NationStates Jolt Archive

For the purposes of this thread, let's define right-wing libertarians as supporters of capitalism who support a limited and tiny government, and anarcho-capitalists as supporters of capitalism who support no government. For the purposes of simplicity, in the future when I say libertarians, I mean right-wing libertarians.

So the question is: what exactly do libertarians believe the purpose of government should be? More to the point, I want you to list the purpose, but also list the amount of time that you think realistically the government would be taking up with its business. For instance, you might have the purposes listed as courts (internal defense, or perhaps defense of private property), roads, army(external defense), and other things. So putting percentages to it might look like this:

Courts 45%
Roads 25%
Army 20%
Other things 5%

In other words, 45% of the government's business would be dealing with courts and those issues, etc.

The purpose of this thread is because I say that anarcho-capitalism over libertarianism (though I dislike both.) But my reasons why will make more sense if people answer in the fashion that I ask. Thank you.

The purpose of government is simple: To protect people's property. Thus it needs devote its time to only Defence, and Law and Order.

The breakdown for me would perhaps be 70-30, since in an ideal state criminals would be forced to work for the state during the fulfilment of their sentence and thereby create extra revenue to fund the police force etc. Another reason for those levels is that as well as a libertarian I am also a nationalist and believe in the benefits of war, which I know differs with some pure libertarians.

But at any rate there you go.

The purpose of government is simple: To protect people's property. Thus it needs devote its time to only Defence, and Law and Order.

The breakdown for me would perhaps be 70-30, since in an ideal state criminals would be forced to work for the state during the fulfilment of their sentence and thereby create extra revenue to fund the police force etc. Another reason for those levels is that as well as a libertarian I am also a nationalist and believe in the benefits of war, which I know differs with some pure libertarians.

But at any rate there you go.Thank you for your input. Do you think that everyone within the country is going to receive the benefits of law and order equally?

It's a tough call - if there are enough libertarians here, I'd expect that you'll get a number of completely different responses. This mostly stems from what I would consider a common problem among less common political ideologies - they are often trapped in theory, and are rarely exercized in terms of hashing out a political platform. Rarer still is the question of progressing toward the ideal... But that doesn't really need to come into play at this point.

Since you're question is still rooted in the theory of it all, it makes things easy - you want to know what a libertarin would consider to be the purpose of government. I'd classify it as the following:

The purpose of a government is that of an application of a power monopoly, primarily used for establishing and protecting property rights from all threats domestic and foreign.

So that's it.

Of course, when you start to ask 'hey guy, what does that imply', it starts to invite dissent among libertarians. Here, I'd recommend you look into Robert Nozick, John Locke, and even Ayn Rand for ideological justifications for the above mentioned ideal.

But then you go and ask me to draw down allocations of budgetary priorities. So you're forcing me to clarify further. Let's see here..

I said a government's purpose is to establish and protect property rights. This means you need protection from force and fraud. Whether it happens to be a foreign aggressor, a burglar in your home, or a crooked salesmen, these all happen to be examples of which an individual can be deprived of his property (define that as you wish - his home, his money, or physical well being).

You need a Department of Justice. You need a Department of Defense. And that's about it.

The rest is fluff. There are plenty of other things we need to have in order to have a well-oiled economy, and this is true. We need roads (Dept. of Transportation), we need credible information to make sound investments (Securities and Exchange Commission), and we need a competitive business enviornment (Sherman Anti?). This is where libertarianism in general stops answering questions, mainly because the intellectual proponents of old rarely touched on these concepts.

But the main reason why I call it 'fluff' is because of the significant shift in debate that occurs when we get to topics like roads, information and intellectual property, and anti-trust legislation. Most of these debates halt the ideological discussion (the normative debate - "should we do this"), and instead go for the structural debate (the economic consequences of each individual action). Once this happens, you're not debating libertarianism anymore, it's instead regurgitation of whatever the economists are saying. Discussion of the 'nature' of property rights turns to the 'justification' thereto.

This requires a necessary example as a sidenote: EVERY debate over tax cuts involves the question of "does it help the economy?" I DON'T CARE. I'm a libertarian - it's my money and I earned it. The discussion should end. But that is no longer the priority discussion of tax cuts, and that's why no political party has a formalized opinion on tax theory.

I hope that above note describes adequately the problem of finding an organized position of libertarianism. Anyway, I'll hold off here and see what comes up as far as responses.

It's a tough call - if there are enough libertarians here, I'd expect that you'll get a number of completely different responses.Yes, most likely. I figured as much since my argument deals with the specifics of the two ideologies. Both ideologies have the same basic premise, just differentiated by a matter of a couple degrees.

This mostly stems from what I would consider a common problem among less common political ideologies - they are often trapped in theory, and are rarely exercized in terms of hashing out a political platform. Rarer still is the question of progressing toward the ideal... But that doesn't really need to come into play at this point.Lol. Yes, I've seen much the same problem with communists and anarchists.

