Libertarianism in a poor country

[The idea]

Suppose that a very poor country revised all of its laws to make them consistent with Libertarianism. Of course, the country would not immediately become wealthy. The country might have many malnourished children whose parents are simply too poor to provide the children with proper nutrition.

If a couple is too poor to feed their child or children, then how are they going to feed additional children? Suppose a private charity offered to provide funds for one or both parents to be sterilized. Would the government have the right to order the sterilization of one or both parents of a malnourished child?

[shanek]

Originally posted by The idea
Suppose that a very poor country revised all of its laws to make them consistent with Libertarianism. Of course, the country would not immediately become wealthy.

Of course not. Creating wealth takes time.

The country might have many malnourished children whose parents are simply too poor to provide the children with proper nutrition.

True, but they would have something they didn't have before: opportunities.

If a couple is too poor to feed their child or children, then how are they going to feed additional children? Suppose a private charity offered to provide funds for one or both parents to be sterilized. Would the government have the right to order the sterilization of one or both parents of a malnourished child?

Well, no, because it's a Libertarian government and that's against Libertarian principles. The charity could, however, offer a compensation to the parents in exchange for being sterilized voluntarily. Although I hardly think that's likely. More likely, I would submit, is that the charity would raise the funds for birth control and give them to the needy parents.

But that really wouldn't be the source of the problems. The source of the problem is the lack of wealth. But nowadays, the country wouldn't be alone. Through charities such as CROP and Doctors Without Borders, the wealthy (almost everyone in American is wealthy by comparison) in other countries would provide much of the capital and resources they need. Then those "evil horrible" businesses suck as Nike would move in and "exploit" the people by "making" them work in their "sweat shops," actually providing for the creation of long-term wealth. We're seeing this in other countries, where the jobs at Nike's "sweatshops" has resulted in the workers being able to afford cars for the first time. The "godawful evil" child labor will bring even more wealth to even more families while raising a responsible generation with a good work ethic, until the market no longer has a need for such; that's how it happened here.

(Along about now is the point when the bigots come in whining about "Libertopia." But this isn't a perfect system where no one has any problems; it's just a system where they have opportunities and can work to create their own wealth. Then, they can deal with their own problems as long as government doesn't come and get in the way.)

Yes, there would be suffering at first, but there's suffering now. Libertarianism, while not perfect, will give them their best hope for the future.

Great post, BTW! Here's hoping this thread lats more than 2 pages without being brought down into the dregs of personal attacks, as most threads on Libertarianism lately have done...

[The idea]

Originally posted by shanek
Well, no, because it's a Libertarian government and that's against Libertarian principles.
What's the principle that is relevant here? We are assuming that the parents already have at least one child who is malnourished, so preventing the parents from reproducing is not exactly pre-emptive. The horse is already out of the barn. If the government sterilized the parents, then it would simply be preventing more horses from getting out of the barn.

Originally posted by shanek
But that really wouldn't be the source of the problems. The source of the problem is the lack of wealth.
Well, I did begin by assuming that we are talking about poor people. So it would do no good for the government to order them to feed their children. However, if the couple had no children, then there wouldn't be a problem of malnourished children, would there?

Do you claim that people have the right to produce as many children as they are biologically capable of producing, regardless of the consequences for the children?

I suppose I am just asking for the "please think about the children" parody, but here we are talking about the people who have a duty to think about the children and you seem to be saying that those people have the right to produce those children regardless of the consequences. Furthermore, there are long-term consequences. The children may have children and so on. We are potentially talking about permanent, endless, perpetual poverty.

Libertarianism may typically call for fewer legal restrictions than already are in place, but is that some kind of absolute rule? Maybe, in some cases, additional restrictions would be consistent with Libertarianism.

Originally posted by shanek
Great post, BTW!

Are you just saying that?

Originally posted by shanek
Here's hoping this thread lasts more than 2 pages without being brought down into the dregs of personal attacks, as most threads on Libertarianism lately have done...

Okay, maybe it's great compared to posts that are personal attacks. Maybe you should put people who consistently engage in personal attacks on ignore. Just a suggestion.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by The idea
If the government sterilized the parents, then it would simply be preventing more horses from getting out of the barn.


If I may, your post and your response to Shane's has nothing to do with any principle of libertarianism that I'm aware of.

I don't follow the libertarian political philosophy anymore, but I used to admire it. You misrepresent it, me thinks.

[The idea]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
I don't follow the libertarian political philosophy anymore, but I used to admire it. You misrepresent it, me thinks.
What did I claim about Libertarianism? It would seem to be rather hard to misrepresent something if one hasn't even put forward any kind of representation of it.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by The idea
Would the government have the right to order the sterilization of one or both parents of a malnourished child?

The Libertarian Party is quite open in their position that the government should force private organizations to run their businesses as the Libertarians see fit.*** So I would assume they would have no problem forcing people to be sterilized.

***At least this is Shanek's position. Can we assume he speaks for all Libertarians?

[shanek]

Originally posted by The idea
What's the principle that is relevant here?

That people own their own bodies, and therefore you can't force them to do anything with them that they don't want to have done. Are you really defending the practice fo forced sterilization?

We are assuming that the parents already have at least one child who is malnourished, so preventing the parents from reproducing is not exactly pre-emptive.

You're prohibiting them from reproducing again, so yes, it is pre-emptive.

Do you claim that people have the right to produce as many children as they are biologically capable of producing, regardless of the consequences for the children?

In and of itself, and all other things being equal, yes.

I suppose I am just asking for the "please think about the children" parody, but here we are talking about the people who have a duty to think about the children and you seem to be saying that those people have the right to produce those children regardless of the consequences.

I have seen no evidence that these people will not do anything in their power to care for their children to the best of their ability.

Furthermore, there are long-term consequences. The children may have children and so on. We are potentially talking about permanent, endless, perpetual poverty.

No, we aren't, because we have a free market. Those children will grow up to create wealth.

Are you just saying that?

No; if there's one thing I think I've proven here, it's that I mean what I say.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by shanek
No; if there's one thing I think I've proven here, it's that I mean what I say.

So when you say Spain had no problems with terrorism until they joined the US coalition, you actually meant it?

:jaw:

[shanek]

Originally posted by The idea
What did I claim about Libertarianism?

I'm wondering that myself.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
Well, no, because it's a Libertarian government and that's against Libertarian principles. The charity could, however, offer a compensation to the parents in exchange for being sterilized voluntarily. Although I hardly think that's likely. More likely, I would submit, is that the charity would raise the funds for birth control and give them to the needy parents.

But that really wouldn't be the source of the problems. The source of the problem is the lack of wealth. But nowadays, the country wouldn't be alone. Through charities such as CROP and Doctors Without Borders, the wealthy (almost everyone in American is wealthy by comparison) in other countries would provide much of the capital and resources they need.

Would they? They already have those opportunities, yet I don't see them providing much of the capital and resources poor countries need.

Could it be that people are just not charitable enough for your utopian ideas about human nature?

Originally posted by shanek
Then those "evil horrible" businesses suck as Nike would move in and "exploit" the people by "making" them work in their "sweat shops," actually providing for the creation of long-term wealth. We're seeing this in other countries, where the jobs at Nike's "sweatshops" has resulted in the workers being able to afford cars for the first time.

Your lack of knowledge is truly astounding. The wealth from Nike's sweatshops does not go back to the community. It ends up in the coffers of Nike's owners.

Originally posted by shanek
The "godawful evil" child labor will bring even more wealth to even more families while raising a responsible generation with a good work ethic, until the market no longer has a need for such; that's how it happened here.

:jaw:

Life in Libertopia:

http://www.ourdocuments.gov/document_data/document_images/doc_059b_big.jpg

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/childlabor/indiana.jpg

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/childlabor/london.jpg

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/childlabor/kidd.jpg

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/childlabor/manuel.jpg

http://www.childlaborlaws.org/images/home_center.jpg

http://www.temple.edu/history/images/childlabor1911.gif

http://www.kenlight.com/photos/childlabor/beadworkers.jpg

Get to work, you lazy kids! Learn som WORK ETHICS!!

Originally posted by shanek
(Along about now is the point when the bigots come in whining about "Libertopia." But this isn't a perfect system where no one has any problems; it's just a system where they have opportunities and can work to create their own wealth. Then, they can deal with their own problems as long as government doesn't come and get in the way.)
...
Great post, BTW! Here's hoping this thread lats more than 2 pages without being brought down into the dregs of personal attacks, as most threads on Libertarianism lately have done...

You call critics of Libertarianism "whining" "bigots", and then have the gall to try and quelch any criticism by characterizing that as "personal attacks"?

You are the one who start with the personal attacks, shanek.

[Art Vandelay]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
[The Libertarian Party is quite open in their position that the government should force private organizations to run their businesses as the Libertarians see fit.As are the Democrats and Republicans and Greens and ever other political persuasion other than anarchy. Regulating private organizations is a function of all governments.

So I would assume they would have no problem forcing people to be sterilized.So anyone who supports any regulation whatsoever must also be in favor of forced sterilization? Are you high or something?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Art Vandelay
As are the Democrats and Republicans and Greens and ever other political persuasion other than anarchy. Regulating private organizations is a function of all governments.

You misunderstand. The point is that Libertarians don't want the government to help out, except in those cases where it benefits the Libertarian cause.

Then, it's A-OK.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Your lack of knowledge is truly astounding. The wealth from Nike's sweatshops does not go back to the community. It ends up in the coffers of Nike's owners.
Shanek does gloss over the unpleasentries of child labour, but if the alternative is starvation then it still the lesser of two evils.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Kerberos
Shanek does gloss over the unpleasentries of child labour, but if the alternative is starvation then it still the lesser of two evils.

Point is, it is not the only alternative.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Point is, it is not the only alternative.
For some it propably is.

[Skeptic]

Well, no, because it's a Libertarian government and that's against Libertarian principles.

If a libertarian government is against libertarian principles, why was Bandawhatshisname running for president?

So far as I recall, his campaign promises if elected were not to instantly dissolve the government, but instead (among other things) to start a reign of terror by throwing all IRS workers in jail--of course, "only if" he discovers that the 16th amendment is "really" unconstitutional or something (as if the result of that "objective investigation into the legality of the income tax" is not know in advance.)

Sounds a lot like using government power to me...

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Art Vandelay
As are the Democrats and Republicans and Greens and ever other political persuasion other than anarchy. Regulating private organizations is a function of all governments.

No, this isn't regulation. It is the Libertarian Party actually intervening in the affairs of a private company and forcing them to run their business for the benefit of the party.

Originally posted by Art Vandelay

Are you high or something?

Yes. High on the intelligence charts.

[Darat]

And with all due respect to Shanek people should remember his view of what libertarianism is and should be is only one of many.

As far as the USA Constitution goes it was (and pretty much still is) a liberal constitution not a libertarian constitution - something that a lot of people seem to get confused about. (Probably because liberalism and libertarianism as ideologies do share some similarities and even principles in common.)

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Well, no, because it's a Libertarian government and that's against Libertarian principles.

If a libertarian government is against libertarian principles, why was Bandawhatshisname running for president?

So far as I recall, his campaign promises if elected were not to instantly dissolve the government, but instead (among other things) to start a reign of terror by throwing all IRS workers in jail--of course, "only if" he discovers that the 16th amendment is "really" unconstitutional or something (as if the result of that "objective investigation into the legality of the income tax" is not know in advance.)

Sounds a lot like using government power to me...
Don't forget the prosecution of Congressmembers "should they ever vote to violate the rights of Americans again".

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Darat
And with all due respect to Shanek people should remember his view of what libertarianism is and should be is only one of many.

Agreed. But it must be noted that libertarianism and the Libertarian Party are two different things. And what skeptics (correctly) attack and mock on this board is the latter. Because no one can agree on what the former even is.

[Darat]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
Agreed. But it must be noted that libertarianism and the Libertarian Party are two different things. And what skeptics (correctly) attack and mock on this board is the latter. Because no one can agree on what the former even is.

True I find the stance of the USA "Libertarian Party" on some matters hard to reconcile with their stated libertarian principles. (And I see some people have quoted some of those above.)

However in principle although I am closest to being "liberal" (ideological sense of the word) of any political label I do believe a lot of libertarian principles are good and sound e.g. personal freedom, the right to chose and so on. For me the sticking point I always have with libertarianism is that it seems to hold that "every person is a sovereign island" yet at the same time (that is never made very clear) maintains that this doesn’t relinquish all civil and societal responsibility e.g. it’s not an anarchy.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Darat
And with all due respect to Shanek people should remember his view of what libertarianism is and should be is only one of many.

Sure. But shanek "was selected as a national delegate and presidential elector by the Libertarian Party of North Carolina" and "current webmaster for the Libertarian Party of Lincoln County, NC." (http://www.shanekillian.org/about.html)

The only reasonable approach is to take his version of Libertarianism as the Party version. If not, then the Libertarian Party has a renegade among them.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Sure. But shanek "was selected as a national delegate and presidential elector by the Libertarian Party of North Carolina" and "current webmaster for the Libertarian Party of Lincoln County, NC." (http://www.shanekillian.org/about.html)

The only reasonable approach is to take his version of Libertarianism as the Party version. If not, then the Libertarian Party has a renegade among them.
Sure, but The Libertarian parties views on libertarianism is also only one of many.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Kerberos
Don't forget the prosecution of Congressmembers "should they ever vote to violate the rights of Americans again".

Oh. I missed that one, not that I am surprised. Bandawhatever should just grow the mustache and get it over with.

Obviously, "Liberutopia" is going to be the usual utopia: once the "opressive an freedom-choking" laws are done away with, a tiny powerful clique, "freed" from the rule of law, will control everything while everybody else lives in misery.

So what if your kids work 16 hours a day and cannot learn to read because you can't afford it? It's the FREE MARKET! It's OPPORTUNITY! Besides, what's more important--your kids flufilling some evil government-imposed standard of literacy, or learning WORK ETHICS?

Shanek himself is not likely to be one of those in the top clique, but (judging by his performance on this forum) he would find a cushy job in the official propaganda department, providing an endless stream of philosophical writings "proving" to the masses why they are now living in "real freedom".

Or, more precisely, he will do this until the great purges start. For once Bandahitler eliminates the IRS workers and the congressmen he dislikes and zoning officials ("scum. just scum."--Shanek) and the FDA (responsible for the death of thousands--Shanek) and everybody else who is an obvious enemy of the (American) people, Bandistalin will discover that for some reason the promised libertarian utopia still has not arrived.

Since this could not possibly be because there is anything wrong with Libertarian dogma--all counterarguments about it are "myths" (Shanek's term), of course--it must be the result of deliberate internal sabotage. And who is better to lead such sabotage but the old guard, those who were in the movement from the beginning pretending to be real libertarians, but in reality engaged in subtle treason?

So Shanek is going to find himself in front of a firing squad, sooner or later, if Bandafascist has his say in government.

[username]

Wouldn't the USA be a reasonable example of a poor, libertarian country after it's founding? I mean there was very liltle government and what government there was had a difficult time with enforcement due to folks being spread out over a vast area.

As far as trade policy, I believe for the most part the government was pro trade and had little taxation.

I don't know that I can think of anything that comes closer to a poor nation with a libertarian government than the USA in it's infancy.

[Darat]

Originally posted by username
Wouldn't the USA be a reasonable example of a poor, libertarian country after it's founding? I mean there was very liltle government and what government there was had a difficult time with enforcement due to folks being spread out over a vast area.

As far as trade policy, I believe for the most part the government was pro trade and had little taxation.

I don't know that I can think of anything that comes closer to a poor nation with a libertarian government than the USA in it's infancy.

No it was a liberal state, founded on liberal idealogical principles not libertarian principles.

[Darat]

Realised that my previous answer may have been a little to brief.

Originally posted by username
Wouldn't the USA be a reasonable example of a poor, libertarian country after it's founding? I mean there was very liltle government and what government there was had a difficult time with enforcement due to folks being spread out over a vast area.


If you look at the time of the founding of the USA I would say it had a comparatively big and complex government. (For all the right reasons.)

Originally posted by username

As far as trade policy, I believe for the most part the government was pro trade and had little taxation.


But still had taxation.

Originally posted by username


I don't know that I can think of anything that comes closer to a poor nation with a libertarian government than the USA in it's infancy.

Historically the USA was not a poor nation at its founding; it was an established prosperous colony – that’s why the British were taxing it so heavily! :)

Remember that libertarianism is not about big v small government or tax v no tax, its core principle is the ownership of the self. When the USA was founded it certainly did not hold that principle in mind (for whatever reason), given that it can never be argued that when the USA was founded it was founded as a libertarian country.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Darat
No it was a liberal state, founded on liberal idealogical principles not libertarian principles.

I think his point was that in practice it behaved like a libertarian state, not that it was founded on libertarian principles.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Darat


Remember that libertarianism is not about big v small government or tax v no tax, its core principle is the ownership of the self.

That may be the stated priniple, but I've come to realize (based on past threads) that libertarian free market principles require, atleast some segments of the population, to surrender the ownership of self, especially when it comes to employment.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Mycroft
I think his point was that in practice it behaved like a libertarian state, not that it was founded on libertarian principles.

Perhaps I have got the wrong end of the stick however even then it doesn't stand up since the core tenet of libertarianism was not in place when the USA was founded e.g. ownership of self. Therefore in neither practice nor principle can it be said that the USA, when it was founded, was a libertarian country.

[The idea]

Originally posted by shanek
That people own their own bodies, and therefore you can't force them to do anything with them that they don't want to have done.
According to Libertarianism, does the government have no right to quarantine a person who is known to have a disease that is both serious and highly contagious? A person who is quarantined is free to talk to people on the telephone (i.e. the person's mind is free to interact). However, the quarantined person is forced to do something with his or her body: to keep it away from others.

Now, there are differences between being contagious and being a parent who cannot afford to take satisfactory care of one's child or children. It seems that one key difference is that the foreseeable rights violation that would result from the disease would potentially affect people who are already adult citizens and who already have political power. People who have power can be expected to use their power to prevent a foreseeable rights violation that will personally affect them.

For a parent who already has more children than the parent can afford to take satisfactory care of (and that does not exclude the possibility that the parent has only one child), the foreseeable rights violation will affect future offspring. We can foresee that future offspring will likely not receive what they are entitled to. Those future offspring are not currently adult citizens who have political power. Is that why the government is forbidden from preventing the foreseeable rights violation from occurring?

Originally posted by shanek
Are you really defending the practice of forced sterilization?

You are a Libertarian and you are opposed to forced sterilization. However, it doesn't logically follow that your opposition to forced sterilization is a consequence of your Libertarianism. Agreed?

[username]

Originally posted by Darat
Perhaps I have got the wrong end of the stick however even then it doesn't stand up since the core tenet of libertarianism was not in place when the USA was founded e.g. ownership of self. Therefore in neither practice nor principle can it be said that the USA, when it was founded, was a libertarian country.

I don't follow. From my perspective ownership of self was a major facet of the young US government. There was no longer allegiance to any monarch, any religous authority, property rights were nearly absolute etc.

I understand that the government was liberal rather than libertarian (useless labels if you ask me), but in practice I think the government in the early days was closer to a libertarian government than any other I can think of. It may not have matched 100% with today's list of principles, but I think it matches quite well with the ownership of self idea.

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Tony
That may be the stated priniple, but I've come to realize (based on past threads) that libertarian free market principles require, atleast some segments of the population, to surrender the ownership of self, especially when it comes to employment.

Actually, I think it is more accurate to say that libertarian free market principles assume that everybody will play fair, especially those with superior power, although even economists freely admit that this is bunk, and that measure outside the forces of the free market are necessary to restrict that.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Chaos
Actually, I think it is more accurate to say that libertarian free market principles assume that everybody will play fair, especially those with superior power, although even economists freely admit that this is bunk, and that measure outside the forces of the free market are necessary to restrict that.

I think it is most accurate to say that Libertarians will twist and turn whatever argument there is, so they will get the most advantages.

The rest can either go screw themselves, die or get jailed.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Art Vandelay
As are the Democrats and Republicans and Greens and ever other political persuasion other than anarchy. Regulating private organizations is a function of all governments.

Scrut knows he's lying. Businesses would be free to run their business however they see fit. The only thing they couldn't do is initiate force against others.

So anyone who supports any regulation whatsoever must also be in favor of forced sterilization? Are you high or something?

No, he's just a liar.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Darat
As far as the USA Constitution goes it was (and pretty much still is) a liberal constitution not a libertarian constitution

It's liberal in the classic sense, which is at least very close to libertarian. The word libertarian was coined in this country after the word liberal was coopted by Socialists.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Darat
No it was a liberal state, founded on liberal idealogical principles not libertarian principles.

What do you see as being the difference?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Darat
If you look at the time of the founding of the USA I would say it had a comparatively big and complex government. (For all the right reasons.)

I'd like to see you support that. If anything, the government at the founding of the US was too small, so small it couldn't even enforce basic agreements among the states. That's why the Articles of Confederation had to be scrapped in favor of the Constitution in the first place.

But still had taxation.

Very, very little. And only in the form of tariffs and excises.

Historically the USA was not a poor nation at its founding; it was an established prosperous colony – that’s why the British were taxing it so heavily! :)

There were large areas of it, though, that were very poor. The wealth was concentrated in just a few places.

Remember that libertarianism is not about big v small government or tax v no tax, its core principle is the ownership of the self. When the USA was founded it certainly did not hold that principle in mind (for whatever reason),

Can you support this?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tony
That may be the stated priniple, but I've come to realize (based on past threads) that libertarian free market principles require, atleast some segments of the population, to surrender the ownership of self, especially when it comes to employment.

Not at all. In fact, the act of employment depends on self-ownership. Since you own yourself, you own your labor and its output. Employment is the selling of the output of your labor. How can you sell what you do not have?

[shanek]

Originally posted by The idea
According to Libertarianism, does the government have no right to quarantine a person who is known to have a disease that is both serious and highly contagious?

Only if he's doing something that puts others in a real danger of getting it, against their will.

You can easily equate this to the smoking issue: do people have a right to smoke in public? If you go into a bar where smoking is allowed, then you have agreed to inhale second-hand smoke. It's only if someone lights up in an area that the property owners have designated as non-smoking that action can be taken.

So, should we quarantine smokers?

For a parent who already has more children than the parent can afford to take satisfactory care of

Who makes that determination, and how?

the foreseeable rights violation will affect future offspring.

There's no evidence of that.

We can foresee that future offspring will likely not receive what they are entitled to.

"Entitled" by whom? This is starting to sound an awful lot like Socialism...

You are a Libertarian and you are opposed to forced sterilization. However, it doesn't logically follow that your opposition to forced sterilization is a consequence of your Libertarianism. Agreed?

Not at all.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Chaos
Actually, I think it is more accurate to say that libertarian free market principles assume that everybody will play fair,

No, they don't.

and that measure outside the forces of the free market are necessary to restrict that.

Measures such as, police? Courts? I'm in favor of those.

[Tony]

Originally posted by shanek
Not at all. In fact, the act of employment depends on self-ownership. Since you own yourself, you own your labor and its output. Employment is the selling of the output of your labor. How can you sell what you do not have?

This is nothing more than theory stated as fact.

[Underemployed]

This is nothing more than theory stated as fact.

No doubt it is, but it is surely in agreement with the definintion of the word 'Employment'. Where there is coercion, it cease to be employment and becomes a form of slavery, which is harming the individual rights of another citizen, thus is not allowed in the Libertarian ideal.

You are a Libertarian and you are opposed to forced sterilization. However, it doesn't logically follow that your opposition to forced sterilization is a consequence of your Libertarianism. Agreed?

Begging the question. (http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/begging.php) The opposition to sterilization could quite easily arise from the dogmatic aversion to harming another's indivdual freedoms. In this case, the freedom to bear offspring.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Underemployed
No doubt it is, but it is surely in agreement with the definintion of the word 'Employment'. Where there is coercion, it cease to be employment and becomes a form of slavery, which is harming the individual rights of another citizen, thus is not allowed in the Libertarian ideal.

A child, forced to work in a sweatshop by grinding poverty, is not submitted to "force" or "coercion"? It is the free will of that child to work there?

Starve to death, or die young from overwork, work accidents, pollution...? Some "choice".

[Underemployed]

In using the phrase 'forced to work', you have answered your own question. Force is coercion, thus is covered by the Libertarian ethos.

Starve to death, or die young from overwork, work accidents, pollution...?

False Dilemma. (http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/fd.php) The child has many other avenues open to him or her, plus you are assuming that all child labour is bad (and is by necessity full-time). Did you never have a paper round or mow somebody's lawn?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tony
This is nothing more than theory stated as fact.

No, it's an expression of the very principle we're talking about. It's neither theory nor fact; it's principle.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Underemployed
No doubt it is, but it is surely in agreement with the definintion of the word 'Employment'. Where there is coercion, it cease to be employment and becomes a form of slavery...

How are you defining "coercion"?

[Darat]

Originally posted by username
I don't follow. From my perspective ownership of self was a major facet of the young US government. There was no longer allegiance to any monarch, any religous authority, property rights were nearly absolute etc.


There was slavery and only certain citizens could own property tehrefore the two core principles of pretty much all variations of libertarianism were not in place.



Originally posted by username

I understand that the government was liberal rather than libertarian (useless labels if you ask me), but in practice I think the government in the early days was closer to a libertarian government than any other I can think of. It may not have matched 100% with today's list of principles, but I think it matches quite well with the ownership of self idea.

I agree that "liberal" and "libertarian" can be useless labels however they can also be used quite precisely within a given context. In my posts I am considering the ideologies that the labels describe.

My objections to considering the early USA as a libertarian country still stands i.e. the constitution and the government that was created was not based on the ideological principles of libertarianism but those of liberalism.

I think (from my viewpoint of course) that your confusion is because the ideology of libertarianism and liberalism share some common principles and it is quite often easy to confuse the two. (As a real-world example Shanek has been surprised that my tendency towards liberalism means that I do agree with some of his libertarian views, this is because of the two ideologies sharing some common ideas and principles.)

What the early USA represents is a liberal government.

[Tony]

Originally posted by shanek
No, it's an expression of the very principle we're talking about. It's neither theory nor fact; it's principle.

Huh? So when you said:

In fact, the act of employment depends on self-ownership. Since you own yourself, you own your labor and its output. Employment is the selling of the output of your labor. How can you sell what you do not have?

You really meant, "in principle"?

[Darat]

Originally posted by shanek
It's liberal in the classic sense, which is at least very close to libertarian. The word libertarian was coined in this country after the word liberal was coopted by Socialists.

Glad you agree with my "liberal" assessment.

[Darat]

Originally posted by shanek
What do you see as being the difference?

When? Then or now?

[Darat]

Originally posted by shanek
I'd like to see you support that. If anything, the government at the founding of the US was too small, so small it couldn't even enforce basic agreements among the states. That's why the Articles of Confederation had to be scrapped in favor of the Constitution in the first place.


It's a relative argument, however it is a fact that the USA was founded with a (for the time) comparatively complex government, then add in the state governments (which I consider all part and parcel of the governance of the USA) and you have a big complex government (for the time).

Originally posted by shanek

Very, very little. And only in the form of tariffs and excises.


Glad you agree with me that it still had taxation.

Originally posted by shanek

There were large areas of it, though, that were very poor. The wealth was concentrated in just a few places.


Maybe however that does not refute my point.


Originally posted by shanek

Can you support this?

Slavery, and the fact not everyone's property rights were respected. Therefore it fundamentally was in conflict with the two most important principles in most libertarian ideologies.

[Underemployed]

co·ercion
Function: noun
: the act, process, or power of coercing

Main Entry: co·erce
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): co·erced; co·erc·ing
1 : to restrain or dominate by force <religion in the past has tried to coerce the irreligious -- W. R. Inge>
2 : to compel to an act or choice
3 : to bring about by force or threat <coerce the compliance of the rest of the community -- Scott Buchanan>
Synonym: see FORCE

(from Merriam-Webster (http://www.m-w.com/))

To save further confusion, please assume I always mean the dictionary definition of the words I use. If you think I have made a mistake, let me know and I will correct as necessary.

[Darat]

Originally posted by shanek
No, it's an expression of the very principle we're talking about. It's neither theory nor fact; it's principle.

