to process and protect the output of the farm.

The hunter/gatherers would get support for their efforts as well. Better shoes, weapons and equipment for the foods they bring back. The farmer might need to plant some of the fruits and grains they find. Prospective farmers might be keenly interested in the kinds of lands that the gatherers discover. The fisher might want some fibers for nets and lines, and ask them to look for fibrous plants. Someone will have to keep track of all of this information somehow. As more and more of the needs the hunter-gatherers produced is filled by farming, they will get into more kinds of work. For instance, farming animals, or simply farming.

Everything produced from the labor of your hands and backs and minds is a commodity. It was needed for something. If you don't produce anything, you live, but a poorer life than those who do produce.

"There ain't no such thing as a free lunch."

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by evildave

I have very libertarian views, but also fairly striaght-forward views about force and its application. If the health of children (maybe my own) is going to be compromised because someone's being a jerk, the jerk(s) will not rest until either they change their ways, or end up in nice, cozy graves. This isn't necessarily the government's job. A little vigilanteism goes a long way.

Uh, I would say you don't have very Libertarian views at all! The core tenet of Libertarianism, according to shanek, is the non-initiation of force. If the guy got to the water before you did and feels entitled to it, you and your family are of no concern to him. Its his property now. If you don't have something of value to trade for it he's not going to give you any. I admit that kicking his ass at this point is the right thing to do, its just not the Libertarian thing to do!

You could no more claim to be "owner" of critical resources on the island than you could claim to be "owner" of the food and water on the life raft.

Why not? What if I got to the island first? What if the land was split of Libertarian like and I later discovered the spring on my land? Are you saying I'm obligated to hand over my justly aquired property without compensation, for the good of society? What do want next, an income tax? :)
For the record, shanek has stated that he feels there is nothing wrong with monopolizing the natural resources of the island, from a Libertarian perspective.

There are a few simple requirements that I would place on real property on the island. Primarily, you worked for it. You didn't just walk over and squat on it and shout "Dibs!".

Thats fine by me.

If you clear the land, build a farm, and cultivate it and operate it... it's your farm.

If you build a boat and rig it to fish, you're in charge of the boat.

If you build compost heaps and dig latrines, and collect and recycle wastes into fertilizer, every farmer will be keen to have your outputs.

Thats all well and good, I don't disagree. But what about whats already on the land to start with? Who owns that? Who owns the beachfront? The cave? After time, trails are going to be cut through the terrain. Who own's them? If I use them more than anyone else, can I put up a toll booth and demand tribute?
I thought there was no such thing as "public" land in a Libertarian society.

"There ain't no such thing as a free lunch."

Unless you own the right real estate, that is.

[Larspeart]

Originally posted by Selvedge


Ernie could perish for want of help. Wanda is vulnerable to being taken in as a laborer by someone who will exploit her -- demand long hours, not feed her well, expect sexual favors, whatever.

Am I understanding this right? If so, I appreciate your honesty in the quotes above. Often, libertarians come across to me as a bit Pollyanna; they seem to claim that their principles will necessarily benefit everyone. You seem to be acknowledging that in a libertarian model, some people will suffer and (in this scenario) die. And will do so unnecessarily, since they would survive or suffer less if they were helped by others.



Yup, unfortunately, you read me totally right. Again, I will restate that I weill never discount mankinds propensity for greed. Slavery is as common and as old as land-ownership. Poor Wanda, if she is to expect to survive, will likely (though not de facto) have to rely on someone taking her in, and that person would likely exploit her. Now, the level of exploitation may be mild quite mild; so mild that she may in fact not even notice it, or mind it if she does (extra chores, duties, she has to gather more firewood then the land-lords own children, etc).

Now, as for Ernie. This may come off as cold, but a fledgling, struggling society can ill afford an Ernie type. Un-skilled, unflexible, un-cooperative. He would provide nothing for the greater good, and would do nothing for himself. Ernie has two fates. A goodly and egalitarian person can take him in and provide for him, regardless of ernie's temperment, or Ernie will be left to his own devices/demise. While I would feel bad for Ernie, I wouldn't feel REALLY bad. He is exactly what nature for millions of years has done its level best to weed out; unadaptable, and unskilled. In other words, Ernie represents the weak, as well as the old.

Yes, that came off as cold. I feel bad saying it, but I don't feel sorry. It's the truth. /shrug


The system I advocated earlier is one based off of a combination of early greek and viking democracy, with libertarian attitudes on property and trade/commerce/industry. I simply took the guidelines that you set for me, followed a libertarian tract, and that was what I came up with. I honestly feel in my bones it would work, at least for a while. My gut tells me someone is going to make the first big stick and subjegate the others eventually though. Remember, ALL modern societies started off as family/clan governments, but then 'developed' into warlord/warrior/peasant/slave systems.