I said a government's purpose is to establish and protect property rights. This means you need protection from force and fraud. Whether it happens to be a foreign aggressor, a burglar in your home, or a crooked salesmen, these all happen to be examples of which an individual can be deprived of his property (define that as you wish - his home, his money, or physical well being).Okay, I'll go a bit further with why I want this. Do you think people are going to benefit equally, or about equally from having their property protected?

The rest of the post was very informative, and will give me more background if I ever am debating with you in the future.

Governments role is defence of the country and protection of the people from crime as well as utility infrastructure such as roads, sewege, water, internet, telephone etc.

I don't believe Government should extend itself into welfare becuase the government seems to have such poor efficiency when doing welfare and owning welfare gives government to much power.

not sure if I qualify as a right-wing libertarian, but to me, the one and only role of government is to protect the rights of the people. By which I mean each and every individual person.

Libertarianism is, as the name implies, the belief in liberty. Libertarians strive for the best of all worlds - a free, peaceful, abundant world where each individual has the maximum opportunity to pursue his or her dreams and to realize his full potential.

The core idea is simply stated, but profound and far-reaching in its implications. Libertarians believe that each person owns his own life and property, and has the right to make his own choices as to how he lives his life - as long as he simply respects the same right of others to do the same.

Another way of saying this is that libertarians believe you should be free to do as you choose with your own life and property, as long as you don't harm the person and property of others.

Libertarianism is thus the combination of liberty (the freedom to live your life in any peaceful way you choose), responsibility (the prohibition against the use of force against others, except in defense), and tolerance (honoring and respecting the peaceful choices of others).

And of course they came to this by way of author Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism.

A breakdown of Objectivism is as follows:

1. Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.

2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses) is man's only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.

3. Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.

4. The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man's rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.

A breakdown of Objectivism is as follows:

1. Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.

2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses) is man's only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.

3. Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.

4. The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man's rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.

Just read The Virtue of Selfishness, did we? ~_-

Not all libertarians came that way through Obectivism.

Just read The Virtue of Selfishness, did we? ~_-

Not all libertarians came that way through Obectivism.
Actually, American Libertarians owe a greater philosophical debt to Ayn Rand than most of them are willing to admit: the Libertarian movement in this country didn't really get going until well after The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged had been published. Rand went out of her way to denounce Libertarianism on several occasions, for a number of reasons not the least of which was that the party is, by definition, a collective entity. I believe her complaints with Libertarianism are explained most extensively in Voice of Reason: Essays in Objectivist Thought although I haven't yet read that particular entry.

No, not all Libertarians are Objectivists, but the party does in fact trace its roots back to Rand's ideas, more or less. Predecessors like Locke are still worth mentioning, but Rand laid out a lot of Libertarian-ish ideas whether she [or they] would care to admit it or not.

I don't know if I am exactly a "right-wing" libertarian. But my response would be similar to those already given. In theory.

But in practice...policy would vary depending on the particular nation; it's natural resources, population, environmet, etc. For instance- a huge capitalist system such as the U.S. could not be run on a strictly "libertarian" platform. Just like true communism, it cannot run on such a large scale. Human nature is inherently selfish, and both libertarianism and communism depend on a fair share of respect for oneself and for others in their pure forms.

So, in an environent such as the U.S., a policy of reform would have to be implemented. This is what I believe the LP needs to learn. Instead of no taxes and just user fees- a flat tax, and then just a national sales tax (which would gradually be lowered as the society adapts) should be adopted.

Legalizing all drugs should not be attempted immediately. Legalize marijuana, and tax it to the point where the price remains the same as it is now. (that's an estimated 90 billion a year at least) And decriminalize things like x and mushrooms. Then you can work on the crack and meth problems.

As for the military... close all non-essential oversees bases- immediately. All bases that are required ( Korea comes to mind) need to be phased out, with the exception of a few tactical bases, such as Diego Garcia is for the U.K.

2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses) is man's only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.

3. Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
I reckon there is no real connection between these two points - but an emotional one.

I would agree with the first two points, but I do not follow to three and therefore four. Rand as a person was selfish to the max, IMHO not out of rational thinking, but out of the shock of her childhood in the USSR, and because she was just a bitch, an emotional one at that. (Regarding that - a "true objectivist" would not have partaken in a government exercise in punishing people for political beliefs, and also her cheating on everyone, despite having signed a contractual agreement to be married needs to be considered.)

I therefore don't think her central argument is all that valid. It is not an expression of rational thought, and it is not a logical conclusion of our existence.

I(Regarding that - a "true objectivist" would not have partaken in a government exercise in punishing people for political beliefs, and also her cheating on everyone, despite having signed a contractual agreement to be married needs to be considered.)

What exactly are you refering to here? I am not all that up on the life of Rand, asside from the back of her books.

But in practice...policy would vary depending on the particular nation; it's natural resources, population, environmet, etc. For instance- a huge capitalist system such as the U.S. could not be run on a strictly "libertarian" platform. Just like true communism, it cannot run on such a large scale. Human nature is inherently selfish, and both libertarianism and communism depend on a fair share of respect for oneself and for others in their pure forms.