And all that principles are in a political ideology is an expression of the theory of how governance is carried out.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Underemployed
co·ercion
Function: noun
: the act, process, or power of coercing

Main Entry: co·erce
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): co·erced; co·erc·ing
1 : to restrain or dominate by force <religion in the past has tried to coerce the irreligious -- W. R. Inge>
2 : to compel to an act or choice
3 : to bring about by force or threat <coerce the compliance of the rest of the community -- Scott Buchanan>
Synonym: see FORCE

(from Merriam-Webster (http://www.m-w.com/))

To save further confusion, please assume I always mean the dictionary definition of the words I use. If you think I have made a mistake, let me know and I will correct as necessary.

I take it this was addressed to me?

If so, we are in utter agreement. I wasn't criticizing your point, I was explaining how child labor is coercion.

[Underemployed]

I was replying to Tony, apologies for not making that clear.

Edited to add:
Egad, these libertarian-themed threads are hard work. I can see why Shanek has such a high post-count.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Underemployed
I can see why Shanek has such a high post-count.

It takes great effort to explain such insane ideas.

[The idea]

Originally posted by shanek
You can easily equate this to the smoking issue: do people have a right to smoke in public? If you go into a bar where smoking is allowed, then you have agreed to inhale second-hand smoke. It's only if someone lights up in an area that the property owners have designated as non-smoking that action can be taken.

My question was about "a person who is known to have a disease that is both serious and highly contagious." Should there be designated ebola-free zones so that if one chooses to breathe in an area that has not been designated as an ebola-free zone then one has agreed to inhale ebola pathogens?


quote:
----------------------------------------
For a parent who already has more children
than the parent can afford to take satisfactory care of
----------------------------------------
Originally posted by shanek
Who makes that determination, and how?

We've not discussing the mechanics of implementation. We're discussing the question of whether or not, under a Libertarian system of government, there might be laws requiring people to be sterilized if those people cannot afford to properly nourish the children that they already have.

quote:
-----------------------------------
the foreseeable rights violation will
affect future offspring.
-----------------------------------

Originally posted by shanek
There's no evidence of that.

What kind of evidence are you looking for? We are assuming that a child is malnourished and that the parents simply cannot afford to properly feed the child. What additional information do we need before we can conclude that there is a serious risk that future offspring will also be malnourished? I assume that you are familiar with the concept of negligence; a foreseeable event is not an event that will necessarily occur. "Your honor, I smoked near gas pumps many times before that fateful day and there was no fire on any of those occasions. There was no evidence that a fire would occur."

quote:
---------------------------------------
We can foresee that future offspring will
likely not receive what they are entitled to.
----------------------------------------

Originally posted by shanek
"Entitled" by whom? This is starting to sound an awful lot like Socialism...

Under Libertarian law, would parents have no duty to their nonadult offspring?

quote:
------------------------------------
You are a Libertarian and you are opposed
to forced sterilization. However, it doesn't
logically follow that your opposition to forced
sterilization is a consequence of your Libertarianism.
Agreed?
------------------------------------

Originally posted by shanek
Not at all.
Okay, if it does logically follow, then show me the reasoning.

Assume both A and B are true.
[You fill in the reasoning.]
Conclude that B is a consequence of A.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by shanek
Scrut knows he's lying. Businesses would be free to run their business however they see fit. The only thing they couldn't do is initiate force against others.



No, he's just a liar.

Care to back that up son?

I will donate $1000 to the JREF if shanek can show any instance where I have lied about his position.

The downside for shanek, is that if he can't, he donates the $1000.

Prediction....no, guarantee...shanek will not accept this challenge.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
Care to back that up son?

I will donate $1000 to the JREF if shanek can show any instance where I have lied about his position.

The downside for shanek, is that if he can't, he donates the $1000.

Prediction....no, guarantee...shanek will not accept this challenge.

OK, that's a challenge. Open a new thread and let's see the evidence.

[Darat]

Please remember this section of the forum is for discussing the relevant issues not other Members.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Darat
I think (from my viewpoint of course) that your confusion is because the ideology of libertarianism and liberalism share some common principles and it is quite often easy to confuse the two. (As a real-world example Shanek has been surprised that my tendency towards liberalism means that I do agree with some of his libertarian views, this is because of the two ideologies sharing some common ideas and principles.)

What the early USA represents is a liberal government.

I'm still confused on how you distinguish between the two.

ETA: Never mind. You explained it later.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tony
Huh? So when you said:

You really meant, "in principle"?

No, I meant that it is a fact that that is the principle. Now stop with the word games.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Darat
Slavery, and the fact not everyone's property rights were respected. Therefore it fundamentally was in conflict with the two most important principles in most libertarian ideologies.

Ah, yes, I see; and I agree.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Darat
And all that principles are in a political ideology is an expression of the theory of how governance is carried out.

I would say that the theory comes from the principles, not vice-versa.

[shanek]

Originally posted by The idea
My question was about "a person who is known to have a disease that is both serious and highly contagious."

Yes, but you can also extend the idea to people who are exhaling smoke.

People are responsible for the harm they do to another; but if the other person agrees to the conditions, they are hardly in a position to complain.

We've not discussing the mechanics of implementation. We're discussing the question of whether or not, under a Libertarian system of government, there might be laws requiring people to be sterilized if those people cannot afford to properly nourish the children that they already have.

I believe I have already answered that question.

What kind of evidence are you looking for?

How about, any? With our experiences with the free market in the past, each generation has ended up being wealthier than the one before. The only time that has been otherwise is with government intrusion.

We are assuming that a child is malnourished and that the parents simply cannot afford to properly feed the child. What additional information do we need before we can conclude that there is a serious risk that future offspring will also be malnourished?

You need some, because your conclusion does not follow from the information given.

I assume that you are familiar with the concept of negligence; a foreseeable event is not an event that will necessarily occur. "Your honor, I smoked near gas pumps many times before that fateful day and there was no fire on any of those occasions. There was no evidence that a fire would occur."

There, there is a known causation link: the heat from the cigarette igniting the gas fumes. Where is your causation link?

Under Libertarian law, would parents have no duty to their nonadult offspring?

Parents are either responsible for their offspring, or give up that responsibility by putting them up for adoption.

Okay, if it does logically follow, then show me the reasoning.

It's your claim. I am under no obligation to provide the reasoning. So you tell me: How is it that my opposition to forced sterilization would not be a result of my Libertarian principles?

[The idea]

Originally posted by shanek
People are responsible for the harm they do to another; but if the other person agrees to the conditions, they are hardly in a position to complain.

Yes, a person who voluntarily enters a smoky pub agrees to inhale second-hand smoke. However, who agrees to be brought into the world to be malnourished and have irresponsible parents?

Originally posted by shanek
How about, any? With our experiences with the free market in the past, each generation has ended up being wealthier than the one before.
How is that relevant? After having a first child, parents don't usually wait a generation to have another one.

Originally posted by shanek
You need some, because your conclusion does not follow from the information given.

I repeat. We are assuming that a child is malnourished and that the parents simply cannot afford to properly feed the child. What additional information do we need before we can conclude that there is a serious risk that future offspring will also be malnourished?

Actually, suppose we don't just need "some" additional information. Suppose we need a huge amount of information. Provided that in some rare cases that information is available and is authenticated, would it follow that a pure Libertarian government might, without violating the principles of Libertarianism, force at least one of the parents to be sterilized?

Originally posted by shanek
There, there is a known causation link: the heat from the cigarette igniting the gas fumes. Where is your causation link?

I will repeat: "Your honor, I smoked near gas pumps many times before that fateful day and there was no fire on any of those occasions. There was no evidence that a fire would occur."

If you have established a causal link between the mere act of smoking near gas pumps and the fire, then how do you explain the fact that, before the fateful day, smoking near gas pumps didn't cause a fire?

Originally posted by shanek
It's your claim. I am under no obligation to provide the reasoning. So you tell me: How is it that my opposition to forced sterilization would not be a result of my Libertarian principles?
Okay, I will withdraw my claim. However, if you claim that forced sterilization is inconsistent with Libertarianism, then shouldn't your argument proceed from the principles of Libertarianism? According to the principles of Libertarianism, if you voluntarily enter an area that is not designated as an "ebola free zone", then do you accept the hazard of inhaling ebola pathogens?

[shanek]

Originally posted by The idea
Yes, a person who voluntarily enters a smoky pub agrees to inhale second-hand smoke. However, who agrees to be brought into the world to be malnourished and have irresponsible parents?

What a ridiculous argument. So, should someone born Jewish who grows up to hate Jews be able to sue his parents for making him be born Jewish?

How is that relevant? After having a first child, parents don't usually wait a generation to have another one.

Ah, my bad. By "future offspring" I assumed you meant subsequent generations.

If the kids are in that bad a situation, why not persuade the parents to give them up? Or if they're in real danger, why not act to protect them, by removing them from the parents? I don't think simple impoverishment is enough to justify that, though. That should be reserved for cases of abuse.

Provided that in some rare cases that information is available and is authenticated, would it follow that a pure Libertarian government might, without violating the principles of Libertarianism, force at least one of the parents to be sterilized?

No. The most you can do is get the kids out of that bad situation.

However, if you claim that forced sterilization is inconsistent with Libertarianism, then shouldn't your argument proceed from the principles of Libertarianism?

It does. They own their own bodies, and that's why you can forceably sterilize them.

According to the principles of Libertarianism, if you voluntarily enter an area that is not designated as an "ebola free zone", then do you accept the hazard of inhaling ebola pathogens?

No; if you voluntarily enter an area that has people with ebola you accept the hazard.

[Underemployed]

In the OP, The Idea made explicit mention of the forced sterilization example, so it must weigh heavily on his mind. Surely the question has been answered already? Do you still think the Ideal Libertarian state would carry out forced sterilizations, on the spurious grounds that children born to parents X and Y are likely to lead a life of destitution?

How about wealthy couples who choose not to have children - are you supposing they would be forced to have babies? Or fined if they have an abortion?

If you are hung up on some kind of perfect anti-libertarian example, you are barking up the wrong tree on this one. In this case, the rights of the existing individual (the parent who wishes to have a child) outweighs the rights of the non-existent individual. If you think this is some kind of cruel and inhuman aspect of Libertarianism, bear in mind it is no different to the way Europe and North America handle the same situation.

Edited for speeling

[Darat]

Originally posted by shanek
What a ridiculous argument. So, should someone born Jewish who grows up to hate Jews be able to sue his parents for making him be born Jewish?

…snip…



Not a very good analogy - after all babies aren't born Jewish (no matter what the religious amongst us may like to believe).

Most societies (that I am aware of) do protect the child from the bad parent. In principle if your parents did screw-up your upbringing then you should be able to sue them or have them prosecuted. After all a child is not the property of its parents.

[The idea]

Originally posted by Underemployed
Surely the question has been answered already? Do you still think the Ideal Libertarian state would carry out forced sterilizations, on the spurious grounds that children born to parents X and Y are likely to lead a life of destitution?

I'm not sure what you mean by "spurious grounds", but I can't recall saying anything about a risk that children are likely to lead a life of destitution.

The issues are: do nonadult offspring have a right to adequate support; is a a failure to provide that support a rights violation; and is a Libertarian government permitted to prevent a foreseeable rights violation from occurring?

Originally posted by Underemployed
How about wealthy couples who choose not to have children - are you supposing they would be forced to have babies? Or fined if they have an abortion?

You should start another thread if you want to ask those questions, unless you can establish that they have something to do with the first post in this thread.

Originally posted by Underemployed
In this case, the rights of the exisiting individual (the parent who wishes to have a child) outweighs the rights of the non-existent individual.
Well, you can say "in this case X and in that case Y" but you won't be telling us anything about Libertarianism. You will simply be telling us about your own opinions.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Darat
Not a very good analogy - after all babies aren't born Jewish (no matter what the religious amongst us may like to believe).

Uh, yes, they are. Ethnically, someone can be a Jew even if they're not religiously.

[shanek]

Originally posted by The idea
The issues are: do nonadult offspring have a right to adequate support; is a a failure to provide that support a rights violation; and is a Libertarian government permitted to prevent a foreseeable rights violation from occurring?

Really, the core issue is, are you allowed to use force against someone because you THINK they're going to do something wrong in the future?

In this case, you're talking about forced sterilization of people you THINK are going to have kids that you THINK are going to suffer in the future.

[The idea]

Originally posted by shanek
In this case, you're talking about forced sterilization of people you THINK are going to have kids [...]
As sterilization techniques improve, side effects are going to become increasingly rare. So the only effect of the sterilization procedure will be some minor inconvenience and an inability to produce offspring. If they're not going to produce offspring anyway, what difference does it make if they become unable to produce offspring?

Originally posted by shanek
[...] kids that you THINK are going to suffer in the future.
Are we really talking about what I personally "THINK" or are we talking about laws that would instruct judges regarding the criteria for determining whether or not a potential rights violation rises to the level of a significant and foreseeable risk?

[Underemployed]

Originally posted by The Idea
I'm not sure what you mean by "spurious grounds", but I can't recall saying anything about a risk that children are likely to lead a life of destitution.


Perhaps it was this that gave me the idea:

We are assuming that the parents already have at least one child who is malnourished, so preventing the parents from reproducing is not exactly pre-emptive. The horse is already out of the barn. If the government sterilized the parents, then it would simply be preventing more horses from getting out of the barn.

Or maybe this:

Furthermore, there are long-term consequences. The children may have children and so on. We are potentially talking about permanent, endless, perpetual poverty.

And this:

For a parent who already has more children than the parent can afford to take satisfactory care of (and that does not exclude the possibility that the parent has only one child), the foreseeable rights violation will affect future offspring. We can foresee that future offspring will likely not receive what they are entitled to.

And not forgetting this:

We are assuming that a child is malnourished and that the parents simply cannot afford to properly feed the child. What additional information do we need before we can conclude that there is a serious risk that future offspring will also be malnourished?


But anyway. You ask the valid questions:

do nonadult offspring have a right to adequate support; is a a failure to provide that support a rights violation; and is a Libertarian government permitted to prevent a foreseeable rights violation from occurring?

do nonadult offspring have a right to adequate support?

Not according to any of the Libertarian literature I have seen, though you may wish to clarify what you determine 'adequate'.

is a a failure to provide that support a rights violation?

In light of the previous answer this situation does not arise.

is a Libertarian government permitted to prevent a foreseeable rights violation from occurring?


Yes, while remembering that this statement can be broadly applied to many situations, unlike your first two questions which are specific to the example of the poor parents. Consider the following:

A rich businessman decides to build an iron foundry right next to Libertown. The townspeople do not like this idea and say it will cause them harm. The parties take their case to the Libertarian court.

Before the foundry is built, no harm has been done to anyone. The court can find for either side depending on who will suffer the most harm, not simply on economic grounds. I don't pretend to know which way such a case would be decided as such courts don't exist and we have no caselaw for them. What is pertinent is that we have two sides, each of which can appeal to the law to protect their interests. With impoverished parents, we have nothing but vague fears about the future.

Well, you can say "in this case X and in that case Y" but you won't be telling us anything about Libertarianism. You will simply be telling us about your own opinions.

I am not authority on Libertatrianism, correct, nor am I personally associated with it in any way, shape or form (I am associated with the LibDems in the UK but the parties share nothing save a syllable). I have read the websites on Libertarianism and and am familiar with the stances of most political parties in the western world (including the less mainstream ones (http://www.omrlp.com/)). If you think I misrepresent anything, say so and correct me rather than poisoning the well (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/poiswell.html)

[Tony]

Originally posted by shanek
No, I meant that it is a fact that that is the principle. Now stop with the word games.

Please tell me this is meant to be humorous.

[The idea]

Originally posted by Underemployed
I have read the websites on Libertarianism and and am familiar with the stances of most political parties in the western world (including the less mainstream ones (http://www.omrlp.com/)).
What restrictions are imposed on the websites of political parties? Is there something that prevents a party from changing its stances from year to year? Is there a guarantee that a party's policies will stay the same after it acquires power?

Even if a political party were to give a specific answer to a specific question, it's difficult to see that as anything but a promise made by some particular organization. Perhaps it was wrong of me to presume, but I presumed that there is some fixed and systematic body of doctrine called "Libertarianism" that is not merely the advertising-of-the-moment of some particular organizations.

Originally posted by Underemployed
If you think I misrepresent anything, say so and correct me [...]
My concern is that you neither represented nor misrepresented Libertarianism. It seemed that you merely asserted your own judgment as to what right outweighs what other right in some particular situation.

[Darat]

Originally posted by shanek
Uh, yes, they are. Ethnically, someone can be a Jew even if they're not religiously.

No they can't.

Some people may disagree with me however if the definition of a Jew is one who follows Judaism then someone who does not follow Judaism is not a Jew.

I am not “ethnically� a Christian even though I was born into a Christian family, attended Christian primary schools and was baptised. Unless I follow Christianity then it is incorrect to call me a Christian.

[Darat]

Originally posted by shanek
Really, the core issue is, are you allowed to use force against someone because you THINK they're going to do something wrong in the future?

In this case, you're talking about forced sterilization of people you THINK are going to have kids that you THINK are going to suffer in the future.

I thought you had said previously that under your version of libertarianism this “pre-emptive� use of force is OK?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Darat
No they can't.

Yes, they can. "Jew" also means someone of Hebrew descent.

[shanek]

Originally posted by The idea
What restrictions are imposed on the websites of political parties?

None that I'm aware of, except on the fundraising/donations side.

Is there something that prevents a party from changing its stances from year to year?

Internal policies. In the case of the LP, the platform can only be modified by the body of delegates at the biannual national convention.

[b]Is there a guarantee that a party's policies will stay the same after it acquires power?

This is life. Ain't no guarantees.

[Underemployed]

Oringinally posted by The idea
[...]you merely asserted your own judgment as to what right outweighs what other right in some particular situation.

Ok, don't take my word for it. I'm not an authority. Don't take Shanek's word for it - although he may be an authority. How about this:

"We may debate pro and con on abortion, but as Libertarians we agree it is not the purview of government."
George Squyres is a member of the LP Platform Special Committee, and the Region 2 Representative on the Libertarian National Committee, Inc. (http://www.lp.org/lpnews/article_607.shtml)

Whoa, abortion? What's that got to do with forced sterilization?

At first I got to thinking that here was an ideal analogue to our argument. Surely any party that allowed abortion would be happy to let any parent make whatever choice they desire regarding their offspring, up to and including the choice of whether or not to have them at all. But it goes against the doctrine of 'do no harm'. And what about the harm to the parent(s) of having to bear an unwanted child?

And again we have an example where there is a definite harm to be allowed or prevented: that of the life and death of a real unborn child. Can this be compared to the life and death of a non-existent child? One that may never exist?

In addition, you are saying you can predict the future life of both the parents and the imagined offspring. What happens when a factory opens in the area creating employment and the poor parents get a decent job? Do the doctors rush back and untie the tubes? The more you look into your example, the more spurious it appears. Was there something in Libertarian literature you read that put this idea into your head? Do you think the Libertarian party is a Nazi front?

If nothing else, the mainstream stance on abortion is proof that the LP does not interfere with the use of your own body - this is particularly evidenced by the position on drug use.

Is there something that prevents a party from changing its stances from year to year? Is there a guarantee that a party's policies will stay the same after it acquires power?

Not if any of the other mainstream parties are anything to go by. Many parties change policies slightly upon gaining power - not that that is anything to worry about regarding the LP. However, changing their stance from
these (http://www.lp.org/issues/issues.shtml) to a platform that includes forced sterilization is stretching credibility.

[Darat]

Originally posted by shanek
Yes, they can. "Jew" also means someone of Hebrew descent.

Then it is a meaningless label.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Darat
Then it is a meaningless label.

No, it's a word with two different definitions: one religious, and one ethnic.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
No, it's a word with two different definitions: one religious, and one ethnic.

How and when do we distinguish between the two?

You need to explain that, in no uncertain terms, unless you want your argument to be rendered invalid.

[The idea]

Originally posted by Underemployed
In addition, you are saying you can predict the future life of both the parents and the imagined offspring. What happens when a factory opens in the area creating employment and the poor parents get a decent job? Do the doctors rush back and untie the tubes? The more you look into your example, the more spurious it appears.

There's that word "spurious" again. I will respond by quoting what I already said to shanek:
I assume that you are familiar with the concept of negligence; a foreseeable event is not an event that will necessarily occur. "Your honor, I smoked near gas pumps many times before that fateful day and there was no fire on any of those occasions. There was no evidence that a fire would occur."

Originally posted by Underemployed
Was there something in Libertarian literature you read that put this idea into your head?
I do recall reading something by someone who seemed to accept much of Libertarianism and who said something about privatizing all land and then executing the homeless on the grounds that taxpayers shouldn't have to pay the costs of imprisoning them.

Originally posted by Underemployed
Do you think the Libertarian party is a Nazi front?

Even if Libertarianism explicitly included the principle that, in some situations, governments have the right to sterilize one of the parents of a malnourished child, it would seem to be a stretch to automatically conclude that Libertarians are neo-Nazis.

Originally posted by Underemployed
[...] changing their stance from
these (http://www.lp.org/issues/issues.shtml) to a platform that includes forced sterilization is stretching credibility.
I'm not convinced that you can extrapolate from a platform that seems designed for a wealthy country and the general attitude that seems to be associated with that platform to arrive at answers to specific questions of doctrine that might arise in a poor country.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
How and when do we distinguish between the two?

You need to explain that, in no uncertain terms, unless you want your argument to be rendered invalid.
Well his argument is a nonsense right from the start (being malnourished=being an anti-Semitic Jew? :wink8: ), but he's right about the two (actually there's more than two) definition of Jews. To be Jewish can mean to belong to the Jewish religion, but it can also mean simply that you mother was Jewish. In fact many such Jews do in fact identify as Jewish, despite being perhaps atheists, and celebrate Jewish holidays like you and I celebrate Christian ones. Of course the label becomes quite meaningless when it's applied to people who do not in any way identify as Jewish. I knows one such "Jew" who in fact didn't know that he was "Jewish" until I told him. He had said he was quarter Jewish and wasn't aware that this technically made him "Jewish" because his mothers mother had been. I seriously doubt that he has ever though about his "Jewishness" since and the lapel is as I said quite meaningless when applied to such people, but it is technically correct.

[Underemployed]

Main Entry: spu·ri·ous (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=spurious&x=0&y=0)
Function: adjective
Etymology: Late Latin & Latin; Late Latin spurius false, from Latin, of illegitimate birth, from spurius, noun, bastard
1 : of illegitimate birth : BA$TARD
2 : outwardly similar or corresponding to something without having its genuine qualities : FALSE
3 a : of falsified or erroneously attributed origin : FORGED b : of a deceitful nature or quality
- spu·ri·ous·ly adverb
- spu·ri·ous·ness noun

I assume that you are familiar with the concept of negligence; a foreseeable event is not an event that will necessarily occur. "Your honor, I smoked near gas pumps many times before that fateful day and there was no fire on any of those occasions. There was no evidence that a fire would occur."

I am indeed familiar with the concept of negligence. You sound like you are using it in the formal, legal sense - correct me if I misinterpret you.

'To find legal negligence, a court must first find that the person "breached" a duty owed to others....The negligent act must also cause damage....Finally, the damage caused by the negligence must have been "foreseeable."'

That's a quickie version from
here (http://www.afshinpishevarlaw.com/lawyer-attorney-1029798.html). Have a read here (http://www.bu.edu/law/faculty/papers/pdf_files/SimonsK080802.pdf) (pdf) for a scholarly look at the subject. Here's (http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/n010.htm) another good, short page on the subject, including the quote:

'In general, a party who has caused an injury or loss to another in consequence of his negligence is responsible for all the consequences.'

The key aspect of negligence is that it is a principle used to determine culpability for actions which have already taken place. It is not, and never has been, a tool to protect innocents from future harm.

If you said otherwise, one might say your claim was....spurious.

I'm not convinced that you can extrapolate from a platform that seems designed for a wealthy country and the general attitude that seems to be associated with that platform to arrive at answers to specific questions of doctrine that might arise in a poor country.

If that is your opinion then why did you start this thread by doing exactly that?

[The idea]

Originally posted by Underemployed
The key aspect of negligence is that it is a principle used to determine culpability for actions which have already taken place. It is not, and never has been, a tool to protect innocents from future harm.

If you said otherwise, one might say your claim was....spurious.

In other words, if a police office neglects to pat down a violent suspect and neglects to handcuff the suspect and I say "that is negligent", then I am guilty of making a spurious claim unless I wait until after the suspect has pulled out a gun, started shooting, and actually hit someone or something?

Driving while intoxicated is a crime whether or not damages result. I suppose that the technical legal terminology is not "negligence" but there is such thing as illegally breaking an important rule even though there is a risk, but not a guarantee of harm resulting from breaking of the rule.

I'm not convinced that you can extrapolate from a platform that seems designed for a wealthy country and the general attitude that seems to be associated with that platform to arrive at answers to specific questions of doctrine that might arise in a poor country.


Originally posted by Underemployed
If that is your opinion then why did you start this thread by doing exactly that?
Did I extrapolate from the general attitude? Did I extrapolate from the platform of a particular party organization in a wealthy country?

Don't you think there is a bigger burden of proof on the person who extrapolates and asserts "this particular philosophy will never be the basis for X" than on the person who merely asks whether or not X might be consistent with the specified philosophy?

[Darat]

Originally posted by shanek
No, it's a word with two different definitions: one religious, and one ethnic.

It is meaningless (if used as you say it is) as it is so nebulous, it does not tell us anything about the person you are saying is “a Jew�.

Indeed using your definition I can call myself "a Jew" (I apparently have a Jewish great something or other as a grandmother), I can also say my ethnicity is Welsh, Scottish and more then likely Norwegian. (But not Danish… ;) )


(Edit to correct the ancestor - it was female so I've changed grandfather to grandmother in the above.)

[Underemployed]

In other words, if a police officer neglects to pat down a violent suspect and neglects to handcuff the suspect and I say "that is negligent", then I am guilty of making a spurious claim unless I wait until after the suspect has pulled out a gun, started shooting, and actually hit someone or something?

Yes, that's right, it looks like you have understood it. If the suspect did not pull a gun, and no people or property were harmed, and everything was alright, the policeman would face no charge of negligence (gross negligence almost certainly in this example).

Notice how when certain assumptions are changed (that the suspect will be armed) the charge of negligence becomes irrelevant?

The policeman is certainly being negligent in a non-legal sense, in the same way you could say he is acting recklessly by not correctly frisking a suspect. You could say, and I would agree, that parents who bring children into the world without the means to feed and shelter them are acting recklessly. But in both examples (and your smoking-by-the-gas-pumps one) the legal system is not involved until after the event.

I put it to you that there is plenty of evidence from the real-world Libertarian Party that they would follow very closely the current law of negligence and would not take pre-emptive action to forestall a possible harm, least of all by means of creating a very real violation of personal liberty in the present. This is utterly inconsistent with the philiosophy and the practice of Libertarian thought. I contend I have provided enough evidence on this thread to back up this statement, as has a paid-up member of the LP. If you consider this mere extrapolation then please show me what standards of proof you require.

[The idea]

Originally posted by Underemployed
I put it to you that there is plenty of evidence from the real-world Libertarian Party that they would [...]
My question is about the philosophy of Libertarianism and about how that philosophy might be applied in a poor country.

Originally posted by Underemployed
[...] not take pre-emptive action to forestall a possible harm, least of all by means of creating a very real violation of personal liberty in the present.
Suppose a police officer observes a car approaching from a distance along a road and then observes the car slow down and park. When the car stops, the officer observes that there is only one person in the car. When the driver walks away from the vehicle, the officer observes that the driver appears to be intoxicated. If the officer requires the driver to take a test to determine whether or not the driver is intoxicated, then is the officer violating the personal liberty of the driver?

Notice that we are probably not even talking about pre-emptive action to forestall a possible harm. We are talking about after-the-fact action to ascertain the facts and possibly punish violation of a rule that protects against possible harm.

[The idea]

Originally posted by Underemployed
But in both examples (and your smoking-by-the-gas-pumps one) the legal system is not involved until after the event.

Suppose someone is dismissed from employment without receiving notice of termination (even though such notice is guaranteed in the employment contract) on the grounds that the employee smoked at the employer's gas pump. (No fire occurred; the employee was simply caught smoking at the pump.) Suppose the employee sued for breach of contract. Then the legal system would not be involved?

[The idea]

Originally posted by Underemployed
In addition, you are saying you can predict the future life of both the parents and the imagined offspring. What happens when a factory opens in the area creating employment and the poor parents get a decent job? Do the doctors rush back and untie the tubes? The more you look into your example, the more spurious it appears.
I withdraw my earlier response to the above (the response in which I used the term "negligence"). I see no reason to believe that this issue has anything to do with the legal meaning of the word "negligence."