[Larspeart]

Originally posted by shanek


Until you get to a point where you start wanting to obtain things you want since you're already able to get everything you need. Everyone has the same needs: Food, water, and shelter. Beyond that, people may want different things, and that's when barter becomes extremely difficult.

My answer to that is to produce something that you know people NEED, thus providing you and yours with a steady, tradable commodity.

I believe that a barter system is perfect for the guidelined society in this experiment, and will be acceptable and useful for years.

If you are making fishing poles, but because of how the reef everyone fishes from is ideal for NETS, guess what? You are making the wrong stuff, and need to start making nets instead.

FOOD will never go out of style. if you can find clever ways to make more of it faster, you will succede where others will fail.


Again, adaptability.

[Larspeart]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


I don't think its against the spirit of the thread, its very appropos in fact. I was just about to suggest anarcho-syndicalism as a good model for such a setting. Whats interesting to note is that such a model is what Libertarians preached prior to the movement being co-opted. This is why Cain so often refers to the capitalists as "fake" libertarians. So you could say libertarianism would be a good initial model, as long as it was the socialist flavor.


Amazingly, I find myself agreeing with you on that statement. Libertarianism works in the 'nice' way when coupled with a sort of bastardized form of communism (not socialism, which expands government. I think you are refering to some kind of 'collective libertarianism).

Problem is, people like me don't care about a collective unless it serves my own good, and so you get the other form. The capitalist libertarianism.

[Larspeart]

Ahh, Dave brings up a good point, because he is sort of thinking like me. I want it all, nad if there is a way I can 'monopolize' on a much needed resource, I will do so.

AND, I will hold it with whatever force is needed. I may enlist a small band of loyal followers, promising them free fresh water for them and their families.

Dave, you are right. The majority will eventually try to use force to assert themselves over someone else's property under a worst-case/greediest-case scenario.

I'm 6'4", young, in shape, and would have no problem putting my axe-head through someone's skull if they invaded my property with intent to steal it or harm me. I'd make a tough opponent.

:D

(i'm just giving an example. I'm not a violent person by nature, lol ;) )

If you see a child in need, go help him! A libertarian society ENCOURAGES CHARITY (I don't know why people don't get that). You are fully entitled to and encouraged to pick up that helpless kid, feed him, nurture him, and help him grow up big and strong, AND you may reap the added reward of a loyal adopted son who will work long and hard for his savior/dad for the rest of his life. Do you see how this works now, Evildave and evilyeti?

[Cain]

I see society as bearing responsibility for its more vulnerable members, and I don't think that is something that we can leave up to individuals. For example, I don't want to see Ernie die, but I'm not a physically strong or energetic person. If I try to support Ernie alone, I'm going to hinder my own chances of survival. I shouldn't have to choose between survival and human decency, and neither should anyone else. But if we all chip in a little, we can support Ernie without any of us suffering much for it. Likewise, we could, together, offer Wanda some protection by setting some limits on what her employer can do to her. If libertarianism would forbid this, then that is where libertarianism and I part company.

A serious problem with these discussions is that they lack a firm moral foundation (political/economic structures are derivative). According to a Kantian (say) who believes we ought to respect human beings (since they're rational animals) we cannot exploit others as a commodity for personal gain. Many so-called libertarians, especially the Randian contingent (and I'm inclined to include Larspeart here) take a more egoistic view: got mine, up yours. Everything becomes a resource open to exploitation for personal reward. It's sick enough fake libertarians defend an arbitrary distribution of physical resources*, but why stop there? Maybe I possess survival knowledge. You want me to "share"? Ha, what's in it for me? I'll tell you how to build a fire -- for a price. You're also signing a non-disclosure agreement stipulating that you cannot pass on this advice without paying residuals directly to me. Human beings are treated as a means rather than an end.

Egoism is, of course, an arbitrary, incoherent moral philosophy. On a side-note, it's sort of humorous to see fake libertarians defending the non-initiation of force principle as a moral axiom. I think it makes sense as an ethical principle, but Libertarians, the bastard children of Ayn Rand, should realize that it was intended as a rule of prudence. Needless to say, many Objectivists never understood this either.

________________________________
*In this scenario "arbitrary" is an open question, although I fail to see how a distribution of private property on a non-homogenous island can be anything but. In the real world Libertarians strongly oppose inheritance taxes. So of course they're apologists for arbitrary starting points, and our ficticious island scenario does nothing to mitigate that sorry fact.