Libertarianism and Communism are not oposite systems. Collectivism (communism) and individualism are, and libertarianism and authoritarianism are.

I reckon there is no real connection between these two points - but an emotional one.
The connection isn't an easy one to explain on one foot; to do so would require pages upon pages of exposition--probably the best source for such a thing would be Leonard Peikoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand or Rand's own Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.

The link does exist, and while it's not directly documented here, to the poster's credit that isn't exactly what I would call a light undertaking [although I can explain if you're actually interested in finding out].

I would agree with the first two points, but I do not follow to three and therefore four. Rand as a person was selfish to the max, IMHO not out of rational thinking, but out of the shock of her childhood in the USSR, and because she was just a bitch, an emotional one at that. (Regarding that - a "true objectivist" would not have partaken in a government exercise in punishing people for political beliefs, and also her cheating on everyone, despite having signed a contractual agreement to be married needs to be considered.)

I therefore don't think her central argument is all that valid. It is not an expression of rational thought, and it is not a logical conclusion of our existence.
That's a first. I've heard quite a few things attributed to Rand, and "emotional" was never one of them. I don't think she ever "punished" people for their beliefs [although she did testify in HUAC], and she never cheated on her spouse. It's actually fairly well documented that she sought Mr. O'Connor's consent before intitiating romantic relations with Mr. Branden. Methinks someone could stand to brush up on her Biography a little bit more. Seems to me like the extent of your knowledge here is: "Grew up in Russia, came to America, wrote some books and had an extramarital lover."

Now I won't defend Rand to the death, being as I'm not injured by any aspersions you should care to cast upon her character, but I think discounting an entire philosophy on virtue of its founders alleged indiscretions and upbringing is something of a stretch. You basically said above that you regard Objectivism as false because Rand cheated on her spouse and "punished people for their beliefs," both of which are dubious claims at best and [as arguments at least] utterly non-sequitur at worst.

There isn't one definition of a Libertarian anymore than there's one definition of a Democrat or a Republican.

There are a handful of Libs who think all government should be dismantled. By and large, these anarchists are the ones who end up in the papers. That's because it suits both the Republicans and the Democrats for people to think of Libs as a fringe group that's out of touch with society.

All Libs believe WAY too much is being done at the federal level. In their view, local people no longer have the say or the power that they used to. Government has become very Big Brother-ish, and is in no way what the founders intended.

Most moderate Libs feel that power should rest first with the individual, then with the most local form of government possible, etc. on upwards. And that the federal government should only be involved in things that states can't or shouldn't attempt alone (paving of interstate roads and defending of collective borders). The government and the power still exist, but they are much closer to the individual. The individual has more say in what goes on immediately around him, has more power, and government is better able to meet his unique needs and the needs of his community.

The purpose of government is simple: To protect people's property.
don't you just love capitalistic indoctrination? :rolleyes:

don't you just love capitalistic indoctrination? :rolleyes:
Don't you just love anticapitalistic indoctrination? :rolleyes:

Seriously, this pendulum swings both ways. If you're going to attack an argument, please try to actually put some substance in it. Otherwise we'll just end up with one-liners with eyerolls that accomplish nothing.

The government has one legitimate role: protecting the individual liberty of it's citizens. This role can be broken into three broad categories. The first and most important category is defense: this includes an army, police, courts, and a structure of ensuring -IN THE LEST RESTRICTIVE WAY POSSABLE- that corporations play by rules that keep the market free. The second category is upkeep of vital infrastructure, though this is largely in order to help facilitate defense (the superhighway system in America was built to move troops). I would consider vital infrastructure to extend only to roads and those services which are truely public: water and sewage being the only ones that come to mind. Finally, there are certain public services that might not be necessary in a small utopian government but become necessary in a larger model. These services would include public primary and secondary education, public loans (at the market rate) for higher education, and basic social services designed to keep society intact. Crackheads on the corner and starvation in the streets will eventually lead to a curtailment of liberty for all.

So, how to break it up?

-Defense: 60%
- Military: 45%
- Police: 25%
- Courts: 25%
- Corporate Regulation: 5%

-Upkeep: 20%
- Roads: 75%
- Utilities: 25%

Social Services: 20%
- Education funds: 80%
- Job Training/Welfare-to-work: 15%
-Other social services: 5%

I believe in the Libertarian Police State - that is:

Everything is legal and out of bounds for Government to Restrict except and until such activity directly and aggressively (non defensively) harms another or intends to remove or restrict the Liberties of others.

Government's roll is strictly to Protect Liberty - through External Defense and suppression/elimination of Restrictive Political Activity. Everything else should be Free Market.

It's hard to work out numerical answers to the OP's question. Are we talking about how much funding should go into each faucet of government? How much effort should be spent on them?

Internal law enforcement and the judicial system should be the primary area of government concentration (not that there are that many laws to enforce in a laissez-faire ideology).