Originally posted by Underemployed
I put it to you that there is plenty of evidence from the real-world Libertarian Party that they would [...] not take pre-emptive action to forestall a possible harm, least of all by means of creating a very real violation of personal liberty in the present.

I have a problem with your use of the phrase "creating a very real violation of personal liberty in the present." Would I be misrepresenting your intention if I changed your words by replacing the word "violation" with the word "restriction"? The word "violation" suggests to me that you have already established that the particular proposed law is unjust. To a Libertarian, "unjust" might mean the same thing as "contrary to the principles of Libertarianism." Isn't that the actual question that we are trying to answer: would such a law be contrary to the principles of Libertarianism?

[Underemployed]

[Oringinally posted by The idea
Suppose a police officer observes a car approaching from a distance along a road and then observes the car slow down and park. When the car stops, the officer observes that there is only one person in the car. When the driver walks away from the vehicle, the officer observes that the driver appears to be intoxicated. If the officer requires the driver to take a test to determine whether or not the driver is intoxicated, then is the officer violating the personal liberty of the driver?

Yes. You are free to make your own errors and take the consequences for your actions.

Suppose someone is dismissed from employment without receiving notice of termination (even though such notice is guaranteed in the employment contract) on the grounds that the employee smoked at the employer's gas pump. (No fire occurred; the employee was simply caught smoking at the pump.) Suppose the employee sued for breach of contract. Then the legal system would not be involved?

It would be involved due to the employee's choice to sue, and one of the first things the court would check would be whether or not there was a contractual obligation not to smoke at the pump. If there wasn't, and it was a first offence, the employee would win his case.

If there wasn't such a stipulation, but there were other factors indicating the company did not allow smoking by the pumps (eg signs, verbal instructions from supervisors), then it would be up to the company to prove it had brought these factors to the attention of the employee.

In any case, it would be amatter of breach of contract, not an issue of negligence, because no pumps actually exploded.

My question is about the philosophy of Libertarianism and about how that philosophy might be applied in a poor country[...]Isn't that the actual question that we are trying to answer: would such a law [allowing forced sterilization] be contrary to the principles of Libertarianism?

OK, OK let's ignore the evidence I have so far provided and Shanek's response. After all, what did they have to do with the Libertarian philosophy? (http://www.libertarianworld.com/)

"Force should be used only to defend yourself, or others, or to deter threats of violence -- but never to achieve so called "social" purposes."

From Understanding the Libertarian Philosophy (http://members.aol.com/MrSage365/Liberty.html):

Some laws, such as those prohibiting murder, rape, robbery, and fraud, are laws against the initiation of force.

Enforcement of such laws is the application of defensive and/or retaliatory force, and is appropriate for government in a free society.

Other laws constitute an initiation of force.

* Government should not initiate force to seize the property of individuals.

* Government should not initiate force to compel service to the state.

* Government should not initiate force to impose lifestyles or moral codes.

* Government should not even initiate force when "it's for your own good."
(My bold)

More philosophical musings: (http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/cpr-19n1-1.html)

In the libertarian view, all human relationships should be voluntary; the only actions that should be forbidden by law are those that involve the initiation of force against those who have not themselves used force--actions like murder, rape, robbery, kidnapping, and fraud.

Reading these, you will of course not see a sentence that reads "Oh and by the way, if we should succeed in running a poor country, we will never institute a law that forces the poorest members of society to be sterilized, on the off-chance that their children will also be poor and possibly malnourished criminals."

You will also not find such a ludicrous statement in the literature of any Republicans, Democrats, Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats, Communists, Social Democrats or the Zanu PF (http://www.zanupfpub.co.zw/). You are asking me to prove a negative, which, as a JREF poster, you will recognise is futile. Either your question can be anserwed using existing evidence, or it is meaningless and should be withdrawn.

[The idea]

Suppose a police officer observes a car approaching from a distance along a road and then observes the car slow down and park. When the car stops, the officer observes that there is only one person in the car. When the driver walks away from the vehicle, the officer observes that the driver appears to be intoxicated. If the officer requires the driver to take a test to determine whether or not the driver is intoxicated, then is the officer violating the personal liberty of the driver?

Originally posted by Underemployed
Yes. You are free to make your own errors and take the consequences for your actions.

You do realize that if the driver gets back into the car, drives away, and injures or kills someone, then the driver is not the only one who will suffer negative consequences?

Originally posted by Underemployed
It would be involved due to the employee's choice to sue, and one of the first things the court would check would be whether or not there was a contractual obligation not to smoke at the pump. If there wasn't, and it was a first offence, the employee would win his case.

[...]

In any case, it would be a matter of breach of contract, not an issue of negligence, because no pumps actually exploded.

Is it really necessary for a contract to deal with every possible contingency? If the rule against smoking at the pumps were not in the contract, then a judge would not have the discretion to determine that the employee's reckless action was adequate grounds for dismissal without notice?

Originally posted by Underemployed
Reading these, you will of course not see a sentence that reads "Oh and by the way, if we should succeed in running a poor country, we will never institute a law that forces the poorest members of society to be sterilized, on the off-chance that their children will also be poor and possibly malnourished criminals."

How does that relate to my question? My question is not about the poorest members of society. Relative poverty is not even mentioned in my question. My question is about parents who already have a malnourished child who is malnourished because the parents cannot afford to properly feed the child.

My question did not mention any risk that those same parents will have future offspring who will become criminals. We are talking about a violation of the rights of the future offspring, not their violation of someone else's rights. Of course, that all presumes that under Libertarian philosophy nonadult children have any support rights at all.

However, if they have no right to be supported then we need not discuss unintentional neglect. Suppose parents take their child to live with them in a cabin far from civilization and then refuse to feed the child even though the parents have an abundant supply of food. If the child starves to death, would the parents be guilty of any violation of law under a Libertarian legal code?

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by The idea

Is it really necessary for a contract to deal with every possible contingency? If the rule against smoking at the pumps were not in the contract, then a judge would not have the discretion to determine that the employee's reckless action was adequate grounds for dismissal without notice?
I guess contracts in Libertopia will all carry the clause that "nothing in this contract shall be read as giving or denying permission to acts that any person with even the tiniest shred of intelligence, can see respectively shouldn't or should be done". On a slightly more serious note Shanek has said that breaching a contract is ground for civil suits to be determined by a jury, but that the jury could then decide not to award damages for the breach if the contract had been very unfair. Presumably they could also chose not to award damages, because the breach was causes by one party behaving so unbelievably brainless that it simply defied the imagination of the people drafting the contract. Shanek and, I believe, many Libertarians believe in common law which as I understand means that jury’s (or judges) create laws. Most of the time they are supposed to follow precedence by earlier decisions, but they can ignore that

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Kerberos
Shanek and, I believe, many Libertarians believe in common law which as I understand means that jury’s (or judges) create laws. Most of the time they are supposed to follow precedence by earlier decisions, but they can ignore that

Which opens up for the very thing they fear, hate and loathe: Vox Populi.

Just another example of why Libertarianism isn't a well-thought through political ideology.

[Underemployed]

Originally posted by The idea
You do realize that if the driver gets back into the car, drives away, and injures or kills someone, then the driver is not the only one who will suffer negative consequences?

Yes. Again, your example is flawed - the Policeman, in a Libertarian state, could watch the driver get in the car - perhaps even remind him of the risk he is taking by driving a vehicle while intoxocated - then let him drive away. The moment he gets on the road, he can be stopped and charged because this road is owned by Roads Inc who clearly state no-one may drive on their roads while under the influence. Unless it is owned by Wild Drive Inc, who don't care, in which case anyone else driving there assumes the consequences themselves. Once again, you are only penalised under Libertarian law for what you have done rather than what you might do. Or perhaps the Libertarian Government, such as it is, maintains the quaint notion of owning roads and has similar laws regarding drink-driving to the ones we have now. However you look at it, the police may not restrict his liberty to drive until he (the drunk) contravenes either the stated law of the land or the stipulations made by owners of private property upon which he drives.

If the rule against smoking at the pumps were not in the contract, then a judge would not have the discretion to determine that the employee's reckless action was adequate grounds for dismissal without notice?

Of course he would - Judges can rule that there was an implied term of the contract that all due care and attention be made regarding naked flames around the pumps. As would probably happen in this bizarre case which no sane fired employee would embark on. There are many such implied terms that need not be written into the contract, which is why they don't contain clauses such as "We promise you won't be sexually harassed in the course of your employment" and you don't have to sign anything promising you won't steal from the company vault.

My question is not about the poorest members of society. Relative poverty is not even mentioned in my question. My question is about parents who already have a malnourished child who is malnourished because the parents cannot afford to properly feed the child.

So just change where I say "the poorest members of society" to read "parents who already have a malnourished child who is malnourished because the parents cannot afford to properly feed the child," and you will see that the argument is still valid. You can't prove a negative.

Suppose parents take their child to live with them in a cabin far from civilization and then refuse to feed the child even though the parents have an abundant supply of food. If the child starves to death, would the parents be guilty of any violation of law under a Libertarian legal code?

So, no more talk about poverty, neglect, malnourishment...You move the goalposts yet again. No matter. The Libertarian philosophy of not initiating force covers this too, and any other such example. In preventing the child from eating, or escaping to somewhere where it can eat, the parent is forcibly restricting the child. This initiation of force makes the parents responisble for the condition of the child, and they must answer for it.
Edited to add: This situation is exactly like a kidnap, which would also be covered by the doctrine of not intiating force. You sound like you are more worried about the lack of Social Workers in a Libertarian State than you are about the implications of its philosophy. That would be more of a threat to abused children than anything else.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Which opens up for the very thing they fear, hate and loathe: Vox Populi.

Just another example of why Libertarianism isn't a well-thought through political ideology.
To be fair I don't think libertarians have to believe in common law, but yes I've been wondering how one can simultaneously insist that democracy is TYRANNY and that we should let the eminently democratic institution called jury’s make our legal decisions.

[The idea]

Originally posted by Underemployed
Either your question can be answered using existing evidence, or it is meaningless and should be withdrawn.
What if there is existing evidence that can be used to answer the question but its significance and relevance are not yet recognized? Also, what if new evidence becomes available? Is it really true that a question itself is in fact meaningless merely because we do not yet have access to evidence that allows us to answer the question?

[Darat]

Originally posted by Kerberos
To be fair I don't think libertarians have to believe in common law, but yes I've been wondering how one can simultaneously insist that democracy is TYRANNY and that we should let the eminently democratic institution called jury’s make our legal decisions.

I think the confusion, as seems often to be the case is caused by, the different participants in a discussion actually using similar but still differnet meanings for the same words.

For instance I suspect that Shanek would not describe the USA as a "democracy" yet I would. The difference in opinion (I believe) is that I use the word democracy to indicate a system of governance that everyone is enfranchised and the governance is granted a mandate by the people. However democracy can also be used to mean a system where decisions are made by a simple majority and I suspect Shanek tends to use "democracy" more towards that meaning.

However even given all that I do believe it is wrong to use a term like "tyranny" as a general description of democracy. (Of course a democracy can be tyrannical, but so can all other forms of governance we have ever come up with.)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Darat
However even given all that I do believe it is wrong to use a term like "tyranny" as a general description of democracy. (Of course a democracy can be tyrannical, but so can all other forms of governance we have ever come up with.)

....especially a Libertarian one...

[Darat]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
....especially a Libertarian one...

Why especially? I see no reason to assume that a libertarian state would necessarily be more likely to be tyrannical then say a capitalistic state.

[Underemployed]

Originally posted by The idea
What if there is existing evidence that can be used to answer the question but its significance and relevance are not yet recognized? Also, what if new evidence becomes available?

What kind of evidence do you envisage? Cunningly hidden documents in a secret room on the top floor of the worldwide HQ of Libertarians, labelled 'TOP-SECRET PLANS TO BE USED IN THE EVENT OF US GAINING CONTROL OF A POOR COUNTRY'? Deleted emails from a Libertarians computer showing their intent to sterilize neglectful parents?

I have now shown you multiple examples of Libertarian philososphy and the opinions of real-live Libertarians which run contrary to your supposition. You have just ignored them all. Either admit that you are unwilling to change your opinion no matter what, or say why you still contend a Libertarian state, in a poor or a rich country, would ever force anyone to undergo a sterilization procedure.

Is it really true that a question itself is in fact meaningless merely because we do not yet have access to evidence that allows us to answer the question?

Yes, because you're still asking to prove a negative. Are you expecting the Holy Ghost of Libertarianism to appear before you and swear for all eternity that no country under his domain will sterilize people? Because I'm beginning to think that's about the only thing that will answer you satisfactorily.

Look at it this way: All the available evidence, historical and factual, experimental and theoretical, points to the fact that the sun will rise tomorrow morning.

But there's no way to prove it absolutely, except wait for it to happen.

Likewise, all the available evidence on Libertarianism points to the fact that parents would not be sterilized under such a Government, regardless of the financial state of the country.

We can wait and wait for new evidence for appear to the contrary, and hey - if you find those secret documents, I'll be the first to admit I was wrong, gosh darn those evil Libertarians. But until then, I'll go with what we have.

[The idea]

Originally posted by Underemployed
If you think this is some kind of cruel and inhuman aspect of Libertarianism, bear in mind it is no different to the way Europe and North America handle the same situation.

In Europe and North America, aren't tax revenues used to provide poor parents with the means to prevent their children from being malnourished? What situation do you have in mind when you assert that "it is no different"?

Don't Libertarians insist that taxes should be eliminated, but claim that private charity would fill the gap? What is it that Libertarians anticipate would happen in a very poor country?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Darat
Why especially? I see no reason to assume that a libertarian state would necessarily be more likely to be tyrannical then say a capitalistic state.

Capitalism is not a political philosophy, but an economic one. ;)

What would you consider a capitalistic state?

[Darat]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Capitalism is not a political philosophy, but an economic one. ;)


It is a political philosophy the same way communism, socialism etc. are.

Originally posted by CFLarsen

What would you consider a capitalistic state?

Thankfully there aren't any.

But back to my question, why do you think libertarian states are "especially" likely to be tyrannical?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Darat
It is a political philosophy the same way communism, socialism etc. are.

Not quite:

Capitalism:
an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market
(Webster)

Communism:
1 a : a theory advocating elimination of private property b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
2 capitalized a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the U.S.S.R. b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably d : communist systems collectively
(Webster)

Socialism:
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
(Webster)

We don't use "Capitalism" the same way we use "Communism" - the latter implies an economic and political society. The former only deals with economics.

Originally posted by Darat
But back to my question, why do you think libertarian states are "especially" likely to be tyrannical?

Remember Badnarik's "First day in office"? That's as tyrannical as it gets.

[The idea]

Originally posted by Underemployed
What kind of evidence do you envisage? Cunningly hidden documents in a secret room on the top floor of the worldwide HQ of Libertarians, labelled 'TOP-SECRET PLANS TO BE USED IN THE EVENT OF US GAINING CONTROL OF A POOR COUNTRY'? Deleted emails from a Libertarians computer showing their intent to sterilize neglectful parents?

I have now shown you multiple examples of Libertarian philososphy and the opinions of real-live Libertarians which run contrary to your supposition. You have just ignored them all.
Here's a research project for you. Determine when the persecution of geneticists began in the USSR. Find documents that in your opinion provide the first warning sign that a persecution of that general nature might take place if and when the communists/ Bolsheviks/ Stalin took control. What's the oldest document that provides what you see as a genuine warning sign?

Originally posted by Underemployed
Either admit that you are unwilling to change your opinion no matter what, or say why you still contend a Libertarian state, in a poor or a rich country, would ever force anyone to undergo a sterilization procedure.
Did I claim that a Libertarian government would force people to be sterilized? I thought that I had simply asked a question.

[Underemployed]

Originally posted by The idea
In Europe and North America, aren't tax revenues used to provide poor parents with the means to prevent their children from being malnourished? What situation do you have in mind when you assert that "it is no different"?

Perhaps if you read the post and provided the quote in context...

In this case, the rights of the existing individual (the parent who wishes to have a child) outweighs the rights of the non-existent individual. If you think this is some kind of cruel and inhuman aspect of Libertarianism, bear in mind it is no different to the way Europe and North America handle the same situation.

...You would see that it refers specifically to your sterilization example. Oh yes - I see you've noticed this and glossed over it, and have come up with yet another angle, in the next sentence:

Don't Libertarians insist that taxes should be eliminated, but claim that private charity would fill the gap? What is it that Libertarians anticipate would happen in a very poor country?

Mainstream Libertarian thought does not advocate the complete elimination of taxes, it goes by the motto “That government is best which governs least.� Most writing on the subject I have found does give examples of good private charities (The Mormons are a favourite), but does not say that a Libertarian state would rely on them completely. There are numerous other threads on this board and others discussing the Libertarian approach to providing for the poor - but of course you don't count them, do you? Only the purest Libertarian philosophy will do. So read this (http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp) to give yourself an insight on the subject. Libertarianism is not Anarchy - there would still be Police, Courts, Social Services - just in a radically reduced form compared what we are familiar with.

As to the second part of your question - what is it that Libertarians anticipate would happen in a very poor country - I refer you back to what Shanek said in his first set of answers on this thread:

Originally posted by Shanek:
Creating wealth takes time[...]they would have something they didn't have before: opportunities[...]this isn't a perfect system where no one has any problems; it's just a system where they have opportunities and can work to create their own wealth. Then, they can deal with their own problems as long as government doesn't come and get in the way[...]Yes, there would be suffering at first, but there's suffering now. Libertarianism, while not perfect, will give them their best hope for the future.

Libertarianism would not automatically put food in the mouths of malnourished children, true - but neither would Democracy, Communism, Facism, Anarchy, or any other system of government - because you have specified a very poor country in your example! Perhaps you meant to say 'One which has ample resources to feed its citizens, but does not do so due to governmental mismanagement'? Or are you suggesting that a new leadership will magic up food and money instantaneously?

Take a look at East Timor, (http://www.aneki.com/facts/east_timor.html#Introduction) poorest country in the world. (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0908763.html) It is, you will note, a Democratic Republic, just like the US and pretty much all of Europe. Would a change to Libertarianism result in fewer malnourished children? Maybe, maybe not - but it would be down to the available resources, not the system of government.

You're still way off base trying to bash Libertarianism on welfare. Why not try the following:

Foreign Policy: The neighbouring country of Facistland wants your territory. How do you pay for a standing army? Will you rely on all your citizens acting as a militia against an organised military threat? What about nukes?

Private Monopolies: Agrico Corp owns all the arable land decides to simply burn its crops on the whim of a mad majority shareholder. Everyone will starve, but nobody has initiated force against a person or property that they didn't own. Should the company have been prevented from acting this way?

Guaranteed to make any die-hard Libertarian squirm! Claim them as your own on a new thread, I won't tell anyone!

[Underemployed]

Originally posted by The idea:
Did I claim that a Libertarian government would force people to be sterilized? I thought that I had simply asked a question.

Accepted.

Here's a research project for you. Determine when the persecution of geneticists began in the USSR. Find documents that in your opinion provide the first warning sign that a persecution of that general nature might take place if and when the communists/ Bolsheviks/ Stalin took control. What's the oldest document that provides what you see as a genuine warning sign?

You're asking me to prove a negative again? Or do you have such a proof and are just testing my powers of research? If a goverment proves itself to be tyrannical through its actions, it should be deposed. And guess what - it's a LOT easier to depose a tyrannical Libertarian Government than a USSR-style Communist one! Once again - there are no definites, no absolute proofs that are valid for all eternity.

[The idea]

Originally posted by Underemployed
From Understanding the Libertarian Philosophy (http://members.aol.com/MrSage365/Liberty.html):
quote:
---------------------------------
[...]
* Government should not even initiate force when "it's for your own good."
---------------------------------

(My bold)


I certainly approve of you actually providing quotes from your links.

However, if we are looking at one of your central claims:

"In this case, the rights of the existing individual (the parent who wishes to have a child) outweighs the rights of the non-existent individual"

then it's hard to see what the relevance is of the statement that government should not initiate force against someone even if the government's intention is to help that person.

Suppose a number of people are killed by landmines that were buried before they were born. We foresee that this might continue to happen in the future. If someone planning to bury landmines could somehow guarantee that no one alive at the time the landmines were buried would be harmed by them, then would it be anti-Libertarian for the government to use the force of law to prevent that person from burying landmines?

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Underemployed

Foreign Policy: The neighbouring country of Facistland wants your territory. How do you pay for a standing army? Will you rely on all your citizens acting as a militia against an organised military threat? What about nukes?
I can answer that, you see the freedom loving citizens of Libertopia would of course flock to it's banner, and donate large sums of money to resist the evil invaders of Fascistland. As for nukes the superior economic system of Libertopia will of course long ago have developed an efficient missile shield with the money donated by patriotic citizens. Forcing people to defend their country is bad you see. Having you country taking avor by fascist is bad too. No forcing people to defend their country isn't less bad. No it's not worse either. Equally bad? Nop that doesn't work either.
Besides dictators are actually surprisingly reasonable individuals. FX Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait solely because they were slant drilling an encroaching on his borders. Now while non-Libertarian might wonder why this caused him to occupy all of Kuwait and annex the country, but you see the Kuwaiti army was actually contrary to conventional wisdom so incredibly powerful that Saddam needed to occupy all the country to protect himself from counterattack. Ohh and he never annexed Kuwait, really, that’s just propaganda. No that link doesn't work for me, no the other one isn't good enough either, Saddam saying so during his trial is irrelevant too. No the around 1400 other links you provided are unreliable too.Your a freedom hating BIGOT and I can't be bothered talking to you any more. Wikipedia says he did it too? *whistle* *whistle* *ignore*.

[The idea]

Here's a research project for you. Determine when the persecution of geneticists began in the USSR. Find documents that in your opinion provide the first warning sign that a persecution of that general nature might take place if and when the communists/ Bolsheviks/ Stalin took control. What's the oldest document that provides what you see as a genuine warning sign?

Originally posted by Underemployed
You're asking me to prove a negative again? Or do you have such a proof and are just testing my powers of research?
Neither.

A political movement has theories of economics, proposes major changes to society, and promises prosperity. Suppose that, after the movement has had political power for some time, the promised prosperity has still not arrived. What might the leaders of the movement decide to do?

[Underemployed]

Originally posted by The idea
However, if we are looking at one of your central claims:

quote:"In this case, the rights of the existing individual (the parent who wishes to have a child) outweighs the rights of the non-existent individual"

then it's hard to see what the relevance is of the statement that government should not initiate force against someone even if the government's intention is to help that person.

Let's have a quick look back at the philosophy page (http://members.aol.com/MrSage365/Liberty.html):

"What is the proper use of force in a free society?" To answer this question, we first look at different types of force:

1. INITIAL FORCE: In any group of people, from 2 to 20 billion, there is no use of force until someone uses it first. Initial force is aggression or coercion.

2. DEFENSIVE FORCE: Defensive force is the use of force to defend your safety, rights, or property. You have the right to defend yourself, and the right to authorize others, such as those in government, to use defensive force in your behalf. Defensive force is survival.

3. RETALIATORY FORCE: Retaliatory Force is punishment of someone who has initiated force. If someone assaults you, you have the right to authorize government to punish those responsible in your behalf. Retaliatory force is justice.

And you will see the relevance is this: In the one situation, where the state removes a malnourished/abused/etc child from a family, the state is employing defensive force, which is justified under Libertarian philosophy. In the other, where it sterlizes people with a strong liklihood of producing a malnourished child, it is employing initial force, which is counter to Libertarian philosophy. Let's now apply this knowledge to your latest thought experiment (thanks for not asking one of those freebie questions BTW, those are toughies):

Suppose a number of people are killed by landmines that were buried before they were born. We foresee that this might continue to happen in the future. If someone planning to bury landmines could somehow guarantee that no one alive at the time the landmines were buried would be harmed by them, then would it be anti-Libertarian to prevent that person from burying landmines?

All land in a Libertarian state is privately owned (or as near makes no difference). So, can the government tell a person what to do on his or her land? Answers on a postcard. Anyone wishing to mine, electrify, booby-trap or otherwise make their land unwelcome to trespassers is allowed to do so.

Oh, but what if some poor innocent child stumbles upon this place and blows themselves up? Let's say the landowner was a secretive sort and didn't tell anyone about the mines. Let's imagine there were no warning signs. Did the landowner owe a duty of care to the child (just so you know, I am using the formal, legal term duty of care)?

Answer: Yes he did, because exploding mines are an initiation of force, regardless of whose land they are on. He is responsible for the death/injury of the child and would be punished accordingly (retaliatory force). UNLESS he put up fences, signs and so on, warning of the danger - in which case the parents of the child would be responsible for not watching out for their offspring. Again, this is no different to what happens now.

Oh, but what about long-buried mines where nobody knows where they are? In this case the event is a tragic accident, because, of course, nobody knew the mines were there. If they did know, we would apply the previous reasoning to determine if the landowner is liable. It may be the liability of the previous landowner, who did not tell the current owner that the place was mined.

Perhaps you are thinking of the problems facing many developing countries about unmapped minefields dotting the country, killing and maiming the general population randomly. You will find that all these are in publicly owned land (or land which has no formal owner).

[Underemployed]

Originally posted by The idea
A political movement has theories of economics, proposes major changes to society, and promises prosperity. Suppose that, after the movement has had political power for some time, the promised prosperity has still not arrived. What might the leaders of the movement decide to do?

If I could answer that to your satisfaction - or indeed to any high degree of accuracy - I would qualify for the JREF prize.

But of course we are reasonable people, and we can come up with some reasonable scenarios. I'm sure you have thought of some. Do any of them involve changing theories and principles to suit the practical needs of the moment? I'd imagine they would do. At which point the movement ceases to be Libertarian/Democratic/Communist/etc, although it may continue using the name.

[The idea]

Originally posted by Underemployed
Do any of them involve changing theories and principles to suit the practical needs of the moment? I'd imagine they would do. At which point the movement ceases to be Libertarian/Democratic/Communist/etc, although it may continue using the name.
What if they decide to keep their own theories and principles but try to force changes to other theories and principles? They might also use people who resist the changes as scapegoats to blame for the failure to achieve the promised prosperity.

[The idea]

Originally posted by Underemployed
Oh, but what if some poor innocent child stumbles upon this place and blows themselves up? [...] the landowner [...] would be punished accordingly [...] UNLESS he put up fences, signs and so on, warning of the danger - in which case the parents of the child would be responsible for not watching out for their offspring. Again, this is no different to what happens now.

According to your legal research, a landowner would not face any legal consequences if children got blown up by landmines deliberately buried by the landowner on the landowner's land, provided that the landowner had put up fences, signs, "and so on"?

Perhaps you could elaborate on the "and so on" part.

Originally posted by Underemployed
Perhaps you are thinking of the problems facing many developing countries about unmapped minefields dotting the country, killing and maiming the general population randomly. You will find that all these are in publicly owned land (or land which has no formal owner).

... and your conclusion is?

[The idea]

Originally posted by Underemployed
Answer: Yes he did, because exploding mines are an initiation of force, regardless of whose land they are on. He is responsible for the death/injury of the child and would be punished accordingly (retaliatory force). UNLESS he put up fences, signs and so on, warning of the danger [...]
It seems that you answered the question without paying attention to the assumption that the only people killed or injured by the landmines are people who were not alive when the landmines were buried. Can the act of burying a landmine be an initiation of force against someone who is not yet alive? Does the right of the non-existent person to not face possible injury by landmines outweigh the right (if it is a right) of the existing person to bury landmines?

[Earthborn]

Answer: Yes he did, because exploding mines are an initiation of force, regardless of whose land they are on.I don't think that is true. According to libertarian philosophy people have the right to anything they want on their own land as long as it doesn't affect anyone on other land. The person trespassing on that land is the one who initiates force by stepping on the land s/he is not invited on. The landmines only react to someone trespassing and are retaliatory force. Someone who tresspasses someone else's land should face the consequences of whatever action he takes.

I think this shows how useless this whole libertarian distinction of different forces is. Any force you like can be explained as 'defensive' or 'retaliatory' force, while any force that you dislike can be explained as 'initiation' of force. Any disagreement between people will always end up as a 'But he started it!" argument going back and forth.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Earthborn
I don't think that is true. According to libertarian philosophy people have the right to anything they want on their own land as long as it doesn't affect anyone on other land. The person trespassing on that land is the one who initiates force by stepping on the land s/he is not invited on. The landmines only react to someone trespassing and are retaliatory force. Someone who tresspasses someone else's land should face the consequences of whatever action he takes.