[Ladewig]

Some of the opinions on Ernie sounded somewhat morbid to me until I realized that when Ernie did die, I would insist on not burying the body and actually dividing up the different parts; using bones for fertilizer or tools, rendering fat for oil, using entrails for bait.

[Skeptic]

I think it isn't clear what sort of situation we are dealing with here. Are we considering an ACTUAL shipwreck? In that case, I am afraid, it will quickly devolve to a war of all against all, no matter what political philosophy anybody there holds. Or are we considering a hypothetical society of 100 people, with perfectly rational people who hold the libertarian philosophy and always act in accordance to those two demands?

[evildave]

People aren't all insane, greedy and stupid. That's actually a minority.

Would someone camp on the only clean water supply and demand payment? Sure. Only a stupid greedy and insane person.

It would be a very bad luck of the draw to get a big enough group of stupid and greedy and insane people to keep the water.

In that case, everyone's doomed.

Game over.

Dig a well, they go and destroy it. Don't pay enough tribute from the fishing, they burn the boats. Starvation, misery and death. You can get a good preview of this by studying the 'technicals' in Africa.

Nobody can produce anything, they destroy things. They kill people. Starvation and misery and disease for all.

[Selvedge]

Originally posted by Skeptic
I think it isn't clear what sort of situation we are dealing with here. Are we considering an ACTUAL shipwreck? In that case, I am afraid, it will quickly devolve to a war of all against all, no matter what political philosophy anybody there holds. Or are we considering a hypothetical society of 100 people, with perfectly rational people who hold the libertarian philosophy and always act in accordance to those two demands?

Hello Skeptic,

Actually, neither. ;) In an actual shipwreck, how people would behave would probably depend a great deal on the culture they came from. Folks from a hierarchical, patriarchal society might choose a strong leader. Folks from a religious society might make burnt offerings to the island deity (I'll take mine extra crispy, please. . .) Folks from a mix of cultures might just drive each other nuts.

I wasn't thinking of perfectly rational people, but of ordinary ones: The people are an ordinary lot, all ages from families with little kids up to elderly folks, and the usual human mix of smart, slow, nice, obnoxious, kind, selfish, talented, inept, honest, crooked, etc.

But the question I wanted to get at here was not how people would behave (though I'm fascinated by the discussion on this.) Rather, it was: what would a libertarian advise, specifically about property. If no one owns anything now, and there is stuff to be claimed, who gets it and why?

So far, the answer seems to be: try to give everyone an equal amount of abstract credit, and choice as to how they spend that credit to claim property.

The next question was whether those who have property that is needed by others have any responsibility to make that property available to others.

So far, one answer (from Larspeart) is no, people have no responsibility toward others. Those who cannot induce others to share with them may be left open to deprivation or exploitation.

Another answer (from Shanek) is no, people have no responsibility toward others, but this will not result in deprivation or exploitation -- there will always be alternatives for acquiring resources, or ways to induce those with resources to share them.

Tormac's answer is yes, it is permissible for society to insist that needed resources be shared. Some resources should be held in common and individuals should be prevented from hogging things that everyone needs.

Cain's response is that the answers given so far are lacking in a moral element that would more truly represent libertarianism.

Please forgive me (and correct me) if I've misrepresented or oversimplified anyone's point of view here -- this is a hasty post. Wish I could stay and play some more, but I gotta go get my laundry done (clean socks are a finite resource. . .)

[shanek]

Originally posted by Larspeart
My answer to that is to produce something that you know people NEED,

But since everyone's needs are common, if everyone took your advice then there'd be a gliut of production of needs and little if any in the way of the production of the extra things that increase the quality of life.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Larspeart


Amazingly, I find myself agreeing with you on that statement. Libertarianism works in the 'nice' way when coupled with a sort of bastardized form of communism...
Not bastardised, but an older form of communal living (hence, communism) which pre-dates Marx and can be traced back to the classical philosphers (OTTOH, I carnt remember which one, sorry!)

... (not socialism, which expands government. I think you are refering to some kind of 'collective libertarianism).
The terms for 'collective libertarianism' (or just libertarianism, as Cain argues) are anarcho-syndicalism, as EvilYeti stated, or anarcho-socialism. Like communism, there are many different 'types' of socialism which pre-date and/or circumvent Marxism. Whereas statist socialism looks towards using the apparatus of the state to achieve its ends (and thus may be argued to increase government), anarcho-socialism views government with suspicion and seeks to reduce its influence.

Problem is, people like me don't care about a collective unless it serves my own good, and so you get the other form. The capitalist libertarianism.
Yeah, I do have a problem with people like you ;) :) who are unable/unwilling/unaware of the fundamental role of the collective in human activity; trying to explain human activity wholly in terms of the individual is problematic to the point of impossible, and ignores the simple fact that the basic tool of this analysis–language, is collective in nature.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by shanek


But since everyone's needs are common, if everyone took your advice then there'd be a gliut of production of needs and little if any in the way of the production of the extra things that increase the quality of life.