I consider myself a libertarian but I also support the provision of free water, roads and rudimentary healthcare (life-saving surgery and other critical services, not anything cosmetic or minor).

I can't really give an accurate percentage for any of these since how much funding or time required would be entirely based on conditions in this hypothetical nation (how many people need medical operations? How much water does everyone need? Where are the roads going to?), but I can tell you that law and order would be the main priority in an administration which adhered to my personal philosophy.

I think the importance of a strong military is overstated in most libertarian arguments. Many developed nations in the modern world have really only a token force, and are able to defend their sovereignty by diplomacy alone.

Ideally I sometimes think I'd prefer a government-free existence with no land ownership where everyone lived peacefully farming food and natural drugs for everyone who wanted it, but I know that this is not rationally workable.

Top priorities: Law and Order, Defence, and VITAL infrastructure.

Do you think that everyone within the country is going to receive the benefits of law and order equally?not at all, law and order will be most beneficial to those particulary at risk of becoming a victim and it will be the least beneficial and in fact damaging to those with criminal energy, who would want to commit crimes.

about what i would expect the government to attend to in a libertarian society, there would surely be the military for dealing with foreign threats, but i cannot really give a relative size of the effort that should be put into it, as the larger the country, the less they need to invest relatively to absolutely have a serious military option also it depends on whether one is rather isolated or sorrounded by enemies.
the police and the justice system must also be the sole responsibility of the government, the fire departnemnt as well.
also in the hands of the government shall be the beaurocracy for levying taxes and the land registries.
i am kind of split about the governments role in infrastructure projects like networks of roads, railroadtracks and canals. i would experiment with this, while privatization would surely be more efficient, i have the prejudice, that the network would have a hard time growing.

Great choice of question!

I'm roughly libertarian and tend to agree with what has gone before. Coupla extra points though ...


JFK said "ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country". Milton Friedman in Capitalism and Freedom said both elements of this statement were wrong. In essence Friedman's view was that the state is not something that dispenses a bounty nor is it something that people have to offer tribute to. Friedman argued that the proper question should be 'what can I and my other citizens achieve through government that cannot otherwise be acheived?' Which pretty much gets to the nub of it I think.

As to how much should be spent on what - I think that's a no-goer in a forum like this. You could spend lifetimes trying to research an answer to that.

My view is that Govt should limit itself to law and order, military. I don't include infrastructure. The classic argument for including it is the 'lighthouse' argument. It's a common good had to be paid for by the state etc no-one would provide it. Turns out after all that the early lighthouses were all privately run and operated for profit!

Rail - early history of US and UK rail - all privately run for profit. Grew at a fantastic pace. I remember the days of the State-Run British Rail (shudder!) It was horrible and it cost a fortune. These days you can get across the UK by train w/o it taking you over 24 hours!

Ports - there's a little tiny port in Boston, UK. It used to be state-run and then it got privatised. Volumes shipped shot through the roof, costs fell through the floor.

Internet Infrastructure - I am a reporter and used to cover venture capital investment as my beat. I remember billions went into this privately. Loads and loads of cable was laid all over the world - all (largely) funded privately.

Roads (& canals) - toll roads in the States are fantastic! And if I recall rightly, both roads and canals were all largely funded by lotteries.

All of which goes to show that infrastructure is, and should be, privately funded.

I tend to think that things like healthcare and education should be privately run and underwritten by a compulsory insurance requirement (choice of providers) and by education vouchers respectively.

An important role for the state is to assess externalities and ensure they are fall on the appropriate party. The state should also act to ensure markets clean from fraud etc - look at Securities Regulation, for example, the UK Financial Services Authority.

Cheers

Jim

For the purposes of this thread, let's define right-wing libertarians as supporters of capitalism who support a limited and tiny government, and anarcho-capitalists as supporters of capitalism who support no government. For the purposes of simplicity, in the future when I say libertarians, I mean right-wing libertarians.

So the question is: what exactly do libertarians believe the purpose of government should be? More to the point, I want you to list the purpose, but also list the amount of time that you think realistically the government would be taking up with its business. For instance, you might have the purposes listed as courts (internal defense, or perhaps defense of private property), roads, army(external defense), and other things. So putting percentages to it might look like this:

Courts 45%
Roads 25%
Army 20%
Other things 5%

In other words, 45% of the government's business would be dealing with courts and those issues, etc.

The purpose of this thread is because I say that anarcho-capitalism over libertarianism (though I dislike both.) But my reasons why will make more sense if people answer in the fashion that I ask. Thank you.
Your percents do not add up to 100.

My view is that Govt should limit itself to law and order, military.

Sounds about right. One question - do firefighters fall under this? Private fire protection has been tried. Entire cities have burned to the ground because a fire was allowed to get out of control, with firefighters standing by and waiting for it to reach a house they were being paid to protect.

Rail - early history of US and UK rail - all privately run for profit.

Privately run, mostly privately built - but not completely. In the US at least, the power of eminent domain was used to get land for much of the rail.