I think this shows how useless this whole libertarian distinction of different forces is. Any force you like can be explained as 'defensive' or 'retaliatory' force, while any force that you dislike can be explained as 'initiation' of force. Any disagreement between people will always end up as a 'But he started it!" argument going back and forth.

Your analysis is correct in theory. However, as a practical matter, there would be no arguments. Because the people of Libertobia would never disagree. Instead they would join hands in a circle each day at sunrise and sing songs praising the benevolent and wise rule of President Badnarik***. Or be sent to prison if they didn't.



***President Badnarik

:dl:

[Darat]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Not quite:



We don't use "Capitalism" the same way we use "Communism" - the latter implies an economic and political society. The former only deals with economics.


We'll have to disagree, my opinion is still that capitalism is just yet another political ideology, as whacky and impossible to implement in the real world as communism, liberalism, libertarianism, socialism etc are.

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Remember Badnarik's "First day in office"? That's as tyrannical as it gets.

Well I would again disagree, I’d say that plan sounds more like a dictatorship! But I do understand your point his "1st day plan" was certainly tyrannical.

However that is just one persons view of what a libertarian state would be like, and as I said I believe all ideologically based states could be tyrannical so although you can point out one example of a proposed tyrannical libertarian state I do not think that means that a libertarian state is "especially" (in your words) likely to be a tyrannical state. (Or at least not more likely to be so then any other ideologically based state.)

(Edited to change my onions to an opinion.)

[The idea]

Consider the following exchange:


---------------------------------------
Originally posted by Underemployed
In this case, the rights of the existing individual
(the parent who wishes to have a child) outweigh
the rights of the non-existent individual.
---------------------------------------

Well, you can say "in this case X and in that case Y" but you won't be telling us anything about Libertarianism. You will simply be telling us about your own opinions.

---------------------------------------
I am not authority on Libertatrianism, correct, nor am I personally associated with it in any way, shape or form (I am associated with the LibDems in the UK but the parties share nothing save a syllable). I have read the websites on Libertarianism and and am familiar with the stances of most political parties in the western world (including the less mainstream ones). If you think I misrepresent anything, say so and correct me rather than poisoning the well
---------------------------------------


"If you think I misrepresent anything, say so and correct me rather than poisoning the well" certainly sounds like a rebuke. Perhaps I could have avoided that rebuke by asking the following question:

Is there a general principle, that is part of Libertarianism, that allows us to determine whether or not some specified right of an existing individual outweighs some specified right of a non-existent individual?

You see, I took that statement quite literally:

In this case, the rights of the existing individual (the parent who wishes to have a child) outweigh the rights of the non-existent individual.

"In this particular case, we are entitled to invoke an unspecified principle and that unspecified principle leads, in this particular case, to this conclusion." -- how does that help us to understand the principle?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Darat
We'll have to disagree, my opinion is still that capitalism is just yet another political ideology, as whacky and impossible to implement in the real world as communism, liberalism, libertarianism, socialism etc are.


Perhaps it could be argued that the pursuit of Capitalism as a means to an end would be a political ideology?

[Underemployed]

Originally posted by The idea
What if they decide to keep their own theories and principles but try to force changes to other theories and principles? They might also use people who resist the changes as scapegoats to blame for the failure to achieve the promised prosperity.

Perhaps I did not point out the principle of initiating force clearly enough. For future reference, if you are using the word (or concept) 'force' in your examples, check to see if you are saying that the governent is initiating it - if it is, it does not apply to a true Libertarian state. As in this case.

Perhaps you could elaborate on the "and so on" part.

I'm not sure why you think this is relevant, but I was actually thinking of neon signs, barking dogs and animatronic choirs singing "Danger! This land is mined!"

In current UK legal practice, such matters are governed by the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 and 1984 and amendments. From
here: (http://www.openaccess.gov.uk/wps/portal/!ut/p/.cmd/cs/.ce/7_0_A/.s/7_0_GA/_s.7_0_A/7_0_GA)

The Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 sets out the duty of care you owe to people you have not invited or permitted to be on your land, such as trespassers. Normally, you still owe such people some duty of care if:

* you know there is a danger, and know that people may be in (or come into) the vicinity of the danger – or in either case you have reasonable grounds for believing this to be so; and
* the risk is one against which you may reasonably be expected to offer some protection.

Where these criteria apply, you have to take reasonable care that people do not suffer injury on your land. You may be able to discharge this duty of care by warning people about a danger (eg. with a notice) but this may not always be enough. For example, some extra precautions may be needed if you believe unsupervised children are likely to use your land.

Again, this duty of care does not apply to risks that adults willingly accept on behalf of themselves or those immediately in their care.

So a fence, a sign and you're pretty much covered in English law, were it legal to plant mines in England. There is mention of unsupervised children too. In a Libertarian state, there would be laws too - it's not anarchy, just reduced government. And I see no reason why the law there will be drastically different to this and very similar laws worldwide. Do you consider the requirement for a fence and sign initiating force? Or the threat of retaliatory force if unwarned people step on mines? Just as Roads Inc must put up signs stating that you can't drive while drunk on their roads for the enforcement of those rules to be valid, our crazy landowner with the mines must warn people they are in deadly danger before stepping on his land if his use of force is to be justified.

Perhaps you are thinking of the problems facing many developing countries about unmapped minefields dotting the country, killing and maiming the general population randomly. You will find that all these are in publicly owned land (or land which has no formal owner).

... and your conclusion is?

...That your example is flawed. You are imagining the scenario wherein war-torn country X, covered with minefields, suddenly goes Libertarian, then someone is harmed by a mine nobody knew was there. This would most likely be the landowners fault, as it could be common knowledge that there might be mines and they should have had the land checked, and if they could not afford this, put up a sign saying 'DANGER! MINES! DO NOT TRESPASS!' (and possibly the animatronic choir too). If it was a big surprise and nobody suspected there were mines on the property, it would be a tragedy and the participants would have little recourse but to wring their hands and curse the unknown people who laid the mines originally. As happens now.

It seems that you answered the question without paying attention to the assumption that the only people killed or injured by the landmines are people who were not alive when the landmines were buried. Can the act of burying a landmine be an initiation of force against someone who is not yet alive? Does the right of the non-existent person to not face possible injury by landmines outweigh the right (if it is a right) of the existing person to bury landmines?

It seems you have posted without reading what I said in answer to you. Here it is again:

"Oh, but what about long-buried mines where nobody knows where they are? In this case the event is a tragic accident, because, of course, nobody knew the mines were there. If they did know, we would apply the previous reasoning to determine if the landowner is liable. It may be the liability of the previous landowner, who did not tell the current owner that the place was mined."

Originally posted by Earthborn
I think this shows how useless this whole libertarian distinction of different forces is. Any force you like can be explained as 'defensive' or 'retaliatory' force, while any force that you dislike can be explained as 'initiation' of force. Any disagreement between people will always end up as a 'But he started it!" argument going back and forth.

Argument from ignorance. (http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/ig.php) Since you don't know how to make the distinction, it must be false? Not so. It may be difficult, but it can be done. That's why there will still be courts and plenty of lawyers in a Libertarian state. In England, as everywhere else, we appear to have clear laws on our statute books, but get bogged down by details in practice and have to seek a judgement in court. So it would be in a Libertarian state. There is still the rule of law.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Earthborn
I don't think that is true. According to libertarian philosophy people have the right to anything they want on their own land as long as it doesn't affect anyone on other land.

That isn't true at all. Even if you do trespass on someone else's land, that doesn't give them the right to rape you. The reason is that, even though that person owns the land, you still own your own body. So defensive force is justified, but it's only defensive up to the point where it's necessary to protect his property. Anything beyond that is an initiation of force.

The land mine idea is an interesting one, I'll admit. One doesn't necessarily have the right to shoot and kill someone just because he's on one's property, but on the other hand, if there's something dangerous on the property, like a guard dog, the intruder is merely facing the consequences of his own actions.

We see the converse all the time in our "democratic" society. People are successfully sued all the time for having swimming pools because kids trespass on the property, swim in the pool, and drown (while their parents are, where?). Or even burglars who fall down the stairs and successfully sue the people they've burgled.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Darat

Well I would again disagree, I’d say that plan sounds more like a dictatorship!

I asked Claus this (and go nothing but lies in return), so I'll ask you: what would he be doing that is outside the Constitutional powers of the President?

[Underemployed]

Originally posted by The idea
"In this particular case, we are entitled to invoke an unspecified principle and that unspecified principle leads, in this particular case, to this conclusion." -- how does that help us to understand the principle?

Because this answer was arrived at by following the principle of not initiating force, which I've surely put forward in simple terms enough times now. So let's insert that into your post and see what happens:

"In this particular case (that the state should forcibly sterilize parents who have a strong liklihood of producing further children, and that those further children will most likely be malnourished), we are entitled to invoke an unspecified principle (that the state should not initiate force against any citizen), and that (specified) principle leads, in this particular case, to this conclusion (that a state following this principle would never embark on such an action, as it involves initiating force against said parents)"

I hope that makes things clearer.

Edited for clarity.

[Darat]

Originally posted by shanek
I asked Claus this (and go nothing but lies in return), so I'll ask you: what would he be doing that is outside the Constitutional powers of the President?

No idea and whether his acts are constitutional or not has nothing to do with my view that his proposed acts would be indistinguishable (to me obviously) from a dictator.

[The idea]

Suppose 90% of the land in a country consists of private plots with fences along the boundaries and warning signs that say, "This land may or may not contain landmines. Enter at your own risk."

If it were both legal and easy to put up such warning signs, then many landowners might put them up and then people might learn to ignore the warnings.

Would a Libertarian government forbid the use of such signs except where there is actually at least one landmine on the property?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by shanek
I asked Claus this (and go nothing but lies in return), so I'll ask you: what would he be doing that is outside the Constitutional powers of the President?

:dl:

[Earthborn]

Since you don't know how to make the distinction, it must be false? Not so. It may be difficult, but it can be done. That's why there will still be courts and plenty of lawyers in a Libertarian state.You miss my point completely. Courts can only decide whether a particular use of force is legal. The libertarian distinction between defensive force, retaliatory force and initiation of force is meant to clarify which uses of force should be legal. The philosophy is meant to shape society, so you can't ask a part of society (the courts) to shape the philosophy.

Of course such a distinction can be made. And such a distinction will be made. But without an understanding of what these terms mean beforehand, it will just be: whatever the government says is an initiation of force is an initiation of force. But that's not what liberatarianism is about. According to libertarianism the government must have a firm basis on which it makes such decisions. If courts must decide what these terms mean, then these terms cannot be such a basis.The reason is that, even though that person owns the land, you still own your own body.But according to you, he can put cigarette smoke in my lungs. So what exactly can and can't someone do with my body when I am on his/her land?So defensive force is justified, but it's only defensive up to the point where it's necessary to protect his property.Where is that point? Can he point a gun at someone if there could be another way to protect his property?One doesn't necessarily have the right to shoot and kill someone just because he's on one's property, but on the other hand, if there's something dangerous on the property, like a guard dog, the intruder is merely facing the consequences of his own actions.So what is the difference between the two? In both the tresspasser takes a risk and suffers the consequences, is it not? So why should someone have the right to have a vicious dog on his property that might injure the tresspasser, but not be allowed to injure the tresspasser with a gun or a landmine?People are successfully sued all the time for having swimming pools because kids trespass on the property, swim in the pool, and drown (while their parents are, where?). Or even burglars who fall down the stairs and successfully sue the people they've burgled.But these cases would be illegitimate under libertarianism, is it not?what would he be doing that is outside the Constitutional powers of the President?Here (http://www.binarybits.org/archives/2004/06/in_which_i_shak.html) is a summary of what he planned to do. Now the way I understand the Constitution to work is this: it must be specifically mentioned what powers he has. He cannot do whatever he likes that is not mentioned as a power. So please show us the relevant passages in the Constitution that give him the power to do any of those things.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Darat
No idea and whether his acts are constitutional or not has nothing to do with my view that his proposed acts would be indistinguishable (to me obviously) from a dictator.

Well, a dictator is someone who wields supreme power. The President only yields executive power, and even then only the particular executive powers laid down by the Constitution.

So, then, explain to me: how does it make him a dictator?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Earthborn
You miss my point completely. Courts can only decide whether a particular use of force is legal. The libertarian distinction between defensive force, retaliatory force and initiation of force is meant to clarify which uses of force should be legal. The philosophy is meant to shape society, so you can't ask a part of society (the courts) to shape the philosophy.

Well, no; society can shape itself however it wants. The Libertarian philosophy is meant to apply to laws. You're correct that you can't ask the courts to do it, but that's because we have separation of powers (in this case, between the legislative and the judicial) in this country.

But according to you, he can put cigarette smoke in my lungs.

Only if you agree to it, either by being there (on someone else's property) or by allowing him to smoke on your property. If the former, you can always leave; if the latter, you can tell him to stop smoking or make him leave. No one's being forced.

So what exactly can and can't someone do with my body when I am on his/her land?

You can do whatever you want to with your body as long as it doesn't affect the person or property of other people who don't voluntarily agree to it.

Can he point a gun at someone if there could be another way to protect his property?

It's not about there being "another way." You can do it up to the point where the threat is taken away. Anything beyond that is an initiation of force. This really isn't that hard.

So what is the difference between the two?

I have already explained this.

But these cases would be illegitimate under libertarianism, is it not?

Yes, because the guy was using someone else's property without consent.

Here (http://www.binarybits.org/archives/2004/06/in_which_i_shak.html) is a summary of what he planned to do.

Okay; let's break it down:

Declare that all four national emergencies are immediately terminated. No problem. They were brought about by executive order; they can be countermanded by executive order.

Declare that all 20,000+ gun control laws in the United States are unconstitutional and unenforceable. No problem. The President is bound by oath to obey the Constitution (II.1.8). The Constitution says that there can be no gun laws (Amendment 2), and even if it didn't, there's nothing in I.8 allowing them. As the President is charged with faithfully executing the laws of the United States (II.3), and the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land (VI.(1).2), this is entirely within his mandate as President.

Issue another valid executive order to my subordinates executives working for the IRS. Since the IRS is part of the Executive branch, he has full authority over them (II.1.1 and II.2.1). (Note: several people have lied about what Badnarik claims to want to do here: 1) This would only affect IRS agents; 2) The action is dependent on a federal grand jury investigation, and 3) indictment for fraud depends on whether or not they knew they were breaking the law.)

Declare the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 to be unconstitutional. Again, perfectly within his mandate as President. Do I really have to quote Joseph Story again?

I would announce a special one-week session of Congress. Allowed by II.3. (Note: Claus has been particularly egregious in his repeated lie, often corrected, that the action would be against all Americans. It doesn't. Only Congress, who have sworn the oath pursuant to VI.(1).3, which, since it (again) is required by the Supreme Law of the Land, is under the jurisdiction of the Executive as above.)

I would take a short break for lunch. Only dictators take lunch?

[Earthborn]

Well, no; society can shape itself however it wants. The Libertarian philosophy is meant to apply to laws.If society shapes itself it binds itself by forming laws.You're correct that you can't ask the courts to do itWho must do it then? Who is going to decide how the different powers are defined and who is going to make sure those definitions are in line with libertarian politics?but that's because we have separation of powers (in this case, between the legislative and the judicial) in this country.I don't see how that has anything to do with what I said.If the former, you can always leave;If I don't like to be subjected to his landmines, I can also leave. What is the difference?You can do whatever you want to with your body as long as it doesn't affect the person or property of other people who don't voluntarily agree to it.I'm not asking what I can do with my own body. I am asking what someone else can do with my body when I am on his property. Which things must I simply accept when I want to be there, and which things are infringements on my right to self-ownership?It's not about there being "another way."I think it is. If there is another way to defend his property, is pointing a deadly fire arm still legitimate?You can do it up to the point where the threat is taken away.Suppose the tresspasser does not go away when a gun is pointed at him. He just keeps standing on the property uninvited. Can the owner start shooting? What can he do to get the tresspasser to go away?I have already explained this.Where?Yes, because the guy was using someone else's property without consent.Why did you bring it up then?No problem. The President is bound by oath to obey the Constitution (II.1.8). The Constitution says that there can be no gun laws (Amendment 2), and even if it didn't, there's nothing in I.8 allowing them. As the President is charged with faithfully executing the laws of the United States (II.3), and the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land (VI.(1).2), this is entirely within his mandate as President.All irrelevant. You have to show that the president has the power to rule laws unconstitutional. Isn't that the job of the Supreme Court instead?Again, perfectly within his mandate as President. Do I really have to quote Joseph Story again?Probably, because I have never heard of him.

And while you are at it, show that the president has the power to declare anything unconstitutional.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Earthborn
If society shapes itself it binds itself by forming laws.

Laws are based on force. If it's something society is doing to itself, what need does it have for force? You only need force when people don't agree that something needs to be done.

Who must do it then?

The legislative branch has the power to make the laws.

Who is going to decide how the different powers are defined

That would be the Constitution.

If I don't like to be subjected to his landmines, I can also leave. What is the difference?

None, really.

I'm not asking what I can do with my own body. I am asking what someone else can do with my body when I am on his property.

In the case of land mines, you're doing it to yourself.

As far as your body is concerned, someone can only take action to use force against your body to stop you from harming the person or property of others.

I think it is. If there is another way to defend his property, is pointing a deadly fire arm still legitimate?

Restating the question with the assumption I just disagreed with isn't very productive.

Whether or not you can use any kind of weapon or threat or anything has to do with the amount of force being used or threatened against you; it doesn't have anything to do with what else you could do.

Suppose the tresspasser does not go away when a gun is pointed at him. He just keeps standing on the property uninvited. Can the owner start shooting?

No, because his life isn't being threatened. You would be justified, OTOH, in removing him bodily.

What can he do to get the tresspasser to go away?

He can remove him, or have someone else remove him.

Where?

I explained it several posts ago, and I explained it again in this one.

Why did you bring it up then?

To contrast a libertarian state with the current one.

All irrelevant. You have to show that the president has the power to rule laws unconstitutional. Isn't that the job of the Supreme Court instead?

No. The Supreme Court is duty-bound to support the Constitution in all cases coming before it, but the President is likewise bound in all laws he executes, and Congress in all laws they pass. This has been explained over and over and over again, with countless cites from the founding fathers as well as Supreme Court justices such as John Marshall and Joseph Story.

Probably, because I have never heard of him.

I've quoted this a bajillion times (have I been talking to myself all this time?); here I go again:

The constitution, contemplating the grant of limited powers, and distributing them among various functionaries, and the state governments, and their functionaries, being also clothed with limited powers, subordinate to those granted to the general government, whenever any question arises, as to the exercise of any power by any of these functionaries under the state, or federal government, it is of necessity, that such functionaries must, in the first instance, decide upon the constitutionality of the exercise of such power. It may arise in the course of the discharge of the functions of any one, or of all, of the great departments of government, the executive, the legislative, and the judicial. The officers of each of these departments are equally bound by their oaths of office to support the constitution of the United States, and are therefore conscientiously bound to abstain from all acts, which are inconsistent with it...If, for instance, the president is required to do any act, he is not only authorized, but required, to decide for himself, whether, consistently with his constitutional duties, he can do the act.

&mdash;&sect;374, Commentaries on the Constitution

[Underemployed]

Originally posted by The idea
If it were both legal and easy to put up such warning signs, then many landowners might put them up and then people might learn to ignore the warnings.

Ah, just like happens now with all the construction sites? And military bases? And private land? This is not even remotely plausible.

Would a Libertarian government forbid the use of such signs except where there is actually at least one landmine on the property?

Once again, I urge you to consider reading through your examples before posting them, and saying to yourself, 'Is the state initiating force here?' And if it is, the example is invalid. Forbidding something is....initiating force.

Think about how this example would be played out in your own country. Why do you think a Libertarian state would act differently? Do you think any case would be taken seriously - even regarding a child - if it relied upon the claim that warning signs are ubiquitous and can be safely ignored?

[Underemployed]

Originally posted by Earthborn
You miss my point completely. Courts can only decide whether a particular use of force is legal. The libertarian distinction between defensive force, retaliatory force and initiation of force is meant to clarify which uses of force should be legal. The philosophy is meant to shape society, so you can't ask a part of society (the courts) to shape the philosophy.

I must have missed your point. I thought you were saying that the courts could not decide on what constituted initial force. Just like American courts can't decide on what the Constitution is supposed to mean? Do you think the Supreme Court has changed the underlying philosophy of the United States? Or has it upheld it? The Libertarian philosophy of not initiating force will not change just because the courts judge on its practical applications, just as the constitution of the United States does not change in similar circumstances.

(Of course there have been amendments and you could argue, justifiably, that the underlying philosophy of the US has indeed changed since the Founding Fathers wrote the constitution. Something similar could happen, over time, in a Libertarian state - at which point our arguments are irrelevant, as it's no longer following the original philosophy)

[Darat]

Originally posted by Underemployed
...snip...

(Of course there have been amendments and you could argue, justifiably, that the underlying philosophy of the US has indeed changed since the Founding Fathers wrote the constitution. Something similar could happen, over time, in a Libertarian state - at which point our arguments are irrelevant, as it's no longer following the original philosophy)

Just as an aside you couldn’t have a libertarian society (as normally defined) based on the current (or original) USA constitution since that constitution “initiates force� against people.

Indeed no constitution as we currently use the word would or even should be acceptable in a libertarian state since it is a form of a compulsory contract. There are ways around that problem, for instance the idea that at some point a non-citizen (e.g. non-adult, immigrant) is given the option of agreeing to the social contract (constitution, laws, courts etc.) or not.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Darat
Just as an aside you couldn’t have a libertarian society (as normally defined) based on the current (or original) USA constitution since that constitution “initiates force� against people.

How so? There might be certain clauses that allow the government to initiate force against the people (and a libertarian would, of course, seek to eliminate those), but how does the Constitution itself do that?

Indeed no constitution as we currently use the word would or even should be acceptable in a libertarian state since it is a form of a compulsory contract.

No, it isn't. The Constitution doesn't require anything of anyone except the people who are, of their own volition, part of the government, and they swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, thereby voluntarily agreeing to abide by it. The people are under no obligation to abide by anything in the Constitution; that's not what it does.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by shanek
No, it isn't. The Constitution doesn't require anything of anyone except the people who are, of their own volition, part of the government, and they swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, thereby voluntarily agreeing to abide by it. The people are under no obligation to abide by anything in the Constitution; that's not what it does.

But what if I don't want to live under a government based on the US constituion? Who decided that that constitution was the right one for the government I have to live under?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
But what if I don't want to live under a government based on the US constituion? Who decided that that constitution was the right one for the government I have to live under?

Secede, of course! Declare your humble abode the sovereign state of Roaria. Complete with your own nuclear arsenal.

You can do this even if you own a flat.

Libertarian "Logic" at its best.

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by Shanek
If it's something society is doing to itself, what need does it have for force?If society does things, it sometimes does things by force. Whether it needs to use force or not is irrelevant, because it will use it whether it 'needs to' or not.You only need force when people don't agree that something needs to be done.So?The legislative branch has the power to make the laws.I am not talking about laws, I am talking about the definitions of 'initiation of force', 'defensive force' and 'retaliatory force'. Who makes the definitions?That would be the Constitution.Sorry, I meant to say 'forces' not 'powers'. How are the definitions of those three different forces decided?None, really.Then why should someone be disallowed to put landmines on his own land?As far as your body is concerned, someone can only take action to use force against your body to stop you from harming the person or property of others.So suppose I am in someone else's property. I'm not harming anyone. Why should that person be allowed to put cigarette smoke in my lungs? That's not defending his property, right?Whether or not you can use any kind of weapon or threat or anything has to do with the amount of force being used or threatened against you; it doesn't have anything to do with what else you could do.So using a fire arm to defend yourself against someone breaking into your home or walking unto your land is illegitimate?I explained it several posts ago, and I explained it again in this one.Please show me where. Use quotes or links.No.So the Supreme Court does not have the job of deciding whether laws are constitutional or not? I think that may come as a surprise to many.I've quoted this a bajillion timesWell excuse me for not reading every one of your bajillion posts..."If, for instance, the president is required to do any act, he is not only authorized, but required, to decide for himself, whether, consistently with his constitutional duties, he can do the act."And I ask you whether the president can do a specific act, that is 'declaring existing laws unconstitutional' and cause them to be void. Where in the Constitution does it say he can do that act? Where in the Constitution does it say he can forbid the Federal Reserve from printing money?Originally posted by Underemployed
I must have missed your point.Apperently so. It is not complicated though. I simply ask: "what are the definitions of 'initiation of force', 'defensive force' and 'retaliatory force' and who has defined them as such?" The 'definitions' already posted are no help at all when one needs to decide whether a particular use of force falls into one of the three categories.The Libertarian philosophy of not initiating force will not change just because the courts judge on its practical applicationsI think it will. A philosophy is a way of thinking, so if people start to think differently, the philosophy changes with it.just as the constitution of the United States does not change in similar circumstances.Of any text it is more important what people interpret it as when they read it then what is actually written. None of the letters and words has a fixed meaning.Something similar could happen, over time, in a Libertarian state - at which point our arguments are irrelevant, as it's no longer following the original philosophySo libertarianism is a fixed form of societal organisation, and any diversion from it however small is no longer libertarianism? A libertarian state cannot adapt itself to changing circumstances without becoming something else than libertarian?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Earthborn
So libertarianism is a fixed form of societal organisation, and any diversion from it however small is no longer libertarianism? A libertarian state cannot adapt itself to changing circumstances without becoming something else than libertarian?

Surely, you didn't expect Libertarianism to be able to respond to what happens in the real world? ;)

It's a totalitarian political philosophy: Either you do it the Libertarian way, or you go to jail.

[Darat]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Surely, you didn't expect Libertarianism to be able to respond to what happens in the real world? ;)

It's a totalitarian political philosophy: Either you do it the Libertarian way, or you go to jail.

It is a totalitarian ideology, as all ideologies are.

One of the differences and saving graces of libertarianism is that in most the sophisticated versions of libertarianism belonging to that society is voluntary not compulsory as the USA Libertarian Party would have it. (But how they then deal with the people who don't join the society can get a bit whacky if you ask me.)

[shanek]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
But what if I don't want to live under a government based on the US constituion? Who decided that that constitution was the right one for the government I have to live under?

The Constitution *DOES* *NOT* *FORCE* *ANYTHING* *ON* *YOU*. The only possible interpretation of what you've just said is that there's something that you want to force other people to do against their will. Sorry, but you don't get to do that.

[Darat]

Originally posted by shanek
The Constitution *DOES* *NOT* *FORCE* *ANYTHING* *ON* *YOU*. The only possible interpretation of what you've just said is that there's something that you want to force other people to do against their will. Sorry, but you don't get to do that.


Sorry Shane but it does since it is compulsory e.g. it forces itself on every individual in the state.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by shanek
The Constitution *DOES* *NOT* *FORCE* *ANYTHING* *ON* *YOU*.

Sure it does. It forces on me a government that, among other thing, has the power to establish post offices. Now, I happen to think that that is a good use of tax money, but what if I didn't? Where did I agree to my tax money being used towards post offices? Hell, when did I agree to give the government the power to lay and collect taxes in the first place? Maybe I want a government by volunteers whose only available funds are from donations.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Earthborn
If society does things, it sometimes does things by force. Whether it needs to use force or not is irrelevant, because it will use it whether it 'needs to' or not.

Now, that's just ridiculous. It is logically impossible for something to use force on itself. It's an entirely different thing, on the other hand, for some members of society to use force on others; but that isn't "society" doing it. No one had to force golf shirts to have a pocket and polo shirts not, or for a lady's shirt to button on the other side. These are the things that society does. When people act contrary to what society has decided is OK, then members of society shun and embarass them, but don't apply any kind of force to make them change.

So?

So then it's not society doing it.

I am not talking about laws,

Yes, you are! You said, "initiation of force is meant to clarify which uses of force should be legal." You then said we couldn't ask the courts to do it. Of course not; deciding what should be the law is the function of the legislative branch!

Sorry, I meant to say 'forces' not 'powers'. How are the definitions of those three different forces decided?

Pure logic suffices.

Then why should someone be disallowed to put landmines on his own land?

Did I say that someone be disallowed to put landmines on his own land?

So suppose I am in someone else's property. I'm not harming anyone. Why should that person be allowed to put cigarette smoke in my lungs?

Because it's his property. He gets to decide things like the environmental factors. What if he wears cologne, and you're allergic? Or keeps it a bit cooler than you're used to? It's his property.