What kind of 'extra things'? Things which 'improve' quality of life by generating dissatisfaction for those who don't own them? Which makes a greater contribution to quality of life–the works of Dickens (for instance) or SUVs?

[shanek]

Originally posted by BillyTK
What kind of 'extra things'?

Maybe things get to a point where some musically-inclined people can fashion some instruments and start performing for others. Maybe others can make better quality cooking apparati for better-tasting food. Maybe someone figures otu how to fashion a better form of insulation for the shelters so that they're more comfortable. Maybe someone develops a transport that helps people get around the island better. Any number of things.

Things which 'improve' quality of life by generating dissatisfaction for those who don't own them?

:rolleyes:

That's all I can say to that...

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by shanek
Maybe things get to a point where some musically-inclined people can fashion some instruments and start performing for others. Maybe others can make better quality cooking apparati for better-tasting food. Maybe someone figures otu how to fashion a better form of insulation for the shelters so that they're more comfortable. Maybe someone develops a transport that helps people get around the island better. Any number of things.
Fair enough. But I don't see what's to stop people doing this as well as contributing things that people need, but that's because I see them as activities with commercial applications, rather than wholly commercial activities

:rolleyes:

That's all I can say to that...
Strangely enough, I didn't really expect much more from you, but at least you didn't try any supernatural flannel about the "market" being "needs-led", for which I thank you. :)

[shanek]

Originally posted by BillyTK

Fair enough. But I don't see what's to stop people doing this as well as contributing things that people need,

Because there are limits to diversification...and again, if everyone did it, there'd be a glut in the market. So not everyone can make a living by providing for the needs of others. I would think that would be self-evident, since if everyone could provide enough needs for others they could provide their own needs and not have to get them from anyone else. So an economy based solely on what everyone needs to survive will not result in wealth for everyone.

[Larspeart]

Shane, you basically said in 2,000 words what I said in less then 10.

"Adaptability is the key to success."

Okay, 6 words.

[Lyle Beaudoin]

Well, it's next week. I've decided that you're right and that I don't get the point of this exercise.

Deciding one day that we're suddenly in a position to start divying up our island's resources solely for the sake of doing so strikes me as pointless and, as Cain said, arbitrary.

Why would someone not just show the others how to make better insulation/a clever combination of spoon and fork/a nifty harp? I don't understand this. There's no market here. We're not making a living, we're surviving. We'd be more or less a commune, except in those ways in which we're not. Call me crazy, call me an anarcho-syndicalist, whatever.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Lyle Beaudoin
Why would someone not just show the others how to make better insulation/a clever combination of spoon and fork/a nifty harp? I don't understand this. There's no market here. We're not making a living, we're surviving. We'd be more or less a commune, except in those ways in which we're not. Call me crazy, call me an anarcho-syndicalist, whatever.

What the anarcho-syndicalist said!

[Cain]

What's amazing, at least to me, is that Libertarians have not drawn from the philosophical positions offered by their strongest expositors, namely John Locke and Robert Nozick.

Nozick slightly modifies what he calls the "Lockean Proviso." Of course Locke believes that unowned land becomes private when a person combines their labor with it, but one important condition remains: "you must leave enough and as good" for others.

Shanek, a tireless apologist for capitalism and exploitation, readily conceded in Suddenly's example that Suddenly owned the island. He only argued that it's in Suddenly's best interest to keep a slave around.

A more philosophically sophisticated Libertarian, I suspect, would say, "No; You violated the Lockean Proviso."

How do our shipwreck victims determine if "enough and as good is left for others"? Oh my, that probably goes back to the evil "d" word.

Critics of Locke and Nozick have pointed out that, ironically, a philosophy allegedly premised on freedom determines land distribution based on wealth. So, the typical example asks to consider the case of Ben and Jennifer, who work the commons separately for private benefit. One bright and early morning Ben goes out to work when he's confronted by the following sign: "Private Property: tresspassers will be shot."

"What gives," he asks Jennifer?

Always the capitalist, she informs him that she has seized the land -- but not to worry: If he becomes her worker (i.e. takes orders from him), the specialization of labor will produce more wealth than either of them could generate individually prior to privitization. See, he becomes wealthier. Forget all that stuff about working for yourself and being your own boss, though. That's, uh, unlibertarian or something. It makes for an interesting contrast between the two libertarianisms (some variant of anachism and laissez-faire capitalism): One position genuinely wants people to control and manage their own affairs; the other obsesses over property.