Ports - there's a little tiny port in Boston, UK. It used to be state-run and then it got privatised. Volumes shipped shot through the roof, costs fell through the floor.

There is the pesky issue of national security and immigration - but I'm sure those could be worked out with the ports largely being run privately. I have no issue there.

Internet Infrastructure - I am a reporter and used to cover venture capital investment as my beat. I remember billions went into this privately. Loads and loads of cable was laid all over the world - all (largely) funded privately.

The great thing is, there's an incredible amount of fiber out there, presumably connected to the network, and nobody really knows where it is anymore! Maybe we should have watched that a little more closely, since it's just an invitation to hackers now?

Roads (& canals) - toll roads in the States are fantastic!

Except when the money from the toll "disappears" into who knows where and the toll continues for much, much longer than planned. (See HWY 400 in Atlanta, GA, if you're wondering).

And if I recall rightly, both roads and canals were all largely funded by lotteries.

If I recall correctly, most lotteries in this country are government-run.

I tend to think that things like healthcare and education should be privately run and underwritten by a compulsory insurance requirement (choice of providers) and by education vouchers respectively.

How can you have compulsory insurance if some people can't afford it? Would there be vouchers for that as well? And are we talking about government-provided education vouchers? Would there be any requirements for practicing medicine, providing medical insurance, or teaching other than hanging a sign on the door?

Top priorities: Law and Order, Defence, and VITAL infrastructure.

Sounds great! How long do you think people can and will argue over what is and is not VITAL? =)

Katzistanza said on Aug 2003

"Libertarianism and Communism are not oposite systems."

I'd tend to disagree with this. In theory they may not be opposite, but in practice they are. It all comes down to the information problem.

In a libertarian society exchange is done freely and everybody gets something for something 'quid pro quo'. Everything is done on the basis of what the individual actors percieve/desire/want/trade. In this way the person who values a good or service most highly tends to end up possessing it because he can buy it (allocative efficiency). So, if you own two apples and I have none, I might want one. You may put the value of your first apples at $2 and the second at $1. If I value an apple at $1.50 then I will offer to buy it from you. Logically, you would sell it to me as $1.50 is worth more to you then a $1 apple. In that way we both end up with (somewhat expensive) apples.

In a Communist society the state controls what happens. So it has a choice - predict and provide or command and control. Under predict and provide, I as a Central Planner need to think - what does Katzistanza want for breakfast three weeks from now on Thursday? I can't possibly know or predict that - there's not enough computing power in the Universe to predict that. So I have to move to the command and control model. Katzistanza - you WILL HAVE EGGS for breakfast. Jello Biafra you will become a chicken farmer. Mr X you will become an egg collector and so on and so on. I believe this was the big problem that faced the 'socialist' UK Labour Govt in the 1960s. They teetered on the edge of introducing a 'Law of Occupations' that would have given a job and occupation to everybody ... whether they wanted it or not.

So Libertarianism and Communism/Socialism do tend to be opposites in practice. I think (but am not sure) this was outlined in the 'Road to Serfdom' by Freidrich Hayek.

Cheers

Jim

Sounds great! How long do you think people can and will argue over what is and is not VITAL? =)
Easy - constitutionally define "vital" as 'having no viable nongovt alternatives'

Easy - constitutionally define "vital" as 'having no viable nongovt alternatives'

And then you get years of arguments over what constitutes "viable". =)

Meanwhile, do you talk about theoretically viable, or do you try it and see if its viable, then put it in the government if lots of people die or something?

Sounds about right. One question - do firefighters fall under this? Private fire protection has been tried. Entire cities have burned to the ground because a fire was allowed to get out of control, with firefighters standing by and waiting for it to reach a house they were being paid to protect.

Good point - don't particularly have an answer to that. In the novel Colour of Magic, Ankh Morpork burns to the ground for that reason. They all have a peculiar form of fire-fighters who come around to your house and say things like 'hmmm - wooden house, very flammable that, hey, have you heard of our new fire protection plan? Makes sure your house won't get burned down tonight, if you get my drift'. I'm sure there's a solution - buggered if I know what it is. Perhaps this is one of those rare areas in which state intervention is more useful than private provision?

Privately run, mostly privately built - but not completely. In the US at least, the power of eminent domain was used to get land for much of the rail.

Meh - nothing's perfect.


There is the pesky issue of national security and immigration - but I'm sure those could be worked out with the ports largely being run privately. I have no issue there.

Airports and the largest ports in the UK are largely run privately. Govt requires those pesky border guards and immigration people etc but they pay the operators/reimburse the operators if they are required by govt to make and expenditure.

The great thing is, there's an incredible amount of fiber out there, presumably connected to the network, and nobody really knows where it is anymore! Maybe we should have watched that a little more closely, since it's just an invitation to hackers now?

Possibly. I just remember it was all paid for by ventre capitalists!


Except when the money from the toll "disappears" into who knows where and the toll continues for much, much longer than planned. (See HWY 400 in Atlanta, GA, if you're wondering).