So using a fire arm to defend yourself against someone breaking into your home or walking unto your land is illegitimate?

I didn't say that, either. I said the level of force must be based on what is necessary to defend against the initiation of force. Firearms, as I have pointed out numerous times but that you people never seem to get, can be used nonlethally.

Please show me where. Use quotes or links.

How is repeating myself again going to help anything? Re-read my posts if you're still confused.

So the Supreme Court does not have the job of deciding whether laws are constitutional or not?

It does, for every case that comes before it. But there is no one entity that decides what laws are Constitutional. As I've said three times already in this thread alone, each branch of the government has to make that evaluation for itself. The Supreme Court CAN strike down an unconstitutional law IF a case is brought before it. That doesn't mean they're the ONLY ones who get to do so.

Well excuse me for not reading every one of your bajillion posts.

They're in threads you've posted in, in response to points that you and many others have made.

And I ask you whether the president can do a specific act, that is 'declaring existing laws unconstitutional' and cause them to be void. Where in the Constitution does it say he can do that act?

II.1.1, where it gives him Executive power! That's what Executive power IS!!! Why are you having such a difficulty with this concept? Congress only makes the laws; it's up to the Executive to, well, execute them. If the President decides a particular law is unconstitutional, then it doesn't get executed. Simple as that!

Apperently so. It is not complicated though. I simply ask: "what are the definitions of 'initiation of force', 'defensive force' and 'retaliatory force' and who has defined them as such?" The 'definitions' already posted are no help at all when one needs to decide whether a particular use of force falls into one of the three categories.

Well, if it's not retaliatory force or defensive force, obviously it's an initiation. Defensive force is, duh, force used to defend against the use of force by someone else. If it's not used to defend, it isn't defensive force. Retaliatory force is what happens after the force has been used or attempted, and is meant to give the victim justice and/or restitution. This is where the government comes in. This is police, courts, jails, prisons, etc. This is also where due process etc. come into the picture. And all of this is very well defined by common law.

I think it will. A philosophy is a way of thinking, so if people start to think differently, the philosophy changes with it.

That wouldn't change the Libertarian philosophy; that would just make their particular philosophy less Libertarian.

Of any text it is more important what people interpret it as when they read it then what is actually written. None of the letters and words has a fixed meaning.

You're just completely wrong here. Here's something Justice Thomas said only last month, in a recent decision: "The Court relies almost exclusively on this Court’s prior cases to derive today’s far-reaching, and dangerous, result...When faced with a clash of constitutional principle and a line of unreasoned cases wholly divorced from the text, history, and structure of our founding document, we should not hesitate to resolve the tension in favor of the Constitution’s original meaning."

The original meaning doesn't change. Justice Story again:

In construing the constitution of the United States, we are, in the first instance, to consider, what are its nature and objects, its scope and design, as apparent from the structure of the instrument, viewed as a whole, and also viewed in its component parts. Where its words are plain, clear, and determinate, they require no interpretation; and it should, therefore, be admitted, if at all, with great caution, and only from necessity, either to escape some absurd consequence, or to guard against some fatal evil. Where the words admit of two senses, each of which is conformable to common usage, that sense is to be adopted, which, without departing from the literal import of the words, best harmonizes with the nature and objects, the scope and design of the instrument... It is obvious, however, that contemporary interpretation must be resorted to with much qualification and reserve...Nothing but the text itself was adopted by the people. And it would certainly be a most extravagant doctrine to give to any commentary then made, and, a fortiori, to any commentary since made under a very different posture of feeling and opinion, an authority, which should operate an absolute limit upon the text, or should supersede its natural and just interpretation.

So libertarianism is a fixed form of societal organisation,

Libertarianism isn't any form of societyal organization at all. In fact, Libertarianism is unique in that it's pretty much the only political philosophy that doesn't try to define society or organize it in some way. It is entirely central to Libertarianism that society be allowed to shape itself, while protecting those who don't wish to conform to that shape from the use of force by would-be police, self-appointed judges, and general busybodies.

[Darat]

Originally posted by shanek

...snip...

Libertarianism isn't any form of societyal organization at all. In fact, Libertarianism is unique in that it's pretty much the only political philosophy that doesn't try to define society or organize it in some way. It is entirely central to Libertarianism that society be allowed to shape itself, while protecting those who don't wish to conform to that shape from the use of force by would-be police, self-appointed judges, and general busybodies.

It defines society in just the same way as any other political ideology (bar one) i.e. by its principles. By saying "no one can force someone else to do anything" it is saying how society should be organised, by saying people can own things it is saying how a society will be organised.

(And the “bar one� is the ideology of anarchy.)

[Underemployed]

Originally posted by Earthborn:
I simply ask: "what are the definitions of 'initiation of force', 'defensive force' and 'retaliatory force' and who has defined them as such?" The 'definitions' already posted are no help at all when one needs to decide whether a particular use of force falls into one of the three categories.

Do forgive me for repeating myself, but I feel another trip to the dictionary (http://www.m-w.org/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=initiate&x=0&y=0) is in order:

Main Entry: 1ini·ti·ate
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -at·ed; -at·ing
1 : to cause or facilitate the beginning of : set going <initiate a program of reform> <enzymes that initiate fermentation>
2 : to induct into membership by or as if by special rites
3 : to instruct in the rudiments or principles of something : INTRODUCE
synonym see BEGIN

Main Entry: de·fend
Function: verb
transitive senses
1 a : to drive danger or attack away from b (1) : to maintain or support in the face of argument or hostile criticism (2) : to prove (as a doctoral thesis) valid by answering questions in an oral exam c : to attempt to prevent an opponent from scoring at <elects to defend the south goal>
2 archaic : PREVENT, FORBID
3 : to act as attorney for
4 : to deny or oppose the right of a plaintiff in regard to (a suit or a wrong charged) : CONTEST
5 : to seek to retain (as a title or position) against a challenge in a contest
synonyms DEFEND, PROTECT, SHIELD, GUARD, SAFEGUARD

Main Entry: re·tal·i·ate
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -at·ed; -at·ing
transitive senses : to repay (as an injury) in kind
intransitive senses : to return like for like; especially : to get revenge
synonym see RECIPROCATE

Armed with these definitions, your confusion should vanish like dandelion seeds on the wind. In fact, if you examine the principles behind the laws of most countries, you will see that they are all predicated on the same notion. The idea of not forcing anyone to do anything is an ancient one (nobody said Libertarianism was original). You can argue all you like over what real-world physical acts constitutes intitial force, as I have been doing throughout this thread, but this doesn't change the principle one jot. Once the initiator has been determined, the rest falls into place.

Perhaps you are concerned over perverse judgements or changes of heart - like the state suddenly announcing that not giving half your property to the Libertarian HQ would be an act of force against it. But such a criticism could be levelled at any Political system. Tony Blair could suddenly decide to pass a law making himself Prime Minister in perpetuity, levy taxes at 99% and that he must be referred to at all times as the Grand High Panhanjrum under pain of death, and it would be quite in keeping with our democratic laws and constitution (such as it is). You can't dismiss a system because of what might happen, unless you have compelling evidence to think that such things will occur. And there is no such evidence to suggest that the state and its leaders would be any more perverse under a Libertarian state than a democratic one.

As to who formulated the doctrine of not initiating force* - well, you could just as easily say The Tao Te Ching, (http://www.mountainman.com.au/taotrans.html) Buddha, (http://www.zamba.com/BuddhasVillage/teachings/) and Jesus (http://www.ntgateway.com/) (as long as you selectively quote him and ignore the episode with the blasting of the innocent tree), as you could the living authors of any of the quotes I've provided.

A philosophy is a way of thinking, so if people start to think differently, the philosophy changes with it.

By that reasoning, if a land of pacifists suddenly decided it was OK to randomly stamp on kittens, we'd all rush out and re-write our definition of pacifism to include this variant.

A libertarian state cannot adapt itself to changing circumstances without becoming something else than libertarian?

False dilemma. (http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/fd.php) Adapting to changing circumstances is not the same as abandoning your core principles. Consider the beginning of our own beloved dominant political philosophy, Democracy:

Cleisthenes [An Athenian clan leader] took an unprecedented action by turning to the people for political support and won with it a program of great popular appeal. In 508 B.C., Cleisthenes instituted a new political organization whereby the citizens would take a more forceful and more direct role in running the city-state. He called this new political organization demokratia, or democracy – rule by the entire body of citizens. He created a Council of Five Hundred which planned the business of the public assemblies. All male citizens over the age of thirty could serve for a term of one year on the Council and no one could serve more than two terms in a lifetime. Such an organization was necessary, thought Cleisthenes, so that every citizen would learn from direct political experience. With such a personal interest in his democracy, Cleisthenes believed that there would be no citizens to conspire and attempt to abolish the system.Source (http://www.historyguide.org/ancient/lecture6b.html)

Would such a country governed in this manner in our era be called a Democracy? Where are the women? What about the under-30s? Who got to choose the council members?

Nobody is saying that a Libertarian state would not change over time. Democracy has, but it has not strayed from its core values. Likewise Libertarianism (or any political philosophy) can evolve over time to suit the needs of its people without straying from the principle of not initiating force. That criticism is equally valid for any political philosophy: Would you call England a Democracy if Tony Blair declared himself supreme dictator for life? No. Likewise, if a Libertarian state strayed from the idea of not initiating force, it would not be considered as such any more.

* Edited to change 'definitions of force' to 'doctrine of not initiating force'

[Earthborn]

It is logically impossible for something to use force on itself.Why is that 'logically impossible' ? According to what logic?It's an entirely different thing, on the other hand, for some members of society to use force on others; but that isn't "society" doing it.I think it is.When people act contrary to what society has decided is OK, then members of society shun and embarass them,Or form government institutions to make them stop.but don't apply any kind of force to make them changeThen where does the government come from then? Last time I looked, it consisted of people and is therefore the result of human self-organisation. It is a part of society. And it uses force.You said, "initiation of force is meant to clarify which uses of force should be legal."I meant "is meant to clarify which uses of force should be legal according to Libertarian philosophy.Of course not; deciding what should be the law is the function of the legislative branch!The legislative branch does not have the function of defining libertarian philosophy.Pure logic suffices.Then you should be able to present those clear definitions.

Of course, pure logic never suffices. Logic always depends on assumptions. The assumptions may not be justified and may not have any ground in reality.Did I say that someone be disallowed to put landmines on his own land?Sorry, you are right. Underemployed did. According to Underemployed, putting landmines on one's own land is an initiation of force. When I argued that according to libertarianism it wasn't, you disagreed with me, so I assumed you agreed with Underemployed that it was an initiation of force.Because it's his property. He gets to decide things like the environmental factors. What if he wears cologne, and you're allergic? Or keeps it a bit cooler than you're used to? It's his property.It is his property, he gets to decide the environmental factors, including anything that enters into someone else's body. Then shouldn't he be able to rape anyone who is on his property?Firearms, as I have pointed out numerous times but that you people never seem to get, can be used nonlethally.Yes, but most of them involve threatening the use them lethally. If someone is not a lethal threat, is it legitimate to threaten that person to get them to leave?How is repeating myself again going to help anything? Re-read my posts if you're still confused.I can re-read it all I want, but I really don't see where you explain the difference between having landmines and a guard dog. As far as I see, I see only how you mention similarities.That doesn't mean they're the ONLY ones who get to do so.Then show the relevant passage in the Constitution that specifically says that the president can also strike down laws.They're in threads you've posted in, in response to points that you and many others have made.Show me which ones.Well, if it's not retaliatory force or defensive force, obviously it's an initiation.I don't see how that is obvious. There may be other forms of legimitate force that do not fit in the three forces model, so just because it isn't two of the three does not mean it must be the third.Defensive force is, duh, force used to defend against the use of force by someone else.That's not a definition, that's a rewording.That wouldn't change the Libertarian philosophy; that would just make their particular philosophy less Libertarian.Those people may disagree. They may even think it becomes more libertarian. They can't prove they are right, and you can't prove they're wrong, because apperently libetarianism is not rigorously defined.The original meaning doesn't change.What people think is the original meaning does change. The only 'original meaning' they can consider it the 'original meaning' as they think it is. Everytime the read the writings of the authors, their interpretation will be coloured by their current understanding.Libertarianism isn't any form of societyal organization at all. In fact, Libertarianism is unique in that it's pretty much the only political philosophy that doesn't try to define society or organize it in some way.Does libertarianism not prescribe a 'proper role of government' ? Is government not a part of society? Is saying that government should limit itself to specific tasks not saying that government should be organised in a specific way to prevent it from doing other things?

I think governments are part of society, because they are made by people within that society. I think governments are forms of societal organisation, so any prescriptions on what governments should be like are definitions of how a part of society should be organised.while protecting those who don't wish to conform to that shape from the use of force by would-be police, self-appointed judges, and general busybodies.How are people who do not wish to conform to libertarianism protected from the use of force by the police? I'd think that someone who does not conform to the libertarian concept of private property rights might very well end up in jail for theft.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Why is that 'logically impossible' ? According to what logic?

Force must be involuntary. If it's an action you're taking on your own, it can't be involuntary, and therefore, can'r be force.

I think it is.

Then you're using a useless definition of "society," if at any point you can exclude whomever doesn't fit your purposed statement.

Or form government institutions to make them stop.

Incorrect. Because then they're using force, and by the above logic, isn't doing something to itself.

Then where does the government come from then?

From people, to defend their rights. Not this mebulous "society" you keep harping on about. In fact, much of the reason for government is to defend us from "society" when it becomes too oppressive. Freedom of speech is a perfect example.

The legislative branch does not have the function of defining libertarian philosophy.

They have the function of making the laws. Making the laws is what you're talking about.

Then you should be able to present those clear definitions.

They have been presented to you at least twice that I have seen, not counting my explanation.

Of course, pure logic never suffices. Logic always depends on assumptions.

What assumptions have I made in my description, other than the "assumption" that words mean what they mean?

It is his property, he gets to decide the environmental factors, including anything that enters into someone else's body.

That person, by entering the other person's property, consents to tne environmental factors that enter his body.

Then shouldn't he be able to rape anyone who is on his property?/b]

No, because sex isn't an environmental factor and the person hasn't consented to sex.

[b]Yes, but most of them involve threatening the use them lethally.

A threat and an act are two different things.

I can re-read it all I want, but I really don't see where you explain the difference between having landmines and a guard dog.

My very next post after yours at the top of the page explains it.

Then show the relevant passage in the Constitution that specifically says that the president can also strike down laws.

I never said he could "strike down" laws. Just that he could refuse to execute them. Which, again, is his decision, as he is charged with Executive power, made to swear an oath to the Constitution, and charged with faithfully executing the laws, of which the Constitution is supreme.

I don't see how that is obvious. There may be other forms of legimitate force that do not fit in the three forces model, so just because it isn't two of the three does not mean it must be the third.

Every one I've seen proposed, when examined, actually is a form of one of those three. Either someone's doing the force first, the force is done defensive to the initiation of force, or the force is done retributively after the force has been carried out.

That's not a definition, that's a rewording.

WTF kind of rebuttal is that? What is a definition, if not stating the same concept in different words?

Those people may disagree. They may even think it becomes more libertarian. They can't prove they are right, and you can't prove they're wrong, because apperently libetarianism is not rigorously defined.

Nonsense. I can just look at tne NIOF principle and see.

What people think is the original meaning does change.

That's patently ridiculous. The original meaning exists independently of anyone's opinion today.

But I'm glad to see that you know more about it than one of the most respected Supreme Court Justices in American history...

Does libertarianism not prescribe a 'proper role of government' ?

Yes.

Is government not a part of society?

No.

I think governments are part of society, because they are made by people within that society.

Then you're redefining the word "society" to mean, basically, "everything," thus making the word useless.

How are people who do not wish to conform to libertarianism protected from the use of force by the police?

No one is forced to conform to anything in Libertarianism! That's the point!

I'd think that someone who does not conform to the libertarian concept of private property rights might very well end up in jail for theft.

That's a common law concept, not a Libertarian concept.

[Earthborn]

Armed with these definitions, your confusion should vanish like dandelion seeds on the wind.Not at all, and I don't see why you should think so.In fact, if you examine the principles behind the laws of most countries, you will see that they are all predicated on the same notion.There are many countries, including my own that assume there are legimitate uses of force beyond the three forces believed to exist by libertarians. The constitution of the Netherlands specifically mentions that it is ongoing task of the government to provide healthcare to its citizens, and that it can demand taxes from its citizens to pay for it. According to libertarianism this is an initiation of force because it takes money from people by force. At the same time, it is considered a legitimate use of force, even by Dutch libertarians, although initiation of force never is.

It is also considered a legitimate use of force to use eminent domain to take people's property away if it is needed to build coastal protection, and is even considered legimitate to flood less populated areas (whole villages even) to protect densely populated areas from flooding. According to libertarianism, this is an initiation of force, not defensive force, because nature is assumed unable to initiate force.Once the initiator has been determined, the rest falls into place.So let's rephrase my question in a different way: what determines who is the initiator. Don't say: "The person who initiates" because that's circular and doesn't bring us any further. Explain what characteristics an initiator has that sets him apart from a defender. If you can't then your statement merely means "Once we have found someone to blame for it, the rest falls into place."

You say that someone who places landmines in his yard is an initiator of force. Apperently Shanek disagrees. How do we determine who is right? Why isn't the person who tresspasses and gets blown up by a landmine an initiator for tresspassing someone else's property? Suppose parents in the neighbourhood fear for the safety of the children because someone has mined his yard and go after him with pitchforks? Are they defenders or initiators?

The issue is extremely important, because no initiator (assume they even exist) will ever admit being an initiator and always claim to be a defender. Everybody will have reasons in their past to explain why they acted in a certain way and usually they are caused by another person.

That's why I think this searching for the initiator will inevitably lead to an endless childish "But he started it!" argument. At some point society will just have to say: "I don't care who started it. Some acts will not be tolerated whether they are done in defense or not."But such a criticism could be levelled at any Political system.Then I don't see why I should consider libertarianism a better one. I don't consider "But that's true of any political system" a valid defense for flaws in it. I think we should strive for political systems that are better than what we have, not ones that are basically the same.You can't dismiss a system because of what might happenI don't, but Shanek has a habit of doing that though.By that reasoning, if a land of pacifists suddenly decided it was OK to randomly stamp on kittens, we'd all rush out and re-write our definition of pacifism to include this variant.If that were to happen and almost everyone agreed that the pacifists are the people stamping on kittens, I find it more reasonable to say that the meaning of the word 'pacifist' has changed instead of maintaining that 'pacifist' still means someone who would not do such a thing in defience with everybody else. Take Shanek and his use of the word 'democracy'. Is it reasonable for him to maintain that all the countries around the world that call themselves democracies are not actually democracies? Or is it better if he would admit he uses an outdated definition of the word and that it now means something else?Democracy has, but it has not strayed from its core values.If it has not 'strayed from its core values' (whatever that means), then I don't know what its core values are.Would you call England a Democracy if Tony Blair declared himself supreme dictator for life?Not by myself. That's because I don't define the meaning of words all by myself, I learn them within a social context. If a lot of others call it a democracy, then I will have to admit that the meaning of the word has changed.Likewise, if a Libertarian state strayed from the idea of not initiating force, it would not be considered as such any more.I don't believe it. I can easily imagine that a state calls itself libertarian even if its non-initiation of force principle has been redefined. There used to be states that called itself 'socialist' even though they bore very little resemblence to what Karl Marx considered that to mean. Now we use the word 'socialist' (or 'communist') to refer to these countries, not to a system that Marx envisioned as a transitional stage towards what he called communism. So just because a state strays from its core principles does not mean it won't have the same name. The same thing can happen to libertarianism. Words can subtly change meaning. In fact that has already happened to libertarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism):Originally, in the 18th century, it referred to the philosophical doctrine of free will, as opposed to that of determinism. In that meaning libertarianism is opposed to necessitarianism. See Libertarian free will. Later, in the 19th century, the word was applied to political usage.

The term's political meaning is a result of some French anarchists adopting libertaire as an alternative term for their ideas after the French government banned anarchism. It was first used in print in 1857 by French anarchist Joseph Dejacque in a letter to Pierre-Joseph Proudhon from New Orleans. Dejacque also published a periodical in New York called "Le Libertaire" (The Libertarian) from 1858 to 1861.[2] The English term "libertarian" was used in the 19th century and early 20th century in America to refer to one who espoused individualist anarchism—a type of anarchism that opposed the European forms of collectivist anarchism at the time. But, for the most part, English-speaking anarchists choose to call themselves anarchists, individualist anarchists, anarchist-communists, or anarchist-syndicalists. Often, when distinguishing between the different uses of the term, the word libertarian is qualified as in "left-libertarian" or "right-libertarian" to distinguish between collectivist and individualist forms, respectively.I'd say libertarianism has already strayed considerably from its 'core values' !

[Earthborn]

If it's an action you're taking on your own, it can't be involuntary, and therefore, can'r be force.Our discussion on addiction and compulsive behaviours should have told you that I won't accept that any action one is talking on one's own is necessarily 'voluntary'.Incorrect. Because then they're using force, and by the above logic, isn't doing something to itself.The logic is flawed. It uses an assumption where evidence to the contrary exists. It also assumes that what is true of an single individual is also true of society as a whole.Not this mebulous "society" you keep harping on about.This time, you are the one who brought it up.In fact, much of the reason for government is to defend us from "society" when it becomes too oppressive.Yes, of course. As soon as you get rid of the assumption that anything an entity does to itself must be voluntary, there is nothing strange about it.Making the laws is what you're talking about.And I'll tell you again that I am not. I'm talking about libertarian philosophy and how it distinguishes initiation of force from defensive force.They have been presented to you at least twice that I have seen, not counting my explanation.I do not consider them clear definitions, because they do not allow me to figure out when someone must be considered an initiation of force according to libertarian philosophy. Is the guy who puts landmines in his garden an initiator or not? Is Bush an initiator for starting a war against Iraq, or was he trying to defend the US against weapons of mass destruction and was just wrong that they existed.

If the definitions cannot give us answers to such questions, I consider them useless.What assumptions have I made in my description, other than the "assumption" that words mean what they mean?How would I know? All you said was 'pure logic suffices'. You have not told me any such purely logical argument that suffices to make such decisions.No, because sex isn't an environmental factor and the person hasn't consented to sex.Then you define 'environmental factor' as something else than whatever exists in the environment. The genitalia of the owner of the place are in the environment of the visitor, because that's what environment means: everything outside the thing considered.A threat and an act are two different things.In what way? They are both things someone does, is it not? Saying that you'll shoot someone is also an act.

If according to you it is not, then I consider your distinction meaningless.My very next post after yours at the top of the page explains it.Here's what you said: "The land mine idea is an interesting one, I'll admit. One doesn't necessarily have the right to shoot and kill someone just because he's on one's property, but on the other hand, if there's something dangerous on the property, like a guard dog, the intruder is merely facing the consequences of his own actions."

That's the exact statement that caused me to ask the question in the first place, so you should have been able to figure out that I didn't consider it a sufficient explanation. The statement tells me a few similarities between landmines and guard dogs: they are both dangerous and the intruder is facing the consequences of his own actions.

I did not ask for the similarities. I asked for the differences! The way I read it, I don't see any mentioned in your post.I never said he could "strike down" laws.Badnarik did though. In his first day in office he plans to strike down several existing laws, and even forbid the Federal Reserve to print fiat currency. You claimed that he would be able to do the things he planned to do.

If your claim is now that he cannot strike down laws, then we all agree that Badnarik would not be able to do the things he plans even if he did become president.Every one I've seen proposed, when examined, actually is a form of one of those three. Either someone's doing the force first, the force is done defensive to the initiation of force, or the force is done retributively after the force has been carried out.There is another thing that is important to consider though: initiation of force is considered to always be illegitimate. So when someone considers a use of force that is done first legitimate, he cannot use that as part of the same 'three forces' model.

I think most people consider it legitimate when the government uses eminent domain to take land from one person to build a dam that will protect millions of people from the danger of flood. According to libertarianism that would fall under 'initiation of force' because the government starts it. If the owner refuses to voluntarily sell the property, many of those millions of people think the owner 'initiates force' against them by preventing them to protect themselves. It might be more useful to call it 'preventive force' and consider it legitimate.What is a definition, if not stating the same concept in different words?Clarifying what the concept means in terms more people will be able to agree on.Nonsense. I can just look at tne NIOF principle and see.And maybe they will look at their own NIOF principle and see that you are wrong. You can't prove a philosophy wrong just by refering to your own political philosophy. That's like claiming that you can prove the Bible is authored by God by pointing out that it says so in the Bible.That's patently ridiculous. The original meaning exists independently of anyone's opinion todayNo it doesn't. Only the writings of the founding fathers exist today. People who read it today cannot directly access their thoughts directly, and can only understand their writings from their own understanding of it.But I'm glad to see that you know more about it than one of the most respected Supreme Court Justices in American history...Well when he says things like: "Where its words are plain, clear, and determinate, they require no interpretation" he loses my respect. Reading = Interpreting by definition. Words need to be interpreted to be understood. They are not direct recordings of thoughts.

If they were we would have far fewer difficulties in our discussions. :)Then you're redefining the word "society" to mean, basically, "everything," thus making the word useless.No, I define it as 'humans living together'. One of the Dutch words for society is 'samenleving' which literally translates to 'living together'. That's what it means as far as I am concerned.

A society is people and their interactions. Some interactions are voluntary, other interactions are by force. Some of those forceful interactions are considered crimes by people in that society, others are considered legitimate responses to the things considered crimes.

Not including government in the definitions of society leads to a rather strange result. It would mean that sociologists can no longer consider the effects of government interventions. They study society, so if government is not part of society, they cannot study the government. But governments have a rather large influence on people. It would be like studying the nervous system without being able to consider the brain, or studying the universe and not being able to consider gravity. It's the height of silliness.No one is forced to conform to anything in Libertarianism! That's the point!People are forced to conform to the libertarian principles of property. They are not forced to believe in them, but they are forced to respect them. Someone who does not believe in property rights is not allowed to take things that have been defined as the property of others.

Something similar is happening in the present world. A whole bunch of people no longer believe in the concept of intellectual property, but they have to conform to the concept against their will. They can be punished for illegally using or spreading software they have not paid for. That means they are not free to live according to their own philosophy.That's a common law concept, not a Libertarian concept.Libertarian philosophy has a concept of property. Common law has a similar concept, but it is not identical to the libertarian one, or else a libertarian society already would have been established.

[Underemployed]

I apologise for causing some confusion:

Originally posted by Earthborn
Then why should someone be disallowed to put landmines on his own land?
...
You say that someone who places landmines in his yard is an initiator of force. Apperently Shanek disagrees. How do we determine who is right? Why isn't the person who tresspasses and gets blown up by a landmine an initiator for tresspassing someone else's property?
...
According to Underemployed, putting landmines on one's own land is an initiation of force. When I argued that according to libertarianism it wasn't, you disagreed with me, so I assumed you agreed with Underemployed that it was an initiation of force.

All because when I said this:
exploding mines are an initiation of force, regardless of whose land they are on. He is responsible for the death/injury of the child and would be punished accordingly (retaliatory force). UNLESS he put up fences, signs and so on, warning of the danger - in which case the parents of the child would be responsible for not watching out for their offspring. Again, this is no different to what happens now.
...You thought I was saying it was not OK to plant mines. You'll see I continued to add the caveat of fair warning, just as all current legal systems do.

If you expect people to live in a Libertarian state and abide by the stipulations of each individual property owner, you must be expected to know what those stipulations are. If you're not told that Wild Drive Inc's roads are a free-for-all, how can you be expected to accept the risks therein? The same principle applies to the back garden of a crazy coot who fills it with mines. If he puts up a sign saying 'All children welcome!' and sprinkles the lawn with sweets, cackling manically to himself, he is clearly initiating force against any unfortunate child who falls afoul of his evil plans. But if he made it known (using signs or any other means such that anyone approaching his property would be clearly informed), then people (and by extension, their children) have accepted that risk.

So, we already have a working interpretation of a core principle:

Uninformed citizens (of whatever age) getting blown up by unmarked mines on unmarked land = property owner is initiating force.

Informed citizens trespassing on known private land = trespasser is initiating force and accepts the consequences.

You could of course say that a person wondering around with a bucket on their head, constantly shouting "Lalalala I can't hear you!" would never become aware of such stipulations and so could not give their consent. The response is that under Libertarianism they, (or in the case of children and the mentally deficient, those responsible for them) are responsible for making themselves aware of such stipulations.

[Underemployed]

Originally posted by Earthborn
If that were to happen and almost everyone agreed that the pacifists are the people stamping on kittens, I find it more reasonable to say that the meaning of the word 'pacifist' has changed instead of maintaining that 'pacifist' still means someone who would not do such a thing in defience with everybody else.

I agree, it is indeed reasonable to say that the meaning of the word 'pacifist' would have changed. The thing is, we're arguing about concepts, not words. If a pacifist from the pre-kitten-stomping-era were to come out of hibernation and express dismay at the new definition of her creed, they would argue that these people are not pacifists at all.

Are they arguing about a word?....Or a concept?

Likewise, if mathematicians the world over suddenly decided that the word 'square' no longer applied only to 2-dimensional objects with four sides of equal length at right angles to each other, and instead a 'square' was an object with 5 sides, we would have corrupted the original concept completely regardless of what the word means in common parlance.

Edited to add:
Originally posted by Earthborn:
I'd say libertarianism has already strayed considerably from its 'core values' !

An excellent illustration of the point. You are correct in saying that the meaning of the word has changed. And what relevance does this claim posess in the context of an argument over the concept of a state not initiating force? None.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Underemployed
I apologise for causing some confusion:



All because when I said this:

...You thought I was saying it was not OK to plant mines. You'll see I continued to add the caveat of fair warning, just as all current legal systems do.

If you expect people to live in a Libertarian state and abide by the stipulations of each individual property owner, you must be expected to know what those stipulations are. If you're not told that Wild Drive Inc's roads are a free-for-all, how can you be expected to accept the risks therein? The same principle applies to the back garden of a crazy coot who fills it with mines. If he puts up a sign saying 'All children welcome!' and sprinkles the lawn with sweets, cackling manically to himself, he is clearly initiating force against any unfortunate child who falls afoul of his evil plans. But if he made it known (using signs or any other means such that anyone approaching his property would be clearly informed), then people (and by extension, their children) have accepted that risk.

So, we already have a working interpretation of a core principle:

Uninformed citizens (of whatever age) getting blown up by unmarked mines on unmarked land = property owner is initiating force.

Informed citizens trespassing on known private land = trespasser is initiating force and accepts the consequences.

You could of course say that a person wondering around with a bucket on their head, constantly shouting "Lalalala I can't hear you!" would never become aware of such stipulations and so could not give their consent. The response is that under Libertarianism they, (or in the case of children and the mentally deficient, those responsible for them) are responsible for making themselves aware of such stipulations.

"So, we already have a working interpretation of a core principle:"

I would disagree and say that what you are saying is a "corruption" of the original principle so that it can be applied to the real world in a sensible manner, however it does now mean we’ve had to modify that original principle.

The reason being is that the land owner is now being forced to do something on his land even though he was doing nothing that initiated the use of force against someone else.

I suspect however that the difference between what Earthborn is saying and what you are saying is less then either of you think. By introducing the idea of the “warning� you are agreeing with Earthborn that the definition of one of the uses of “force� is actually determined not by the core principle but by the interpretation of that principle. In other words you are saying that the forcing of someone to put a sign on their land is not “force� as it is meant in the sense of the “core� principle.

(Edited for some words.)

[Underemployed]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Then I don't see why I should consider libertarianism a better one. I don't consider "But that's true of any political system" a valid defense for flaws in it. I think we should strive for political systems that are better than what we have, not ones that are basically the same.

The possibility that there may be some future corruption of ideology due to changes in human society is an implicit limiting factor of any human organizational system - an inherent flaw, you might say. Even if you were to come up with the perfect concept of society, where everyone would undoubtedly live in peace and harmony and have all their needs catered for but not at anybody else's expense, you could not account for human perversity at some stage in the future screwing it all up. All concepts rely on assumptions - even ones we take for granted. You can attack any idea on any subject by denying the first principles, which is why the attack is useless without showing why it should apply specifically in this case.

As for your second sentence, I wholeheartedly agree and as soon as another system comes along that is better than the ones we have, I'll be rooting for it (as long as by 'better' you mean one closer to the perfect concept outlined above). Libertarianism is basically the same as what we have now, but with important refinements relating to the size of the state and the role of the individual which I think are good. You disagree and are free to do so.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Underemployed


...snip...

but with important refinements relating to the size of the state and the role of the individual which I think are good. You disagree and are free to do so.

There is nothing in the principles of libertarianism that means we can assume libertarianism state would be "small".

[shanek]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Not at all, and I don't see why you should think so.There are many countries, including my own that assume there are legimitate uses of force beyond the three forces believed to exist by libertarians. The constitution of the Netherlands specifically mentions that it is ongoing task of the government to provide healthcare to its citizens, and that it can demand taxes from its citizens to pay for it. According to libertarianism this is an initiation of force because it takes money from people by force. At the same time, it is considered a legitimate use of force, even by Dutch libertarians, although initiation of force never is.

But that example doesn't support your first sentence. They're not saying that it's not an initiation of force (neither is it defensive or punitive), they're just saying it's justified. They could differ with Libertarians in believing that the initiation of force is sometimes justified, but that doesn't mean they're creating a fourth class of force.

Explain what characteristics an initiator has that sets him apart from a defender.

The fact that there is no force being applied on him by the people he is applying force against.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Our discussion on addiction and compulsive behaviours should have told you that I won't accept that any action one is talking on one's own is necessarily 'voluntary'.

Reality is not based on what you will or won't accept. People can and have stopped addictions through nothing but willpower. That clearly makes the act of consuming an addictive substance a voluntary act. And even if you want to argue that compulsive behavior is not voluntary, they're the ones who chose to consume the substance to begin with so they're the ones responsible for the addiction anyway. So that still doesn't help you.

The logic is flawed. It uses an assumption where evidence to the contrary exists.

Which would be?

As soon as you get rid of the assumption that anything an entity does to itself must be voluntary, there is nothing strange about it.

Isn't it just a lot simpler to get rid of the concept of "society" acting as a single entity? Because that's the very crux of the confusion here.

And I'll tell you again that I am not. I'm talking about libertarian philosophy and how it distinguishes initiation of force from defensive force.I do not consider them clear definitions, because they do not allow me to figure out when someone must be considered an initiation of force according to libertarian philosophy. Is the guy who puts landmines in his garden an initiator or not? Is Bush an initiator for starting a war against Iraq, or was he trying to defend the US against weapons of mass destruction and was just wrong that they existed.

But these are all questions of fact, facts that must be determined in order to see if there is initiation. Did Bush know there were no WMDs? Did the neighbor plant the mines specifically to blow up kids he knew ran through his lawn every afternoon? These are facts that must be examined. That's why we have things called courts and juries.

Then you define 'environmental factor' as something else than whatever exists in the environment.

I define it as what the person encounters by being there. An action is not an environmental factor. Again, you want to define something to mean everything.

The genitalia of the owner of the place are in the environment of the visitor, because that's what environment means: everything outside the thing considered.

And she agrees to being in proximity of that genitalia. But she does not therefore agree to any and all actions done to her with that genitalia.

In what way? They are both things someone does, is it not? Saying that you'll shoot someone is also an act.

But the level of force is not the same. Saying you're going to do something is not the same as doing that thing. Call it a meaningless distinction if you want, but you'll be about the only person on the planet doing so.

I did not ask for the similarities. I asked for the differences!

I didn't make any specific claim that there were differences.

Badnarik did though. In his first day in office he plans to strike down several existing laws, and even forbid the Federal Reserve to print fiat currency. You claimed that he would be able to do the things he planned to do.

Yes, he can. He can issue executive orders to the executive officers and departments. Every President since and including George Washington has done so.

That is different from actually removing the laws from the books, which Badnarik did not state he was going to do. The laws would still be there for a future President to follow if he so chose. He can remove the regulations from the Federal Register, but he can't actually delete parts of the US Code. That's an important distinction you keep muddying.

There is another thing that is important to consider though: initiation of force is considered to always be illegitimate. So when someone considers a use of force that is done first legitimate, he cannot use that as part of the same 'three forces' model.

Sure, he can. He can just disagree that initiation of force is always illegitimate.

It might be more useful to call it 'preventive force' and consider it legitimate.

But it can only be preventive if it were something that guy was going to do to them. It isn't. So they're initiating force against him; it doesn't matter if there's force from somewhere else being imposed upon them.

No it doesn't. Only the writings of the founding fathers exist today.

And those writings are clear and unambiguous, no matter what politicians with an agenda say.

Well when he says things like: "Where its words are plain, clear, and determinate, they require no interpretation" he loses my respect. Reading = Interpreting by definition.

Completely wrong. The definition of "interpret" is "to explain the meaning of" (American Heritage) or or "to explain or tell the meaning of (as a document) esp. in order to determine intent" (Mirriam-Webster's); whereas "read" means " To examine and grasp the meaning of" (American Heritage). And of all the synonyms in Roget's New Millennium Thesaurus, "read" appears nowhere.

If you want to define the plain meaning of something as an "interpretation," that's your perogative, but it doesn't alter the point one bit.

No, I define it as 'humans living together'.

No, you're not, because you're speaking of society as a singular entity capable of taking actions. That's hardly the collective you've just defined.

A society is people and their interactions.

Fine; then stop talking about society as a singular entity doing something when some of its members are doing one thing and others are doing something else.

People are forced to conform to the libertarian principles of property.

"Property" is not a libertarian principle. "Liberty" is a libertarian principle, and property is the mechanism that common law has established to protect liberty. I have explained this to you several times. A libertarian system could come upon some other mechanism of protecting liberty that didn't involve property. Just because someone hasn't yet doesn't mean it's impossible.

Something similar is happening in the present world. A whole bunch of people no longer believe in the concept of intellectual property, but they have to conform to the concept against their will.

Actually, no, they don't. Haven't looked around the internet much lately, have you?

They can be punished for illegally using or spreading software they have not paid for.

People can also be punished for using drugs or any number of stupid laws. That doesn't automatically make it justified or present some kind of problem for the underlying philosophy. These things exist everywhere. If anything, libertarianism reduces the likelihood of these things happening because the government is not given such wide open powers.

[Underemployed]

Originally posted by Darat
There is nothing in the principles of libertarianism that means we can assume libertarianism state would be "small".

My sense of humour has evaporated thanks to this thread. I honestly can't guess if you're making a gag about the physical size of the land, or a serious point about the amount of resources required by the institutions of the goverment. Either way you're right. But since most of what we now consider government responsibilities would no longer be controlled by it, we can infer that as a consequence of this, the number of people employed by the state would be considerably less.

Originally posted by Earthborn
If it [democracy] has not 'strayed from its core values' (whatever that means), then I don't know what its core values are.

How about everybody's favourite, Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy):

The term democracy is used to describe a form of government in which decisions are made with the direction of the majority of its citizenry through a fair elective process. It can apply to a multitude of government systems, as these concepts transcend and often occur concomitantly with other forms.

This definition of the concept of democracy is consistent with both the original wacky idea of Cleisthenes and our current models. The practical expressions of the ideology have changed, the core values have not.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Underemployed
[B]My sense of humour has evaporated thanks to this thread. I honestly can't guess if you're making a gag about the physical size of the land, or a serious point about the amount of resources required by the institutions of the goverment. Either way you're right. But since most of what we now consider government responsibilities would no longer be controlled by it, we can infer that as a consequence of this, the number of people employed by the state would be considerably less.



I hadn’t considered that my post had a humorous side but yes a libertarian state probably would be very small.... ;)

[Underemployed]

Originally posted by Darat
[...]the land owner is now being forced to do something on his land even though he was doing nothing that initiated the use of force against someone else.

I suspect however that the difference between what Earthborn is saying and what you are saying is less then either of you think. By introducing the idea of the “warning� you are agreeing with Earthborn that the definition of one of the uses of “force� is actually determined not by the core principle but by the interpretation of that principle. In other words you are saying that the forcing of someone to put a sign on their land is not “force� as it is meant in the sense of the “core� principle.

A good point and well made. I've been thinking about this one all day (fortunately it was a slow day at work).

One possible answer: You said, "belonging to that society is voluntary not compulsory as the USA Libertarian Party would have it. (But how they then deal with the people who don't join the society can get a bit whacky if you ask me.)" We can elaborate on the voluntary aspect of joining the libertarian state and say it is conditional upon accepting various rules. One of these rules could be that in the event you are in dispute with someone over who has initiated force, you agree to be bound by the decision of the courts. Another could be that you may do whatever you like within your property, as long as others are warned if trespassing will put them in danger. Or in a simpler form, that ALL trespass upon private land is initiation of force, as long as the boundaries of that land are clearly marked. This latter would be more consistent with the core values, as ensuring that the physical boundaries of private property are demarkated could becalled an administrative necessity rather than coercive force. Of course this opens the door for further 'administrative necessities', but changes to the social contract would require the consent of all citizens, who could decide they don't like it and leave (or never leave their own property, which is getting a bit whacky).

Another possible answer: We can just let the definitions be determined as circumstances dictate, building up a body of caselaw upon which to decide if force is initial or not. Time will tell if this leads to such a corruption of the ideal that the state can no longer be called Libertarian.

[Earthborn]

...You thought I was saying it was not OK to plant mines. You'll see I continued to add the caveat of fair warning, just as all current legal systems do.I don't get why putting up a few signs makes an initiation of force into a non-initiation of force.But if he made it known (using signs or any other means such that anyone approaching his property would be clearly informed), then people (and by extension, their children) have accepted that risk.I don't think that putting up signs automatically makes people accept that there is a danger to their children on someone's land.So, we already have a working interpretation of a core principle:

Uninformed citizens (of whatever age) getting blown up by unmarked mines on unmarked land = property owner is initiating force.

Informed citizens trespassing on known private land = trespasser is initiating force and accepts the consequences.So what is it if an uninformed child of an informed citizen gets blown up by a marked mine on marked land? Does the parent of the unfortunate tresspasser have to accept the consequences?The response is that under Libertarianism they, (or in the case of children and the mentally deficient, those responsible for them) are responsible for making themselves aware of such stipulations.That contradicts your argument that the owner must make others aware of such stipulations by putting up signs. If the owner must inform them, why would anyone have to inform himself?

Making people responsible for making themselves aware quickly leads to problems, as there are possible large numbers of people who cannot make themselves aware of it even if there are signs. There are blind people who cannot see the signs, foreigners and analphabetics who cannot read the signs, children or mentally handicapped people who cannot understand the signs, etc... The possible danger of even a marked minefield will probably cause most people to say: "To heck with this libertarian philosophy. People should simply not be allowed to undermine any land, whether it is their own or not, whether doing so would be an initiation of force or not."And what relevance does this claim posess in the context of an argument over the concept of a state not initiating force? None.I'd say everything. What is meant with 'initiation of force' can change just as well. Even if you were to come up with the perfect concept of society, where everyone would undoubtedly live in peace and harmony and have all their needs catered for but not at anybody else's expense, you could not account for human perversity at some stage in the future screwing it all up.A society that people can screw up is not a perfect society. A 'perfect' society would be immune to that.

Note that a whole lot of people claim that 'communism' is not a perfect society because people will screw it up. What you are basically saying is that libertarianism is just as unrealistic as communism. And you are asking me to forget about this flaw, while I constantly hear that the exact same flaw is what makes communism a horrible mistake. If both can be perverted by humans, why should I favour libertarianism over communism?You can attack any idea on any subject by denying the first principles, which is why the attack is useless without showing why it should apply specifically in this case.The 'attack' specifically in this case, because we are talking about this case. If we were discussing another political philosophy I might use the exact same criticism. It is not criticism of only libertarianism, it is just that libertarianism is the subject we are discussing.as long as by 'better' you mean one closer to the perfect concept outlined aboveWith better I won't ever mean closer to some concept. When I say 'better' I mean something that makes people living under it happier.The practical expressions of the ideology have changed, the core values have not.Looks to me like it is the other way around. The 'core values' of modern democracies are things like universal suffrage, equality before the law, freedom of speech... That's sort of thing. These clearly have changed. Having fair elections seems more like being a 'practical expression' to me.Another possible answer: We can just let the definitions be determined as circumstances dictate, building up a body of caselaw upon which to decide if force is initial or not.That raises the question on what basis the courts must make their decisions. They must first have an idea what is meant by the terms before they can make decisions, or else it will simply end up being the opinions of individual judges.

[Underemployed]

Originally posted by Earthborn
I don't get why putting up a few signs makes an initiation of force into a non-initiation of force[...]I don't think that putting up signs automatically makes people accept that there is a danger to their children on someone's land.

An interesting and contrary position. Not just contrary to myself, but to English law (as seen in the Occupiers Liability Acts quoted in this thread). Sadly I can't speak Dutch, so I can't quote the relevant law of your own country, but I'd expect it takes a similar stance to the subject as does the English legislature. Signs/fences/warnings etc are indeed considered enough by most countries to absolve the property owner from liability for the injuries sustained during trespass.

As for the second sentence....are you honestly saying that if you saw your child about to enter a field lined by warnings saying "THIS FIELD IS MINED", you would not accept that there is a danger to your child?

So what is it if an uninformed child of an informed citizen gets blown up by a marked mine on marked land? Does the parent of the unfortunate tresspasser have to accept the consequences?

Sadly, yes. The parent was irresponsible and has paid the ultimate price. A tragic but vivid illustration of the point that individuals cannot be held responsible for the irresponsibility of others.

That contradicts your argument that the owner must make others aware of such stipulations by putting up signs. If the owner must inform them, why would anyone have to inform himself?

The owner should inform potential trespassers at the point of entry. This is a passive duty a landowner can easily set up within her own property. You sound like you think the owner should leaflet the area and take out ads in the local paper. By your example, even if the owner did indeed take such actions, up to and including national TV appearances, she would never succeed in informing everybody because shecannot look inside people's heads to make sure they understand. There'd always be someone claiming "But I didn't understand!" You cannot protect everyone from themselves no matter how much you try. Libertarianism accepts this human foible more than any other political philosophy.

What is meant with 'initiation of force' can change just as well.

The words can change, the concept cannot. Look up coercive force. Now imagine deciding who began using it where there was none before. It's as close to a mathematical formula as political philosphy gets. It's the next best thing to pacifism, which is the concept of never initiating any force under any circumstances. Do you have a simlar problem with that definition?

If both can be perverted by humans, why should I favour libertarianism over communism?

I've never once said you should. For all I know you may prefer communism. In a Libertarian state, you'd be allowed to act on that preference as long as you didn't try to coerce others, which is why I consider it 'better'. Just as the people who don't believe in property law can act as they like...as long is it's on their plot of non-owned land.

Looks to me like it is the other way around. The 'core values' of modern democracies are things like universal suffrage, equality before the law, freedom of speech... That's sort of thing. These clearly have changed. Having fair elections seems more like being a 'practical expression' to me.

Funny you should mention the words 'fair elections', that section of the definition was the one thing I'd have edited out from the Wiki entry, as they seemed irrelevant to the rest. I'd agree that ensuring electoral probity would be a practicality, not a core value. But if you accept that, you've got to accept your other examples are also practicalities to ensure the smooth working of a democracy.

When I say 'better' I mean something that makes people living under it happier.

Ah, happiness.

"We are no longer happy so soon as we wish to be happier." (Walter Savage Landor)

"If you are not happy here and now, you never will be." (Taisen Deshimaru)

[The idea]

Originally posted by Underemployed
Signs/fences/warnings etc are indeed considered enough by most countries to absolve the property owner from liability for the injuries sustained during trespass.

Are you talking about injuries sustained as a result of landmines exploding during trespass?

[Earthborn]

Signs/fences/warningsDon't sneak in things into the discussion that haven't been discussed before. We don't talk about fences. Fences are a different thing entirely from warning signs, as they can be used to physically prevent someone from getting to the dangerous area instead of merely informing them that it is there.

I agree that for some dangers appropriate fences are enough to absolve the property owner as long as the difficulty to get through it is equivalent to the danger that exists behind it. But we aren't talking about fences, we are talking about warning signs.As for the second sentence....are you honestly saying that if you saw your child about to enter a field lined by warnings saying "THIS FIELD IS MINED", you would not accept that there is a danger to your child?You do realise there is a difference between understanding that there is a danger and accepting that it exists, don't you? A field lined with such warnings will make me understand that the danger exists, but that does not mean I accept that the danger exist. More likely I will demand that the owner removes the landmines. I might even take the owner to court, and I am fairly sure I can win. The minefield is a clear and present and especially unnecessary danger to children in the neighbourhood.Sadly, yes. The parent was irresponsible and has paid the ultimate price. A tragic but vivid illustration of the point that individuals cannot be held responsible for the irresponsibility of others.Your statement is self-contradictory. You claim that individuals cannot be held responsible for the irresponsibility of others, but you hold parents responsible for the irresponsibility of their children. Apperently it is possible to hold someone responsible for the irresponsibility of another.

It was not the parent, but the child who paid the ultimate price for its irresponsibility.You sound like you think the owner should leaflet the area and take out ads in the local paper.No, I sound like the owner should not place landmines in the first place OR the owner should physically prevent people from entering the land OR it must be accepted that under libertarianism it is perfectly acceptable that children are blown to bits if the sneak into someone else's garden.You cannot protect everyone from themselves no matter how much you try. Libertarianism accepts this human foible more than any other political philosophy.It seems to me that libertarianism considers 'protecting people from themselves' is illegitimate and should never a be task of the government.The words can change, the concept cannot.I think it can.Look up coercive force. Now imagine deciding who began using it where there was none before.There has always been the use of force, and nearly everyone who uses it argues that they do it in reaction to other force.It's as close to a mathematical formula as political philosphy gets.That's rubbish and you know it.It's the next best thing to pacifism, which is the concept of never initiating any force under any circumstances. Do you have a simlar problem with that definition?Perhaps not a similar problem, but I do have a problem with that definition because it simply isn't true. Pacifists are against the many violent uses of force, even if it is not initiated, while they may consider some less violent uses of force legimitate, even if it is initiated.In a Libertarian state, you'd be allowed to act on that preference as long as you didn't try to coerce others, which is why I consider it 'better'.A similar argument can be made with communism. You'd be allowed to act on your libertarian preferences as long as you don't insist on keeping the things you consider your own to yourself.

Of course it takes out the heart of libertarian principles, and the same is true of a communist living in a libertarian country. He will need to respect the 'property' of others, even though he doesn't believe in the legitimacy of that concept.Just as the people who don't believe in property law can act as they like...as long is it's on their plot of non-owned land."You can all live the lives you want!"
"Hurray!"
"... as long as you follow the rules..."Funny you should mention the words 'fair elections', that section of the definition was the one thing I'd have edited out from the Wiki entry, as they seemed irrelevant to the rest.I haven't noticed that you have edited it out. It looks to me like it is the only part you left in.But if you accept that, you've got to accept your other examples are also practicalities to ensure the smooth working of a democracy.If I accept that, there are no 'core values' and there are only 'practicalities'.Ah, happiness.

"We are no longer happy so soon as we wish to be happier." (Walter Savage Landor)

"If you are not happy here and now, you never will be." (Taisen Deshimaru)What kind of argument is that? I fail to see what you are trying to say here.

[Earthborn]

People can and have stopped addictions through nothing but willpower.First you'll have to meaningfully define what you mean with 'willpower' before it can be determined whether that is true or not.Which would be?Simple really.

You claim that if an action taken against your own it can't be involuntary. We have already agreed that there are people who can involuntarily take actions against themselves. You have called these people 'insane'.
Therefore it is possible to take actions against oneself without these actions being voluntary.Isn't it just a lot simpler to get rid of the concept of "society" acting as a single entity?No, I don't think so. I think it is useful to sometimes refer to society as a single entity. It is just as useful as refering to an antcolony as a single entity. You can for example say that the colony searches for food, even if 90% of the ants is doing nothing inside the hill and of the ants outside the hill most walk in the wrong direction.

Just like ants, humans form huge and complex social structures which we call 'societies'. It is sometimes useful look to at the big picture to see what happens collectively instead of all the individual relationships. Economists do it all the time, in fact.

By forming justice systems, societies try to maintain order within themselves. But that does mean one part of society (the police) is doing something against another part of society (criminals).

This also explains how a single person can do things involuntarily against oneself. A person is actually a collective (a 'society') of cells, and especially neurons can get into conflict with eachother.Because that's the very crux of the confusion here.I think the crux of the confusion is you.I define it as what the person encounters by being there. An action is not an environmental factor.Is an action not something that one encounters by being somewhere?Again, you want to define something to mean everything.As far as I know, 'environment' is defined as everything outside something. So if we consider a person, everything outside that person is that person's environment.But she does not therefore agree to any and all actions done to her with that genitalia.She may also not agree to any and all actions done to the air she has to breath in there. You still do not explain what the difference is.But the level of force is not the same. Saying you're going to do something is not the same as doing that thing.That's right. But if the threat to shoot is to be taken seriously by the burgler, he must be under the impression that it might actually happen. If it was illegal to actually shoot him if he is not a threat, he might take his chances that the owner wouldn't dare to shoot him and nick the video anyway.I didn't make any specific claim that there were differences.You did however make the specific claim that you already explained what the differences were. I asked you "So what is the difference between the two?" you said "I have already explained this." Later you said "I explained it several posts ago, and I explained it again in this one.". Then I asked you "I really don't see where you explain the difference between having landmines and a guard dog." and you answered "My very next post after yours at the top of the page explains it." which I interpreted to mean that you explained the difference in that post.

Why did you say that you already explained the difference, if you never claimed there was a difference? :confused:Sure, he can. He can just disagree that initiation of force is always illegitimate.And thereby changing the meaning of the three forces model, because in it initiation of force is meant to be always illegitimate. Instead of mangling a somewhat useful model to something it never was for no other reason then to pidgeonhole every use of force into one of the three categories, I think it is better to amend it by adding a few extra 'forces'.

Of course if you insist on using a magical number of three forces and prefer to categorise using eminent domain to save millions of lives from drowning as an initiation of force, go ahead. It's your philosophy. Just don't come back later to complain that someone has 'perverted the core values' of it, because then you have done it yourself.But it can only be preventive if it were something that guy was going to do to them.No, it is preventive because it prevents a disaster caused by nature.And those writings are clear and unambiguous, no matter what politicians with an agenda say.I've heard people claim that everything that is written in the Bible is clear and unambiguous. Funny thing though: whenever people claim the meaning of something is clear and unambiguous they never seem to be able to agree on the meaning with all the other people who claim the same thing.

The old "Its meaning is clear and it means exactly what I say it means. No matter what other people say."Completely wrong. The definition of "interpret" is "to explain the meaning of" (American Heritage) or or "to explain or tell the meaning of (as a document) esp. in order to determine intent" (Mirriam-Webster's); whereas "read" means " To examine and grasp the meaning of" (American Heritage).Let it go on record that you have tried to convince me that two words do not mean the same thing by providing definitions of the words that are nearly identical. :)No, you're not, because you're speaking of society as a singular entity capable of taking actions. That's hardly the collective you've just defined.A society is just as much a singular entity as a human being is. Both are collectives of smaller entities. A house is a collective of bricks, a galaxy a collective of stars, the universe a collective of atoms and other stuff. Still it is useful to refer to these things as a singular entity.Fine; then stop talking about society as a singular entity doing something when some of its members are doing one thing and others are doing something else.I don't see why I should.A libertarian system could come upon some other mechanism of protecting liberty that didn't involve property. Just because someone hasn't yet doesn't mean it's impossible.People already have. It's called libertarian socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism). I don't think you'll find it to be in line with your idea of libertarianism. I think the ability to hold property is one of libertarianism's 'core values', so without it, it wouldn't be libertarianism anymore.

Just because the concept of property exists in existing social systems does not prove there is no concept of property in libertarian philosophy. The concept of property seems to me an integral part libertarianism.Actually, no, they don't. Haven't looked around the internet much lately, have you?I have. It is not exactly legal, is it? By not conforming to a concept of law, they risk being thrown in jail. The same thing will happen in any society, including a libertarian one.That doesn't automatically make it justifiedI did not say that it is justified. I'm just saying that it happens: whatever government exists, people will have to conform to its laws.or present some kind of problem for the underlying philosophy.I did not say that it does.These things exist everywhere.That was my point. You denied it by saying "No one is forced to conform to anything in Libertarianism!"

Apperently you have changed your mind. Good, we agree then.If anything, libertarianism reduces the likelihood of these things happening because the government is not given such wide open powers.I think the likelihood that people need to conform to the law is exactly the same. People will have to conform to the law under libertarianism as well.