Ah corruption! Doncha just love it? I'd suggest that is a law and order issue. And, in physically small countries like the UK, you can always take alternative routes. I guess the important thing is to avoid monopolies.



If I recall correctly, most lotteries in this country are government-run.
Are we talking UK or US? In Uk they're mostly privately run. Littlewoods pools, Camelot (a private syndicate run the National Lottery) lots of little privately run local lotteries. Re: lottery funding for building roads & canals etc - I believe (but would need to check my sources) that private lotteries were used to raise funds for canals and roads etc in the US 150 or so years ago.


How can you have compulsory insurance if some people can't afford it?

Well you can't can you? I think in reality there has to be some form of state intervention. My view is that there should be a distinct bias to the private sector. And where the govt does get involved then it should be as a cheque writer rather than a service or goods provider. Still, there is a precedent. The Motor Insurers Bureau (which nicely abbreviates to MIB - cue Will Smith) was the insurer of last resort in cases of a hit and run when one of the drivers was unknown. Most people would likely be able to afford insurance - a compulsion for insurance would likely be cheaper than tax. I think the UK National Health Service is costing us abou GBP 90Bn a year. That would definitely be far cheaper and far more productively provided via the private sector. And there's a moral point here - I don't smoke, I exercise, eat healthily and don't drink excessive amounts of alcohol (god I'm boring). Why should I pay the same health-tax as a person who smokes 60 a day, don't exercise, is a junk-food junkie and drinks like a fish?

Would there be vouchers for that as well?
Possibly.

And are we talking about government-provided education vouchers?
Possibly. Under the European Convention on Human Rights (I think) there is a legal requirement that education in the primary stages be free. Were bound to that treaty I guess.

I would be uncomfortable with the thought that a person could be denied a basic education merely cos they can't afford it. Still, even if the State stumps up the cash, then that's no-reason for the State to be the service provider too. There's no reason for the State to pay for post-school education. There's no reason why you shouldn't pay for your own education.

Would there be any requirements for practicing medicine, providing medical insurance, or teaching other than hanging a sign on the door?
Yes, I think there would have to be. Largely on the grounds of preventing externalities. I have no problem with the State setting and enforcing standards - just an objection to it providing services. That said, there's no reason why it can't enfranchise several bodies with forming setting and promoting their own standards so that those regulated (in this example - the doctors) can choose between differing organisations and standards.

Cheers

Jim


See above

See above

Sounds very reasonable! =)

((I'm from the US by the way, so that's probably why there were a few discrepancies. I'm not as familiar with the way things are run in the UK, or in Europe in general)).

Katzistanza said on Aug 2003

"Libertarianism and Communism are not oposite systems."

I'd tend to disagree with this. In theory they may not be opposite, but in practice they are. It all comes down to the information problem.

In a libertarian society exchange is done freely and everybody gets something for something 'quid pro quo'. Everything is done on the basis of what the individual actors percieve/desire/want/trade. In this way the person who values a good or service most highly tends to end up possessing it because he can buy it (allocative efficiency). So, if you own two apples and I have none, I might want one. You may put the value of your first apples at $2 and the second at $1. If I value an apple at $1.50 then I will offer to buy it from you. Logically, you would sell it to me as $1.50 is worth more to you then a $1 apple. In that way we both end up with (somewhat expensive) apples.

In a Communist society the state controls what happens. So it has a choice - predict and provide or command and control. Under predict and provide, I as a Central Planner need to think - what does Katzistanza want for breakfast three weeks from now on Thursday? I can't possibly know or predict that - there's not enough computing power in the Universe to predict that. So I have to move to the command and control model. Katzistanza - you WILL HAVE EGGS for breakfast. Jello Biafra you will become a chicken farmer. Mr X you will become an egg collector and so on and so on. I believe this was the big problem that faced the 'socialist' UK Labour Govt in the 1960s. They teetered on the edge of introducing a 'Law of Occupations' that would have given a job and occupation to everybody ... whether they wanted it or not.

So Libertarianism and Communism/Socialism do tend to be opposites in practice. I think (but am not sure) this was outlined in the 'Road to Serfdom' by Freidrich Hayek.

Cheers

Jim


You are talking about libertarian-capitalism (individualism) vs. authoritarian communism (communalism). Ghandi envisioned a libertarian collectivist society, with a minimal or no state to run things, things were just run by the people. The difference between communism and capitalism is who owns things, the person, or everyone/the state. The differnce between libertaranism and authoritarianism is how much control a governing or outside body has over the life of the individual. Think

in responce to the army and defence issue, ideally, I'd envision defence falling mainly under a militia of all able and willing citizens.

Katzistanza said on Aug 2003

"Libertarianism and Communism are not oposite systems."

I'd tend to disagree with this. In theory they may not be opposite, but in practice they are. It all comes down to the information problem.