[Underemployed]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Don't sneak in things into the discussion that haven't been discussed before. We don't talk about fences

Fine, take out the word fences, even though this has nothing to do with the argument that people are responsible for assessing their own risks.

You do realise there is a difference between understanding that there is a danger and accepting that it exists, don't you? A field lined with such warnings will make me understand that the danger exists, but that does not mean I accept that the danger exist. More likely I will demand that the owner removes the landmines. I might even take the owner to court, and I am fairly sure I can win. The minefield is a clear and present and especially unnecessary danger to children in the neighbourhood.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems by 'accept that it exists' you mean 'accept that it has a right to exist at all in my society', otherwise your first sentence makes no sense. If you understand there is a danger, you cannot deny it's existence. Nor can you do the opposite: accept the existence of a danger but not understand that it is there. The two statements are almost synonymous.

I agree with you that mines have no place in a suburban lawn, but not that a sufficiently crazy person should never be allowed to put them there in a Libertarian state. As long as people are allowed to make the choice whether or not to accept the risks. You are making an Appeal for Pity (http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/ap.php) because we are not discussing what you think should be permissable in your society. We are discussing what is permissable in a Libertarian one.

Apperently it is possible to hold someone responsible for the irresponsibility of another...It was not the parent, but the child who paid the ultimate price for its irresponsibility.

Caselaw can determine at what age a person can be assumed to be responsible for their own actions. Until reaching that age, I see no contradiction in conferring such responsibility upon parents.

it must be accepted that under libertarianism it is perfectly acceptable that children are blown to bits if the sneak into someone else's garden.

Acceptable is not the same as desireable. All countries consider the appalling loss of life each on the roads acceptable, even though it would be easily preventable by making motorised vehicles illegal.

It seems to me that libertarianism considers 'protecting people from themselves' is illegitimate and should never a be task of the government.

Your keen powers of deduction have served you well.

There has always been the use of force, and nearly everyone who uses it argues that they do it in reaction to other force.

Hence, courts.

It's as close to a mathematical formula as political philosphy gets.

That's rubbish and you know it.

You are free to think that. Liebniz, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebniz) George Boole (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boole) and Gottlob Frege (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottlob_Frege) might think otherwise.

Pacifists are against the many violent uses of force, even if it is not initiated, while they may consider some less violent uses of force legimitate, even if it is initiated.

Then you are right, my definition was wrong. Which means that a philosophy can be expressed with different practical applications, albeit, as you point out, with pretty narrorw variations on the main principle before it becomes something else. Just as you would have no difficulty deciding at what point pacifism is no longer pacifism and democracy is no longer democracy, you can apply the same reasoning to Libertarianism.

"... as long as you follow the rules..."

Libertarianism is not anarchy. There are laws.

Funny you should mention the words 'fair elections', that section of the definition was the one thing I'd have edited out from the Wiki entry, as they seemed irrelevant to the rest.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I haven't noticed that you have edited it out. It looks to me like it is the only part you left in.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But if you accept that, you've got to accept your other examples are also practicalities to ensure the smooth working of a democracy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If I accept that, there are no 'core values' and there are only 'practicalities'.

The definition of democracy I provided is what democracy is. All the things you mentioned (The 'core values' of modern democracies are things like universal suffrage, equality before the law, freedom of speech... That's sort of thing) were added afterwards to accomodate social changes. You can take them away and it won't be very nice or 'acceptable' to you, but you'd still be left with a democracy.

What kind of argument is that? I fail to see what you are trying to say here.

That happiness is not a valid goal for a society, as its definition varies from person to person. Libertarianism allows people the freedom to persue their own happiness, without someone else deciding it for them.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Earthborn
First you'll have to meaningfully define what you mean with 'willpower' before it can be determined whether that is true or not.

"The strength of will to carry out one's decisions, wishes, or plans." (American Heritage) That one works for me.

You claim that if an action taken against your own it can't be involuntary. We have already agreed that there are people who can involuntarily take actions against themselves. You have called these people 'insane'.

So, then, a society that commits acts of force against itself is insane. Sounds right to me!

In any event, I still wouldn't call that "force," just "doing something stupid."

No, I don't think so. I think it is useful to sometimes refer to society as a single entity.

And many physicists find it useful to talk about particles as though they were entities with a will. They realize that doesn't make it so, and you should, too.

It is sometimes useful look to at the big picture to see what happens collectively instead of all the individual relationships. Economists do it all the time, in fact.

The difference is, you're using this action of society as justification for a particular system of government.

Is an action not something that one encounters by being somewhere?

Not according to American Heritage: "Something done or accomplished; a deed." Act is defined as "The process of doing or performing something." Not encountering something.

Do you just not have access to a dictionary?

As far as I know, 'environment' is defined as everything outside something.

It's everything that surrounds something, again according to American Heritage: "The circumstances or conditions that surround one; surroundings." An action, defined above, is not a circumstance or a condition.

These definitions are clear. I don't understand why you constantly want to obfuscate and question them.

But if the threat to shoot is to be taken seriously by the burgler, he must be under the impression that it might actually happen.

There are two things you're ignoring: 1) the act of shooting need not be a use of deadly force (amazing how many people on this forum keep ignoring that), and 2) the level of force, or the threat of force, that the intruder constitutes increases after the threat is made and the intruder disregards it. It's no longer believable that he's wandered in by mistake; there is now reason to believe that he intends to do harm. The force, or at least the threat of force, is elevated by the intruder at that point.

You did however make the specific claim that you already explained what the differences were. I asked you "So what is the difference between the two?" you said "I have already explained this."

But that was NOT in regard to what you're talking about. Your query was in response to me saying, "One doesn't necessarily have the right to shoot and kill someone just because he's on one's property, but on the other hand, if there's something dangerous on the property, like a guard dog, the intruder is merely facing the consequences of his own actions." You then asked what the difference between the two (meaning, the use of force by the property owner and the consequences of coming onto the property absent the direct use of force by the owner) was. That I have repeatedly answered.

Why did you say that you already explained the difference, if you never claimed there was a difference?

Because I was talking about the difference between direct force and a consequence of one's actions. You're now claiming that I was talking about the difference between a guard dog and a land mine, when I clearly wasn't.

And thereby changing the meaning of the three forces model,

Not at all; just a difference in opinion on which uses of force are justified.

Of course if you insist on using a magical number of three forces

It's not a magical number. It's just how force is applied.

and prefer to categorise using eminent domain to save millions of lives from drowning as an initiation of force, go ahead.

It is an initiation of force against the property owner. There's just no way any reasonable person can say it isn't. The difference in opinion is on whether or not it's justified, not whether or not it's an initiation.

I guess I have to go back to the dictionary again: "To set going by taking the first step." The first step here is the siezure of the property. The flooding is not a step anyone has taken. The siezure of the property is force, and it is what sets things going. Ergo, it's an initiation of force. No question.

No, it is preventive because it prevents a disaster caused by nature.

But the force isn't being applied against nature! It's being applied against a homeowner who didn't have anything to do with their land being flooded!

The old "Its meaning is clear and it means exactly what I say it means.

Read the dictionary.

Let it go on record that you have tried to convince me that two words do not mean the same thing by providing definitions of the words that are nearly identical.

The definitions are NOT identical. Far from it. And the thesaurus doesn't list them together. They are NOT the same thing.

I don't see why I should.

Because it isn't.

People already have.

Sorry, pardon me: that should be, no one has come upon another method that works.

I have. It is not exactly legal, is it?

Doesn't matter. You said they "have to conform." They don't. Just as people didn't have to conform and stop drinking alcohol during prohibition.

I did not say that it is justified. I'm just saying that it happens: whatever government exists, people will have to conform to its laws.

And I'm saying, they don't. Prohibition never actually prohibited anything. Government can't even keep drugs out of its own prisons.

Apperently you have changed your mind.

Nice way to quote me out of context. :rolleyes: Put the two sentences together instead of quoting them separately. I NEVER said libertarianism was a perfect system. But it is the best one to prevent abuse of power, by not letting people have that much power over the lives of others in the first place.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Underemployed
A good point and well made. I've been thinking about this one all day (fortunately it was a slow day at work).

One possible answer: You said, "belonging to that society is voluntary not compulsory as the USA Libertarian Party would have it. (But how they then deal with the people who don't join the society can get a bit whacky if you ask me.)" We can elaborate on the voluntary aspect of joining the libertarian state and say it is conditional upon accepting various rules. One of these rules could be that in the event you are in dispute with someone over who has initiated force, you agree to be bound by the decision of the courts. Another could be that you may do whatever you like within your property, as long as others are warned if trespassing will put them in danger. Or in a simpler form, that ALL trespass upon private land is initiation of force, as long as the boundaries of that land are clearly marked. This latter would be more consistent with the core values, as ensuring that the physical boundaries of private property are demarkated could becalled an administrative necessity rather than coercive force. Of course this opens the door for further 'administrative necessities', but changes to the social contract would require the consent of all citizens, who could decide they don't like it and leave (or never leave their own property, which is getting a bit whacky).



That's the general idea I've come across. Normally it is stated that once a child reaches their majority then they have the option to sign the contract with the state or not and within that contract there are various provisions that they agree to abide by, just like any regular contract. Some of these could be to allow the state to take action that would otherwise be considered an “initiation of force�, say for example to levy income tax to pay for the functions the state carries out. Others could be that you agree that all your actions are subject to certain laws and even regulations.

And since signing the contract is voluntary it means there is not an issue of non-consensual force being used against an individual.

I think if there is ever a libertarian society/state this is the route it will go down. It’s also why I like to emphasise that a libertarian state does not necessarily mean small government since I suspect a functioning libertarian state would end up with a large set of laws and regulations like other political systems (rather like the current USA government grew out of the wishes of the USA people over the years).




Originally posted by Underemployed

Another possible answer: We can just let the definitions be determined as circumstances dictate, building up a body of caselaw upon which to decide if force is initial or not. Time will tell if this leads to such a corruption of the ideal that the state can no longer be called Libertarian.

But if you don’t start with an agreement that says “I agree to be bound by whatever case law follows� you’ll still end up in the position that at some point an individual may find they are the recipient of non-consensual force.

[Earthborn]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems by 'accept that it exists' you mean 'accept that it has a right to exist at all in my society', otherwise your first sentence makes no sense.Well, yes of course. What else is 'accept' going to mean?The two statements are almost synonymous.I disagree.Until reaching that age, I see no contradiction in conferring such responsibility upon parents.Well, I do see a contradiction.

You have said that one person cannot be held responsible for the actions of another person
Then you said that one person (a parent) should be held responsible for the actions of another person (a child).

That is a looks like a direct contradiction to me. In reality it actually happens quite often that one person is held responsible for the actions of another person. A doctor may be held responsible for releasing the crazy person who did someone harm. In a country that has a concept of political responsibility, a minister is held responsible for the actions of some government officials and gets a vote of non-confidence. A general may be held responsible the misbehaviour of some soldiers...

There are a lot of examples, disproving that it cannot be done.All countries consider the appalling loss of life each on the roads acceptable, even though it would be easily preventable by making motorised vehicles illegal.That's because motorised vehicles serve a useful purpose a modern society can't do without. Few countries consider an appaling loss of life acceptable when it is caused by something that serves very little purpose, such as landmines in the yard.Your keen powers of deduction have served you well.It means of course that libertarianism does not need to accept that 'human foible' at all.You are free to think that. Liebniz, George Boole and Gottlob Frege might think otherwise.Where have they said that your sentence 'is as close to a mathematical formula as it gets' ?Just as you would have no difficulty deciding at what point pacifism is no longer pacifism and democracy is no longer democracyWhen the meaning of the words shift, I will have such difficulty.Libertarianism is not anarchy. There are laws.To which one must submit or face jail time. That disproves that people can live the way they like under libertarianism, because they would not be allowed to live in a way that contradicts libertarianism.You can take them away and it won't be very nice or 'acceptable' to you, but you'd still be left with a democracy.I don't think so. We'd not be left with what is meant with democracy in the modern sense of the word. We'd need to change the definition of the word back to what it used to be a long time ago.That happiness is not a valid goal for a society,I think it is.as its definition varies from person to person.I don't see why that should be a problem.Libertarianism allows people the freedom to persue their own happiness, without someone else deciding it for them.And why should it do that if happiness is not a valid goal for a society? Why should a society allow people the freedom to persue something it considers invalid?

It seems to me like libertarianism does consider happiness a valid goal for a society and considers individual freedom the mechanism to achieve it. Unless of course it considers individual freedom a goal in itself and doesn't care how happy it makes people.

[Earthborn]

"The strength of will to carry out one's decisions, wishes, or plans." (American Heritage) That one works for me.With meaningful, I of course mean in this case objective and measureable because it must be determined whether it can be the cause of something rather than an effect.

'The strength of will to carry out one's decisions, wishes, or plans' can only be determined after the fact. If someone has been cured of an addiction, then we might say that he had that strength. It cannot be determined to be a prior cause because the strength of will cannot be isolated from actually carrying out one's decisions wishes or plans. Whether someone has that strength of will depends on whether he carries out his decisions wishes or plans.

This sort of thing is a common problem in philosophy. I think it is pretty much agreed upon nowadays that a valid causal relationship must follow the following conditions:
1. The relationship must be empirically verifiable.
2. The way we describe the cause must be logically independent from its effects.

None of which is true of 'willpower' or 'strength of will' and therefore cannot be used as 'causes' of getting rid of an addiction.In any event, I still wouldn't call that "force," just "doing something stupid.""Doing something stupid" hardly disproves "force".

Of course according to that logic, the police locking up criminals is 'doing something stupid' just because it is one part of society using force against another part of society.And many physicists find it useful to talk about particles as though they were entities with a will.Name one.They realize that doesn't make it so, and you should, too.Sure, I realise that society is not a monolithic singular entity. Neither are individual people because they consist of cells. Neither are cells because they consist of individual atoms. Neither are atoms, because they consist of individual subatomic particles.

If it were invalid to talk about entities as if they are singular when they consist of many parts, there would be very little to talk about. I sometimes prefer to talk about collectives of things when I don't want to discuss all of its composing parts. So sue me!The difference is, you're using this action of society as justification for a particular system of government.I haven't used anything as a justification of any system of government. I have just challenged the justification of the libertarian one."Something done or accomplished; a deed." Act is defined as "The process of doing or performing something." Not encountering something.Why not?Do you just not have access to a dictionary?I have. I just don't see how an act falls outside the definition.The circumstances or conditions that surround one; surroundings." An action, defined above, is not a circumstance or a condition.I fail to see why not.

It seems to me like you treat "the environment" as a stage wherein humans act. I consider the humans as an integral part of the environment, because without them much of it would not exist. We just use very slightly different definitions, both of which are compatible with the definitions you posted.It's no longer believable that he's wandered in by mistake; there is now reason to believe that he intends to do harm.I don't see why that should be true. I think it more reasonable to believe he intends to nick the video. Just because someone is not accidentally in your house does not make it more reasonable to assume he intends to do harm.You then asked what the difference between the two (meaning, the use of force by the property owner and the consequences of coming onto the property absent the direct use of force by the owner) was.If that was what you thought my question meant, then you have clearly misunderstood me.You're now claiming that I was talking about the difference between a guard dog and a land mine, when I clearly wasn't.It wasn't clear to me that my question wasn't clear to you.Ergo, it's an initiation of force. No question.Sure. It just makes it rather difficult to maintain that the initiation of force is always unjustified.But the force isn't being applied against nature!Of course not.The definitions are NOT identical. Far from it.Then explain to me very carefully what the difference is, because I don't see it. To me it looks suspiciously like the definitions even use very similar wording. "To explain the meaning of" is pretty similar to "to examine and grasp the meaning of".Because it isn't.Nothing is. Nothing known to science that is, because the smallest entity is yet to be discovered. Everything else is just the collective behaviour of lots of other things.Sorry, pardon me: that should be, no one has come upon another method that works.You have not been able to conclusively demonstrate that libertarianism will work. The most you can do is point to a particular era in history that was sort of like libertarianism and claim that it worked. Libertarian socialists can do the exact same thing and be just as little convincing.You said they "have to conform."I said "they have to conform OR possible end up in jail."Prohibition never actually prohibited anything.What a funny thing to say. I think (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Prohibition) it did prohibit something.Government can't even keep drugs out of its own prisons.That does not mean it isn't prohibited.I NEVER said libertarianism was a perfect system.And I never said you did.But it is the best one to prevent abuse of power, by not letting people have that much power over the lives of others in the first place.I am not convinced, because you do not take away the power from those people at all. They government still has the weapons to do whatever it likes. All libertarianism does is no longer making it a legal power over the lives of others, but just making it illegal does not make it go away.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Earthborn
With meaningful, I of course mean in this case objective and measureable because it must be determined whether it can be the cause of something rather than an effect.

'The strength of will to carry out one's decisions, wishes, or plans' can only be determined after the fact. If someone has been cured of an addiction, then we might say that he had that strength.

Well, then you're essentially asking someone to prove a negative; that in the cases where the addiction is not beaten that it's because their will wasn't strong enough, and you won't accept the thousands and thousands of people who have beaten their addictions through willpower as evidence of it.

This sort of thing is a common problem in philosophy.

That's probably why science doesn't rely too much on it.

Of course according to that logic, the police locking up criminals is 'doing something stupid' just because it is one part of society using force against another part of society.

Only when you consider society as a singular entity and you consider the police to be acting out its will.

Name one.

I can name two off the top of my head: Stephen Hawking and Michio Kaku. It's called "personification," and it's a great literary device useful for explaining things. And that's all that it is.

Sure, I realise that society is not a monolithic singular entity.

But your argument depends on it being just that.

Neither are individual people because they consist of cells.

I hope I don't have to explain to anyone how ridiculous that comparison is.

I haven't used anything as a justification of any system of government. I have just challenged the justification of the libertarian one.

On the basis that society is a singular entity, therefore necessitating governments that initiate force.

Why not?

Because they're two completely different things? Do I now have to look up the words "doing" and "encountering" to show they're different? And then look up the meaning of the words in those definitions, etc. ad nauseum?

I consider the humans as an integral part of the environment, because without them much of it would not exist.

I don't care how you personally consider it to be. The rest of the English-speaking world uses the word to mean one's surroundings.

We just use very slightly different definitions, both of which are compatible with the definitions you posted.

Wrong. Your definition is compeltely contrary to the dictionary.

I don't see why that should be true. I think it more reasonable to believe he intends to nick the video.

Because now he has to worry about leaving a witness behind. The risk is now greater. If he hasn't fled the scene, figuring on just cutting his losses, there is every reason to believe that he now intends bodily harm.

If that was what you thought my question meant, then you have clearly misunderstood me.

Well, that's what I was clearly talking about when you asked the question. Silly me...

Sure. It just makes it rather difficult to maintain that the initiation of force is always unjustified.

But as I keep saying, that's a completely different discussion.

Of course not.

Then it's an initiation of force!

Then explain to me very carefully what the difference is, because I don't see it. To me it looks suspiciously like the definitions even use very similar wording. "To explain the meaning of" is pretty similar to "to examine and grasp the meaning of".

They're completely different! For crying out loud, they're even two different types of verbs! One's transitive and the other's intransitive!

You have not been able to conclusively demonstrate that libertarianism will work.

So what??? Every single demonstration has shown that libertarianism works better than its counterparts, and its counterparts have been repeatedly shown to be failures! You REALLY want 100% proof in every single situation before you'll support it? Oh, but you're all too happy to support a system of government that has failed over and over and over again.

Libertarian socialists can do the exact same thing and be just as little convincing.

Except that socialism has been shown to be nothing other than a colossal failure.

I think it did prohibit something.

What? It certainly wasn't alcohol.

That does not mean it isn't prohibited.

It does, actually. Dictionary again (sigh): "To have the effect of preventing; preclude." It didn't have the effect of preventing alcohol consumption at all.

I am not convinced, because you do not take away the power from those people at all.

Of course they do! They no longer have the power to initiate force under libertarianism.

They government still has the weapons to do whatever it likes.

The difference is, the people have lots of weapons, too. And not just guns; civil disobedience, jury nullification, etc. are all weapons that can be used against the government's initiation of force.

[Earthborn]

Well, then you're essentially asking someone to prove a negativeNo, I am asking you to define in scientifically meaningful terms what 'willpower' actually is.you won't accept the thousands and thousands of people who have beaten their addictions through willpower as evidence of it.I also won't accept the thousands and thousands of people who claim to have beaten their addictions through prayer as evidence of the effectivity of prayer.That's probably why science doesn't rely too much on it.I'm fairly sure I know more about the Philosophy of Science then you do. That's why I ask you to define 'willpower' in scientifically meaningful, falsifiable terms.It's called "personification," and it's a great literary device useful for explaining things. And that's all that it is.And why would using this device be illegitimate when talking about the collective behaviour of a large number of people?But your argument depends on it being just that.No, it doesn't.I hope I don't have to explain to anyone how ridiculous that comparison is.I think you do. What is ridiculous about it? Is a human being not a collective of cells, just as much as a society is collective of human beings?On the basis that society is a singular entity, therefore necessitating governments that initiate force.Just because society can be thought of as a singular entity does not in any way necessitate the government to do anything. It is a description of the role of government in society, not a prescription!Because they're two completely different things? Do I now have to look up the words "doing" and "encountering" to show they're different?I know that they are different things. I just don't see why it is impossible to encounter someone in the environment doing something.The rest of the English-speaking world uses the word to mean one's surroundings.Yes, of course. Now why is it wrong to think of other people as being part of those surroundings?Wrong. Your definition is compeltely contrary to the dictionary.How?If he hasn't fled the scene, figuring on just cutting his losses, there is every reason to believe that he now intends bodily harm.I fail to see why.Well, that's what I was clearly talking about when you asked the question.As usual you have difficulty understanding that other people can interpret what you say differently then you do yourself.They're completely different!Then explain the difference, if you think the difference is so obvious.You REALLY want 100% proof in every single situation before you'll support it?No, but I do require more proof than "shanek says it will work".Oh, but you're all too happy to support a system of government that has failed over and over and over again.I require proof that it has failed over and over. And I do no accept any number of anecdotes of failings.Except that socialism has been shown to be nothing other than a colossal failure.Centralised economies have shown to be a failure. Libertarian socialism does not require a centralised economy.It does, actually. Dictionary again (sigh): "To have the effect of preventing; preclude."Apperently you haven't clicked on my link (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Prohibition) which said something different:
The act of prohibiting or the condition of being prohibited.
A law, order, or decree that forbids something.
an extraordinary writ issued by a higher court commanding an inferior court to keep within its proper jurisdiction (as by ceasing a prosecution)
an order to refrain or stop
a law forbidding the sale of alcoholic beverages
the action of prohibiting or inhibiting or forbidding (or an instance thereof)I don't know which dictionary you use, but mine tells me that 'prohibiting' means 'forbidding'. Here (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=prohibiting) is the definition of 'prohibiting':To forbid by authority: Smoking is prohibited in most theaters. See Synonyms at forbid.
To prevent; preclude: Modesty prohibits me from saying what happened.It didn't have the effect of preventing alcohol consumption at all.You don't have any figures that would allow you to make such a conclusion. How I know (http://www.eh.net/encyclopedia/?article=miron.prohibition.alcohol):The evidence on alcohol consumption during Prohibition is incomplete, since standard data sources are not available for the Prohibition period.Also note:Thus, most analyses of Prohibition's effect use the cirrhosis death rate as a proxy. Figures 1 and 2 present data on alcohol consumption and cirrhosis, respectively.9 The figures suggests a strong correlation between alcohol consumption and cirrhosis. Both series decline noticeably just before the onset of Prohibition and increase gradually for the first three decades after repeal of Prohibition.Of course they do! They no longer have the power to initiate force under libertarianism.They just don't have the legal power anymore. Nothing prevents them from initiating force illegally.The difference is, the people have lots of weapons, too. And not just guns; civil disobedience, jury nullification, etc. are all weapons that can be used against the government's initiation of force.Not exactly impressive compared with what the government will still have.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
I don't care how you personally consider it to be. The rest of the English-speaking world uses the word to mean one's surroundings.

Don't speak for me, buddy. I include humans when I talk about environment.

Originally posted by shanek
Except that socialism has been shown to be nothing other than a colossal failure.

Really? I don't suppose you could provide evidence of that?

Originally posted by shanek
They no longer have the power to initiate force under libertarianism.

This, of course, is not correct. Under Libertarianism, Libertarians will initiate force against those who are not Libertarians. But that's OK, because it is Libertarians who do it.

Originally posted by shanek
Prohibition never actually prohibited anything.

Originally posted by shanek
What? It certainly wasn't alcohol.

I can't believe you said that. You, who claim to know so much about the Constitution, and you haven't heard of this?

Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Section 1.

After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion)

Originally posted by shanek
It does, actually. Dictionary again (sigh): "To have the effect of preventing; preclude." It didn't have the effect of preventing alcohol consumption at all.

Prohibition
1 : the act of prohibiting by authority
2 : an order to restrain or stop
3 often capitalized : the forbidding by law of the manufacture, transportation, and sale of alcoholic liquors except for medicinal and sacramental purposes
(Webster)

Prohibition
(L)egal prevention of the manufacture, transportation, and sale of alcoholic beverages, the extreme of the regulatory liquor laws.
(The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition.)

Prohibition
A refusal to allow: ban, disallowance, forbiddance, inhibition, interdiction, proscription, taboo. See ALLOW.
(Roget’s II: The New Thesaurus, Third Edition)

Prohibition
An order issued by a higher court commanding a lower court to cease from proceeding in some matter not within its jurisdiction.
(The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition.)

You are incredibly wrong here.

Originally posted by shanek
The difference is, the people have lots of weapons, too. And not just guns; civil disobedience, jury nullification, etc. are all weapons that can be used against the government's initiation of force.

And nukes. Don't forget the nukes.

[Beerina]

Originally posted by Underemployed
Starve to death, or die young from overwork, work accidents, pollution...?
False Dilemma. (http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/fd.php) The child has many other avenues open to him or her, plus you are assuming that all child labour is bad (and is by necessity full-time). Did you never have a paper round or mow somebody's lawn?

Let's not forget that, as bad as it sounds, even in the worst case,"die young from overwork, accidents, or pollution" is an improvement over dying now from starvation. The anti-child-law legislation gives a false choice on this by pretending outlawing the bad negates the worse (starvation.) Magically. Wishing.

[Beerina]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
It takes great effort to explain such insane [Libertarian] ideas.

Actually, it's closer to explaining to religious believers why not only is evolution true, but that God does not exist.

Many socialists can no more believe people should be free from forced government intervention than religious people can believe people should be free from forced religious intervention.

This is the source of Ayn's statement that there should be separation of economics and state, just as there is separation of church and state, and for exactly the same reasion.

[Underemployed]

Originally posted by Earthborn
What else is 'accept' going to mean?

There is another commonly-used meaning, which is "to recognize as true : BELIEVE <refused to accept the explanation>". Your sentence "A field lined with such warnings will make me understand that the danger exists, but that does not mean I accept that the danger exist[s]" could be read as inferring this meaning. Thanks for clarifying. You are still making an Appeal for Pity because we are not discussing what you think should be permissable in your society. We are discussing what is permissable in a Libertarian one.

You have said that one person cannot be held responsible for the actions of another person
Then you said that one person (a parent) should be held responsible for the actions of another person (a child).

Minors have a special status in law in most countries. In the main, they are deemed to be incapable of giving their consent until some arbitrary age is attained. It's not hard to extend this principle to a Libertarian state, nor does it conflict with the concept of not initiating force because the parent[s] assumed the risks by choosing to have a child. oh, but what about those poor people who were raped? (Abort or give up the child for adoption) Didn't want a baby but had unprotected sex? (Abort or give up the child for adoption) Were very, very careful during sex to take every precaution but still got pregnant? (Abort or give up the child for adoption). I'm about to become a father so I know these are not easy choices to make - in fact, the experience has turned me from a radical pro-choicer to a tentative anti-abortionist. There is always a choice not to take on the responsibility of becoming a parent, however repugnant that choice may be. Pregnancy may be forced upon you, but parenthood is not. Then, at the arbitrary age of majority, you can heave a big sigh of relief because you aren't responsible for pointing out the signs and the barking dogs and the animatronic choirs.

In reality it actually happens quite often that one person is held responsible for the actions of another person. A doctor may be held responsible for releasing the crazy person who did someone harm. In a country that has a concept of political responsibility, a minister is held responsible for the actions of some government officials and gets a vote of non-confidence. A general may be held responsible the misbehaviour of some soldiers...

There are a lot of examples, disproving that it cannot be done.

All true, and no different from how it would be under Libertarianism. The Doctor voluntarily takes on the responsibility for his duties when he becomes a doctor. The Minister freely accepts the consequences of the actions of his subordinates, as does the General. They weren't forced into taking the jobs on. Their subjects weren't forced into giving up that portion of their self-responsibility that makes them what they are (soldiers, government workers, the insane - interesting combination of examples BTW).

...motorised vehicles serve a useful purpose a modern society can't do without. Few countries consider an appaling loss of life acceptable when it is caused by something that serves very little purpose, such as landmines in the yard.

Just because people will have the freedom to do something (mine their garden) doesn't mean they'll be doing it as much as possible. You must have a very dim view of people if you think this will be a common occurence in a Libertarian state. You are making an Appeal to Consequences (http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/conseq.php), because there is no cause to suggest that private properties would be any more dangerous to roving children in a Libertarian state than any other, nor that children would trespass on such sites more than than they do now even were they to exist.

There are many trade-offs a society makes (I use your definition of 'society', not Shaneks) in determining how many limits it should place on its citizens freedom in order to protect their physical safety. About 15 children died each year on playgrounds (http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/playgr.htm) in the US from 1990-2000 (not counting the 200,000 who were taken for emergency treatment each and every year), but this did not provoke a national outcry against playgrounds. Likewise the minute amount of children killed each year in a Libertarian state through injuries sustained during trespass will be accepted by a citizenry who value their freedoms. You are free to consider this 'unacceptable'.

It means of course that libertarianism does not need to accept that 'human foible' at all.

I need some clarification on this one, we may be talking at cross-purposes.

Where have they said that your sentence 'is as close to a mathematical formula as it gets' ?

Nowhere, of course. Which is why I said they 'might think otherwise.' Based on each of their lives being dedicated to the task of equating human language and meaning to logical steps that could be expressed mathematically.

When the meaning of the words shift, I will have such difficulty.

If the meaning of the word 'square' were changed tomorrow, would you have trouble recognising what we call a square today? Or would you just have trouble thinking of a word to describe it?

[There are laws]To which one must submit or face jail time. That disproves that people can live the way they like under libertarianism, because they would not be allowed to live in a way that contradicts libertarianism.

Like I said, it's not anarchy. A communist living in a Libertarian state gets a much better deal than a Libertarian living in a communist state, because the communist state does not acknowledge your right to own property to begin with. It's another trade-off considered acceptable by a citizenry who value their freedoms, such as they are under the oppressive yolk of the Libertarian government...

happiness is not a valid goal for a society

I think it is.

Even though happiness is ephemeral, and one persons happiness is anothers misery?

And why should it do that if happiness is not a valid goal for a society? Why should a society allow people the freedom to persue something it considers invalid?

It seems to me like libertarianism does consider happiness a valid goal for a society and considers individual freedom the mechanism to achieve it. Unless of course it considers individual freedom a goal in itself and doesn't care how happy it makes people.

It does it because that freedom need not necessarily be used in the pursuit of happiness(we both managed to misspell pursue). Libertariansim accepts that people will use these freedoms to make themselves happier, but there may be some perverse people who use it to do 'unacceptable' things, like, oh, say - put landmines in their garden. Libertarianism does its best to ensure that everybody's use of their freedom does not affect everybody elses. Freedom is indeed a goal in itself. I consider this a greater gift than happiness. You...are free to disagree.

[Beerina]

Originally posted by Darat
No they can't.

Some people may disagree with me however if the definition of a Jew is one who follows Judaism then someone who does not follow Judaism is not a Jew.

I am not “ethnically� a Christian even though I was born into a Christian family, attended Christian primary schools and was baptised. Unless I follow Christianity then it is incorrect to call me a Christian.

I just read something (I think it was in the "Freethinkers" book, a history of athiesm in America) that pointed out percentages of people who consider themselves religious, by religion, and it pointed out that there was a large discrepency between those who considered themselves "Jewish", ethnically/culturally, and those who actually attended service regularly. While the same is true of Christians, there was not a corresponding "Christian" ethnic/cultural identifiable subset. Valid? I don't know, but I don't study sociology.

I think the beef is with the use of the label "Jewish" to apply both to a particular religion, and to a unique culture that overlaps a ton of non-religious lifestyle.

[Beerina]

Originally posted by Underemployed

> Regarding idiot employee fired for smoking at a gas pump

It would be involved due to the employee's choice to sue, and one of the first things the court would check would be whether or not there was a contractual obligation not to smoke at the pump. If there wasn't, and it was a first offence, the employee would win his case.

If there wasn't such a stipulation, but there were other factors indicating the company did not allow smoking by the pumps (eg signs, verbal instructions from supervisors), then it would be up to the company to prove it had brought these factors to the attention of the employee.

In any case, it would be amatter of breach of contract, not an issue of negligence, because no pumps actually exploded.


I would suggest the employer could claim it was reasonable to assume the employee would know or figure out not to smoke at the pump. An employer may presume an employee they interview and approve is relatively capable of their job without having to specify in detail thousands of pages of behavior that nobody ever reads and exists solely so they can fire the guy without being counter-sued for the wages for the rest of his lifetime.

IINAL but that seems much more reasonable to me. Now whether a gas station can reasonably presume a yokel with a 70 IQ and a lazy streak a mile wide should know enuf to not smoke at a gas pump is another story...

[Earthborn]

We are discussing what is permissable in a Libertarian one.Then tell me whether you honestly think it should be permissable in a Libertarian society. Just honestly say from your own idea of morality whether you think "Sure, people should have the freedom to undermine their garden even if it will result in a few dead children." or whether you might agree with most people "Freedom is a good thing, but the risk that landmines in garden pose is so great that such a freedom is going a bit too far."Their subjects weren't forced into giving up that portion of their self-responsibility that makes them what they areThe insane may have been forced to give up some of their self-responsibility. Children are not even asked and simply assumed to not be self-responsible. It all means that can and are held responsible for things others do, disproving your claim that it isn't possible.You must have a very dim view of people if you think this will be a common occurence in a Libertarian state.I don't think it will be a common occurence. But I also don't think that how often it will happen is terrible relevant. Some problems can be perceived to be so severe that people may think it is necessary to do something about it, even if it is very rare.this did not provoke a national outcry against playgrounds.Around here, there is a national outcry against the poor safety of play equipment every few years, completely with campaigns to improve it. Things do improve, but after a while interest in it lessens, safety decreases a bit and later the whole thing repeats itself. But in the long term, safety increases I think.Likewise the minute amount of children killed each year in a Libertarian state through injuries sustained during trespass will be accepted by a citizenry who value their freedoms.A blown up child is a much more dramatic effect, and I think it will cause a much greater outrage because of it. Add to that the fact that the landmines serve much less purpose to society as a whole, while people do recognise playgrounds serve the practical purpose of entertainment to children, and I think you'll find that people will have much less tolerance for the death of children because of landmines then they do for the death of children because of playgrounds.
Just because the landmines will kill fewer children, does not mean they are going to be considered more acceptable. People will take other factors into account as well.A communist living in a Libertarian state gets a much better deal than a Libertarian living in a communist state, because the communist state does not acknowledge your right to own property to begin with.When I say 'communist' I mean 'communist' in the way a communist would understand 'communist', meaning: there is no state.

A libertarian living in a communist society may not have a right to own property, but he can use anything and everything that exists in that society whenever he wants. For all practical purposes, he owns everything, just like everybody else. People in a libertarian society are only allowed to use whatever they own, or what the owner allows them to use. Both communists and libertarians claim their ideal societies will be prosperous and free, so if that's true where are they better off?Even though happiness is ephemeral, and one persons happiness is anothers misery?Yes. I think a society should be structured in such a way to ensure the greatest amount of happiness and for that it will have to balance conflicting interests.Freedom is indeed a goal in itself. I consider this a greater gift than happiness.I think that most people will disagree with you on that, and it is therefore no wonder that the LP gets so few votes.

You are of course free to want a society that very few people want. It just makes it rather unlikely that you will ever get it.

[Underemployed]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Then tell me whether you honestly think it should be permissable in a Libertarian society. Just honestly say from your own idea of morality whether you think "Sure, people should have the freedom to undermine their garden even if it will result in a few dead children." or whether you might agree with most people "Freedom is a good thing, but the risk that landmines in garden pose is so great that such a freedom is going a bit too far."

Another False Dilemma (http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/fd.php). There is a third alternative that people will mine their gardens and it will not result in a few dead children. And a fourth alternative that although people have this freedom, they may choose not to exercise it. Just as Tony Blair chooses not to exercise his freedom to pass a law making him Dictator-of-the-world-for-life.

The insane may have been forced to give up some of their self-responsibility. Children are not even asked and simply assumed to not be self-responsible. It all means that can and are held responsible for things others do, disproving your claim that it isn't possible.

Actually I said "individuals cannot be held responsible for the irresponsibility of others", which is not the same thing. The insane were not forced into insanity except by natural means, and as you so wisely stated, nature is not deemed capable of initiating force. Like children, most societies deem the insane incapable of making informed decisions and accepting responsibility for their actions. Like I said, it's another trade-off considered acceptable by a citizenry who value their freedoms. Those people taking responsibility for the children and the insane took on that responsibility voluntarily.

I don't think it will be a common occurence. But I also don't think that how often it will happen is terrible relevant. Some problems can be perceived to be so severe that people may think it is necessary to do something about it, even if it is very rare.

Now you're making an Appeal to Popularity (http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/pop.php). Just because many people perceive a risk, the risk must exist? Not so.

Just because the landmines will kill fewer children, does not mean they are going to be considered more acceptable. People will take other factors into account as well.

I admire your ability to predict what people will think. You should apply for the JREF prize. Are you saying that you only care about the manner of a child's death, not how many are killed? Or is it only 'people' who think this way?

When I say 'communist' I mean 'communist' in the way a communist would understand 'communist', meaning: there is no state.

Hmmm...Like, just an area of land which the communists control? A geographical space wherin they can express their own unique philosophy? Sounds suspiciously like an area of land within a Libertarian state. With the added bonus that if anyone comes inside and does not adhere to their principles, the transgressor is penalised by them and the Libertarians. Of course you can say they had to buy that land, but all the ways they could have got their state involve some compromise of their principles or extreme hardship.

For all practical purposes, he owns everything, just like everybody else. People in a libertarian society are only allowed to use whatever they own, or what the owner allows them to use. Both communists and libertarians claim their ideal societies will be prosperous and free, so if that's true where are they better off?

"Hey, get off my chair!"
"This is MY chair!"
(Door opens)
"What are you two doing in my house?"

At least in the Libertarian state we avoid awkward confrontations like this. Except in the Communist enclave, of course...

I think a society should be structured in such a way to ensure the greatest amount of happiness and for that it will have to balance conflicting interests.

I'd like you to expand on how to 'ensure happiness' while balancing 'conflicting interests'.

[It is] no wonder that the LP gets so few votes...You are of course free to want a society that very few people want. It just makes it rather unlikely that you will ever get it.

So true, so true.

"Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?"

-Robert Browning, Andrea del Sarto

[Earthborn]

Another False Dilemma.No, it isn't.There is a third alternative that people will mine their gardens and it will not result in a few dead children. And a fourth alternative that although people have this freedom, they may choose not to exercise it.I am talking about risks, and whether they would be acceptable to you. I do not claim that it is what will happen, I just want to know how you would feel if it does happen. As such it is not a false dilemma.

It is possible that people mine their gardens, put up signs and no child is blown up for some period of time. But the risk is there, and it may happen sometime in the future. Do you consider that acceptable? Do you think other people will consider that acceptable? Is it reasonable to consider it acceptable?

It is also possible that people have the freedom to mine their garden and for some period of time no body will do it. But it can happen and if it does that person is not doing anything illegal and no bomb squad can be called to remove the mines against the owners will. Do you consider that acceptable? Do you think other people will consider that acceptable?Just as Tony Blair chooses not to exercise his freedom to pass a law making him Dictator-of-the-world-for-life.I don't think he has that freedom. I think if he ever tried something like that, chances are great that he will be forced to stop.as you so wisely stated, nature is not deemed capable of initiating force.Well, not according libertarian philosophy anyway. Which is kinda ridiculous, I think.most societies deem the insane incapable of making informed decisions and accepting responsibility for their actions.I think it is the other way around. What is considered 'insanity' is not the same thing for every society. Some cultures consider groups of people 'insane' that other cultures consider sane, while revering the people other cultures consider 'insane'. Insanity is not an objective characteristic of the people involved, it is a cultural value judgement.

The definition of 'insane' is simply whoever society does not deem capable of making informed decisions and therefore does not hold responsible for their actions. Modern western cultures considers people suffering from severe delusions and hallucinations as insane, while other cultures consider such people to be in touch with the spirit realm and holds them in high esteem. Insanity cannot be defined in a way that is free of cultural bias.Those people taking responsibility for the children and the insane took on that responsibility voluntarily.True, but irrelevant. The children and the insane did not give up their responsibility and thus their freedom voluntarily. They were forced, or not given a choice. They didn't necessarily initiate force, so force was initiated against them.Now you're making an Appeal to Popularity. Just because many people perceive a risk, the risk must exist? Not so.No, but if many people perceive a risk, the perception of risk is culturally significant. It is an appeal to popularity, but a valid one.

If people think there is a risk and they find that risk unacceptable, they might want to do something about it. They are not likely to care much for the argument that it would be against libertarian philosophy.I admire your ability to predict what people will think. You should apply for the JREF prize.I am only arguing about what I think people are likely to think. I do not claim any paranormal ability.Are you saying that you only care about the manner of a child's death, not how many are killed? Or is it only 'people' who think this way?I have not said that people disregard the number killed and only consider the manner in which they are killed. I have said that they care about both.

I think it is likely that outcry will be much greater over a single death that is very dramatic and considered unnecessary, then it is over death that is mundain and perceived as unavoidable, even if the latter kills many. For example: more people worry about terrorist attacks then they do about influenza deaths. It requires no paranormal ability to guess that people in the future will think in a similar way.Sounds suspiciously like an area of land within a Libertarian state.Communism, the way communists generally understand it, is an anarchistic philosophy. Living under any state will be unacceptable to them, unless perhaps if it is a state that strives to create a communist society.With the added bonus that if anyone comes inside and does not adhere to their principles, the transgressor is penalised by them and the Libertarians.What if the transgressor is a libertarian government official that does not adhere to their principles by making them live under a libertarian state?At least in the Libertarian state we avoid awkward confrontations like this. Except in the Communist enclave, of course...Communism assumes such abundance that the concept of 'my chair' or 'my house' ceases to exist. There is so much for everybody, that no one needs to fight over anything.

It is an idealised situation of course, just like a libertarian society is.I'd like you to expand on how to 'ensure happiness' while balancing 'conflicting interests'.It is not hard to understand when you realise that society is doing it already. People have conflicting interests and what makes one person happy makes another sad. So society contains mechanisms to mediate between people, settle disputes. It has parliaments that decide which interests have preference over others, whose happiness is most important and which kinds of happiness should be considered acceptable."Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?"

-Robert Browning, Andrea del SartoArgument from Quotebook. I can do that too, you know:"Stretching his hand out to catch the stars, he forgets the flowers at his feet."

-Jeremy Bentham, Deontology.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by shanek
Prohibition never actually prohibited anything. :wow2: :jaw: :crazy:

Amendment XVIII

Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited .


Originally posted by shanek
Read the dictionary.

:hb:

Ummmmmmm......nevermind. (shakes head in disbelief) :wink8:

Originally posted by shanek
Do you just not have access to a dictionary?

:dl:

Originally posted by shanek
I guess I have to go back to the dictionary again:


:id:

Try this :book: sometime. (And NOT one written by loony toon Badnarik or "Dr" Harry Brown)

:tr:

Now a serious question (that will be ignored): Given the above claim, and some of your other statements of "fact" (Spain had no terrorists until they joined the US coalition, all banks are forced to belong to the Federal Reserve, etc...), do you honestly think you have any credibility whatsoever on these forums?

[Underemployed]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Do you consider that acceptable? Do you think other people will consider that acceptable? Is it reasonable to consider it acceptable?

Accepting a risk does not mean approving or desiring that it should be realised. So if you're interested in sensational quotes, feel free to claim that myself and the Libertarian philosophy doesn't care if kids get blown up by mines, because that's all you seem to be interested in. Never mind that it's as likely to happen as Tony Blair exercising his freedom to pass a law making him Dictator-of-the-world-for-life. This is an example of the logical fallacy The Slippery Slope (http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/ss.php).

I don't think he has that freedom. I think if he ever tried something like that, chances are great that he will be forced to stop.

Incorrect. Under our non-existent consitution the party in power can pass any laws it pleases. The force which you claim would prevent him is societal pressure, which would be an equally effective counter measure against you mining your lawn.

[nature is not deemed capable of initiating force.]

Well, not according libertarian philosophy anyway. Which is kinda ridiculous, I think.

There's nothing in the available literature that says anything about this either way, so its presumptiuous of you to assume it does. There is ample evidence to imply that the definitions of force, such as they are, apply to humans and their actions only.

The definition of 'insane' is...

The definition of insanity is irrelevant, as is the fact that it changes from one place to the next. It's what happens after you're defined insane that counts.

The children and the insane did not give up their responsibility and thus their freedom voluntarily. They were forced, or not given a choice. They didn't necessarily initiate force, so force was initiated against them.

They didn't have any responsibility to give up. You take it on willingly at the age of majority. It is lost when you're defined insane, a natural occurence.

No, but if many people perceive a risk, the perception of risk is culturally significant. It is an appeal to popularity, but a valid one.

So the logical fallacy of the Appeal to Popularity is valid when...Lots of people think it is.

It is an idealised situation of course, just like a libertarian society is.

The version I've portrayed isn't quite as idealised, because unlike Communism it does not ignore proven methods for manufacturing and distributing goods. It doesn't even assume everyone's going to be nice to each other or follow the rules, just provides the framework for people to to go about their lives in a manner very simlar to the way they do now.

This is why some members of the LP place so much stock on the US Constitution and even in this thread the question of "how Libertarian was the US in the beginning" arose: there's a sense of false nostalgia for a mythic Libertarian past which must be recaptured.

But, regardless of the above: If we're not arguing over ideals, what are we arguing about?

Argument from Quotebook. I can do that too, you know

Except it wasn't an argument. I was agreeing with you.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Underemployed

Incorrect. Under our non-existent consitution the party in power can pass any laws it pleases. The force which you claim would prevent him is societal pressure, which would be an equally effective counter measure against you mining your lawn.
Tell me do all libertarians take this ridiculously legalistic attitude or is it just you and Shanek? Blair cannot pass any law it pleases no matter what your existent or nonexistent constitutions says, because if they tried people would as you say apply societal pressure - societal pressure meaning that they'd march to the number 10 with pitchforks and torches and put his head on a stake. :p Can we do that to people who mine their lawn? No? Then the situations aren’t comparable.

[Earthborn]

So if you're interested in sensational quotes, feel free to claim that myself and the Libertarian philosophy doesn't care if kids get blown up by mines, because that's all you seem to be interested in.It is not all that I am interested in. I'm also interested in your personal opinion, in how you think libertarian ideals should be reconciled with the world and how you think you can convince people of libertarianism.The force which you claim would prevent him is societal pressure, which would be an equally effective counter measure against you mining your lawn.I agree that societal pressure is in both cases an effective thing, but I don't think it is equally effective. If Tony Blair wants to become dictator of the world, he will have depend on a whole bunch of people to achieve it. It takes only a single person to mine the lawn and he doesn't have to tell anyone of his plans.There's nothing in the available literature that says anything about this either way, so its presumptiuous of you to assume it does.Shanek has said it many times. I'm sorry if I erroneously assumed he was saying something that represents Libertarianism as a whole.There is ample evidence to imply that the definitions of force, such as they are, apply to humans and their actions only.Actually there are a lot of definitions for the word force. Physisists use one that does not apply only to humans and because of that, I find the use of the word by libertarians fairly peculiar.It's what happens after you're defined insane that counts.Being declared insane and being assumed incapable of being responsible for their own actions is the same thing, so they happen at exactly the same time.It is lost when you're defined insane, a natural occurence.One that happens because people decide it to happen. It is a human action.So the logical fallacy of the Appeal to Popularity is valid when...Lots of people think it is.No, an appeal to popularity is valid if the argument is not of truth, but of popularity. Something is not necessarily true when lots of people think it is, but lots of people think it is when lots of people think it is.there's a sense of false nostalgia for a mythic Libertarian past which must be recaptured.Don't tell Shanek that, he'll be devastated. Every political philosophy needs a mythic past to convince its believers that it is achievable and to blame its end on its political opponents.If we're not arguing over ideals, what are we arguing about?Nothing really important. "Koetjes en Kalfjes" as the Dutch say.I was agreeing with you.I noticed.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Underemployed
Incorrect. Under our non-existent consitution the party in power can pass any laws it pleases. The force which you claim would prevent him is societal pressure, which would be an equally effective counter measure against you mining your lawn.

Is societal pressure not "force"?

[Darat]

Originally posted by Kerberos
Tell me do all libertarians take this ridiculously legalistic attitude or is it just you and Shanek? Blair cannot pass any law it pleases no matter what your existent or nonexistent constitutions says, because if they tried people would as you say apply societal pressure - societal pressure meaning that they'd march to the number 10 with pitchforks and torches and put his head on a stake. :p Can we do that to people who mine their lawn? No? Then the situations aren’t comparable.

It isn’t even true in a legalistic sense since the UK does have a constitution, and Parliament itself is constrained by that. Plus the judiciary can (and does) have the ability to strike down unconstitutional laws and also to curtail the power of Parliament, Ministers, the Police and so on. And although it sickens me to mention it there is another constitutionally based person in the UK system – the Monarch who although everyone says couldn’t ever exercise them (hmm.. 60’s and the royal prerogative anyone?) does retain some powers.

(Fundamentally however all governments are in power because “the people� let them govern them. That does not mean they don’t use draconian powers to suppress any form of opposition e.g. armies, killings and so on, but what everyone seems to forget is that “the people� is the state.)

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Darat
It isn’t even true in a legalistic sense since the UK does have a constitution, and Parliament itself is constrained by that. Plus the judiciary can (and does) have the ability to strike down unconstitutional laws and also to curtail the power of Parliament, Ministers, the Police and so on. And although it sickens me to mention it there is another constitutionally based person in the UK system – the Monarch who although everyone says couldn’t ever exercise them (hmm.. 60’s and the royal prerogative anyone?) does retain some powers.
I was under the impression that the Parliament could, if we ignore reality and focus solely on legality, pass any law they chose with a simple majority, including making Blair dictator.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Kerberos
I was under the impression that the Parliament could, if we ignore reality and focus solely on legality, pass any law they chose with a simple majority, including making Blair dictator.

They can in theory pass any law (I believe that there are some exceptions to this) but that law may be found wanting when challenged in a court, it is even possible for a court to look at the law and state that Parliament does not have the right to pass such a law.

I don’t know of any country with even a codified constitution that when you look at the details can’t in effect tear that constitution up.

[Underemployed]

Originally posted by Kerberos
Tell me do all libertarians take this ridiculously legalistic attitude or is it just you and Shanek?

It all sounds ridiculously legalistic because we both find ourselves having to give point-by-point answers to extremely specific questions. I'd prefer to answer people with hilarious flash animations but I'm too lazy. If you've got an altrnative way to answer such bizarre thought-experiments as have been posed on this thread I'd be eternally grateful. You say in your next post "if we ignore reality and focus solely on legality" regarding my example, but I'm just responding to the equally ludicrous ones I've had to wade through, all of which demand that you look at exact situations demanding exact answers.

Originally posted by Earthborn
It takes only a single person to mine the lawn and he doesn't have to tell anyone of his plans.

Alright, so we're back to the issue of putting up a warning, which I hope our imaginary Libertarian can live with. If not, he's welcome to find another state which imposes fewer conditions on him. Joining him will be our alternative universe Tony Blair wandering the Earth to find a people who will accept him as Dictator-for-Life.

Actually there are a lot of definitions for the word force. Physisists use one that does not apply only to humans and because of that, I find the use of the word by libertarians fairly peculiar.

Anyone working with children will be well used to the plaintive wail of "S/He/They made me to do it! It wasn't me!" Let's not rehash old ground and recycle word definitions.

Being declared insane and being assumed incapable of being responsible for their own actions is the same thing, so they happen at exactly the same time.

Quite right in practical terms. But, (see, Kerberos, this is what I mean) technically the assumption of no responsibility is a consequence of the declaration of insanity. The one must logically precede the other. You can't declare someone has no responsibility and then declare them insane (although it would certainly make me mad if someone did it).

One that happens because people decide it to happen. It is a human action.

And as such we'll just have to live with it.

No, an appeal to popularity is valid if the argument is not of truth, but of popularity. Something is not necessarily true when lots of people think it is, but lots of people think it is when lots of people think it is.

OK, you can argue about what is popular, and I'll argue about what is true. We can agree to disagree on this one.

[Underemployed]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Is societal pressure not "force"?

I'm not sure to be honest. Consider the example of our garden munitions depot owner: The nearby parents shun Mr. Miner socially. Local shop owners put up signs saying "Mine Layers Not Welcome!", so Mr. M has to shop elsewhere. His employer inserts a new clause in his contract when it's time for renegotiation, stating that this company chooses not to employ people who put mines in their gardens.

Mr. Miner finally relents and de-militarizes his lawn. Was he forced to do so? You could say so. But who forced him to do so? It was just a disparate group of people, each choosing to exercise their right to define the use of their own property, just as Mr. Miner was.

[Underemployed]

Originally posted by Earthborn
I'm also interested in your personal opinion, in how you think libertarian ideals should be reconciled with the world and how you think you can convince people of libertarianism.

Right, my personal opinion:

You'll have noticed I'm far more willing to impose pre-conditions on entrants to a Libertarian state than others. I consider Libertarianism to be a fairly broad church, allowing variations on the theme of non-coercive force. I'm happy with the definitions on this page (http://members.aol.com/MrSage365/Liberty.html) and would probably count myself in the camp which allows certain uses of pre-emptive force, and I most certainly do support the idea of a standing army and raising the taxes to pay for it, along with taxes to support a police force and court system. The only real difference between my interpretation of Libertarianism and most modern countries is in the extent to which the state controls private life and use of private property, a proposition many people agree with. So there isn't too much to reconcile away.

How to convince people of the idea? I don't have any opinions on this. I'm not a LP member and have no intention of becoming one. I say live and let live. I didn't enter this thread tying to convince anyone to sign up, only to support a philosophy I consider fairly reasonable in the face of emotional arguments couched as logic. I don't mind anyone not liking a philosophy, as long as they don't try and dress up their gut reactions as sober rational judgements.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Underemployed
I'm not sure to be honest. Consider the example of our garden munitions depot owner: The nearby parents shun Mr. Miner socially. Local shop owners put up signs saying "Mine Layers Not Welcome!", so Mr. M has to shop elsewhere. His employer inserts a new clause in his contract when it's time for renegotiation, stating that this company chooses not to employ people who put mines in their gardens.

Mr. Miner finally relents and de-militarizes his lawn. Was he forced to do so? You could say so. But who forced him to do so? It was just a disparate group of people, each choosing to exercise their right to define the use of their own property, just as Mr. Miner was.

Whoa. "Force" is a no-no in Libertarianism, no matter who exerts it. Yet, you are telling me that this kind of "force" is OK?


A small group of people, owning all of the stores in a far-away town, refuse to do business with a person living there.
That person cannot afford to keep driving a long distance every time he has to shop, so he has to move.
They have effectively exerted force on that person.


So, a renegade posse, hell-bent on rampage can exert force on a person, but a legally elected government can not.

You are aware of just how insane, inane, and downright idiotic that sounds, aren't you? Or is it just because you haven't thought this through?

No wonder people don't vote Libertarian. Support = 0% and falling. You guys are wackos.

[Underemployed]

So this is your considered response when someone says they're not sure?

A bunch of parents refusing to socially interact with someone, a bunch of shop-owners choosing whom they allow into their premises, an employer choosing whom to employ, is "a renegade posse, hell-bent on rampage"?

You are aware of just how insane, inane, and downright idiotic that sounds, aren't you? Or is it just because you haven't thought this through?

And if you'd read my post previous to this, you'd see I'm neither a Libertarian nor bothered about who else is.