In a libertarian society exchange is done freely and everybody gets something for something 'quid pro quo'. Everything is done on the basis of what the individual actors percieve/desire/want/trade. In this way the person who values a good or service most highly tends to end up possessing it because he can buy it (allocative efficiency). So, if you own two apples and I have none, I might want one. You may put the value of your first apples at $2 and the second at $1. If I value an apple at $1.50 then I will offer to buy it from you. Logically, you would sell it to me as $1.50 is worth more to you then a $1 apple. In that way we both end up with (somewhat expensive) apples.

In a Communist society the state controls what happens. So it has a choice - predict and provide or command and control. Under predict and provide, I as a Central Planner need to think - what does Katzistanza want for breakfast three weeks from now on Thursday? I can't possibly know or predict that - there's not enough computing power in the Universe to predict that. So I have to move to the command and control model. Katzistanza - you WILL HAVE EGGS for breakfast. Jello Biafra you will become a chicken farmer. Mr X you will become an egg collector and so on and so on. I believe this was the big problem that faced the 'socialist' UK Labour Govt in the 1960s. They teetered on the edge of introducing a 'Law of Occupations' that would have given a job and occupation to everybody ... whether they wanted it or not.

So Libertarianism and Communism/Socialism do tend to be opposites in practice. I think (but am not sure) this was outlined in the 'Road to Serfdom' by Freidrich Hayek.

Cheers

Jim

Statism.

It's hard to work out numerical answers to the OP's question. Are we talking about how much funding should go into each faucet of government? How much effort should be spent on them?A combination of both. For instance, if your country became libertarian, your personal definition of libertarian, what do you think would happen? Would other countries become hostile and try to invade? If you believe so, you'd your government would have a lot of time/effort spent on defense. If not, your government would probably spend a little time/effort on defense, but more of it on internal defense, such as police and courts.

Ideally I sometimes think I'd prefer a government-free existence with no land ownership where everyone lived peacefully farming food and natural drugs for everyone who wanted it, but I know that this is not rationally workable.Sounds like you're becoming an anarchist. :)

not at all, law and order will be most beneficial to those particulary at risk of becoming a victim and it will be the least beneficial and in fact damaging to those with criminal energy, who would want to commit crimes.Makes sense. Who do you realistically see as being potential victims of crime, and who do you see as being potential committers of crimes? These questions go to you and to all of the other libertarians here.

Who do you realistically see as being potential victims of crime, and who do you see as being potential committers of crimes? These questions go to you and to all of the other libertarians here.

We can't predict who will or won't commit crimes. As sad as it sounds, we have to assume that any good man can go bad, and write laws that limit individual freedoms far enough to protect people from one another's sins.

Assume that most people will take whatever they can get. From each other, from the government, from the land... whatever they can get, wherever they can get it. To the detriment of future generations, and even of their own futures, they will meet what they perceive their needs to be today. And they will do it in the simplest manner possible - whatever will cost them the least in time, money and energy - unless they have a pressing reason to do otherwise. Like a law.

For most people, a law (and a corresponding jail term or fine) is enough of a deterrent against rampant selfishness for MOST items and situations.

We must acknowledge this as basic human nature, and write our laws accordingly. And since all people have the same impulses... even though I lean Libertarian in many respects, when it comes to civil laws, and what does and does not constitute a crime, I believe the Federal government is the correct place to create and enforce these standards. All people deserve the same rights and standards, irrespective of race, creed, sex, religion, state, hometown or any other differentiating factor.

You are talking about libertarian-capitalism (individualism) vs. authoritarian communism (communalism). Ghandi envisioned a libertarian collectivist society, with a minimal or no state to run things, things were just run by the people. The difference between communism and capitalism is who owns things, the person, or everyone/the state. The differnce between libertaranism and authoritarianism is how much control a governing or outside body has over the life of the individual. Think


The problem is that in all but the smallest of social groups extensive state ownership requires extensive state authority. Once you are talking about more than a small farming collective you run into the problem who gets to administer resources, who chooses what resources are used for what, etc. Freedom cannot survive in a large collectivist society because the individual needs to submit to the group. In large modern societies freedom is largely dependant on how much power you have which is largely dependant on how much you own. In a capitalist society you could work for 30 years, save enough money to buy a plot of land out in the middle of nowehere, and live your life as a subsitance farmer with nothing to do with society. The power to opt out of society stems from the power to sustain yourself as an individual, which requires private ownership one one's property, especially on'es labor.

The porblem with a large socialist society is that it needs to be authoritarian to survive. By definition the state needs to own everything and that means that the people only have so much freedom as they are allowed by the state. In addition, centering all of the resources of a large community in the hands of a few individuals is a guarantee of tyranny. It is not a question of if a corrupt leader will take over and the socialist society becomes a despotism but rather when.

The problem is that in all but the smallest of social groups extensive state ownership requires extensive state authority. Once you are talking about more than a small farming collective you run into the problem who gets to administer resources, who chooses what resources are used for what, etc. Freedom cannot survive in a large collectivist society because the individual needs to submit to the group. In large modern societies freedom is largely dependant on how much power you have which is largely dependant on how much you own. In a capitalist society you could work for 30 years, save enough money to buy a plot of land out in the middle of nowehere, and live your life as a subsitance farmer with nothing to do with society. The power to opt out of society stems from the power to sustain yourself as an individual, which requires private ownership one one's property, especially on'es labor.

The porblem with a large socialist society is that it needs to be authoritarian to survive. By definition the state needs to own everything and that means that the people only have so much freedom as they are allowed by the state. In addition, centering all of the resources of a large community in the hands of a few individuals is a guarantee of tyranny. It is not a question of if a corrupt leader will take over and the socialist society becomes a despotism but rather when.

Oh no, my friend.... you are doing it again...

A large socialist society does NOT have to equate to statist socialism... it just usually will, because it is 'easier' to follow, than to lead.

By definition, the state does NOT 'own everything'... by definition, nobody really owns anything exclusively.

You do not seem to be able to get beyond the idea of socialism as centralised, statist and corrupt.

None of which is any MORE necessary in a socialist structure than in any other.... and LESS necessary than most.

The purpose of government is simple: To protect people's property.

Holy Mother of Lenin... This is the ultimate capitalist ideology, isn't it?

Oh no, my friend.... you are doing it again...

A large socialist society does NOT have to equate to statist socialism... it just usually will, because it is 'easier' to follow, than to lead.

By definition, the state does NOT 'own everything'... by definition, nobody really owns anything exclusively.

You do not seem to be able to get beyond the idea of socialism as centralised, statist and corrupt.

None of which is any MORE necessary in a socialist structure than in any other.... and LESS necessary than most.

Why is it that the moment I saw your name, before I even read your post, I thought of the line from Mortal Kombat: "Round Two, FIGHT!" ;) Damnit, now I have crappy techno stuck in my head....

Allright, lets see if we cant address this without a week like last time.

1) I agree, theoretically it is possable to build a large socialist society without resorting to statism BUT...it won't happen. Even you admit that it is easier to follow than to lead. Even if you were able to manage to bring enough benevolent individuals with strong leadership skills into one place to begin the society, you would get a generation or two. After that people would start to get lazy, bad guys would start to game the system to gain power. Our disagreement boils down to our faith in humanity. I have none, you have a slightly more cheery outlook.

2) By definition the state does not own anything in a socialist society, in that you are correct, but there is a difference between de facto and de jure ownership. No, technically everyone owns everything and no individual owns anything, in practice someone has to have control 9if you've ever run a small group in a corporate setting you'll know what I mean, there is ALWAYS an alpha).

3/4) No, I can't get beyond the idea of people being corrupt. My view of socialism is simply colored by that. As a socialist system continues it becomes increasingly corrupt, because of the group ownership that corruption makes the centralization of power fairly easy. In a capitalist system the corruption exists too, but I feel that private property provides a better defense against the corruption that is inherant in all governments than socialism can provide.

... everything you just said ...
<snip>


Amen.

We can't just trust that people will do their part and behave themselves. Those people who are driven more by greed, power, or laziness than they are by a "let's all hold hands and sing Kum-bah-yah" sense of brotherhood are NOT going to change, regardless of the type of government in place. Any system that relies on basic human goodness for success is going to fail miserably, because (a) not all humans are basically good, and (b) those that are, aren't good all the time.

Impractical. Move along.

A combination of both. For instance, if your country became libertarian, your personal definition of libertarian, what do you think would happen? Would other countries become hostile and try to invade? If you believe so, you'd your government would have a lot of time/effort spent on defense. If not, your government would probably spend a little time/effort on defense, but more of it on internal defense, such as police and courts.

I reckon that a revolution or unconventional takeover of any sort would need more military muscle than a democratically elected government. If a libertarian administration came to power in a developed country and via the conventional electoral method of that nation, I'd reckon diplomacy on its own could solve almost all international problems. Coups and revolutions always result in heavier resistance, often full-blown civil war. If the libertarians were in power thanks to a violent overthrow of the government, they'd need all the soldiers and tanks they could get their hands on.


Sounds like you're becoming an anarchist. :)

I'm all for the abolition of work and government, I just have no idea how it could happen. I hope soon that technology allows the majority of mankind to do nothing and slack off for their whole lives, whether it comes from the government or big business.


Makes sense. Who do you realistically see as being potential victims of crime, and who do you see as being potential committers of crimes? These questions go to you and to all of the other libertarians here.

All sorts of people commit crime. However, under a libertarian government, I think most critics would be surprised at how peaceful "the usual suspects" were. Violent smugglers, drug dealers and consumers, pimps and so on could at last become legitimate businesspeople and would not get so ostracized or molested by the law.

I'd expect more crimes against property from people who didn't have much. I don't mean that in a nasty way. If I was dirt poor, I would steal to maintain myself without remorse or hesitation.

Murder comes from all over the place. People sometimes murder their relatives to get family estates. Some people murder for the hell of it. There are lots of reasons for murder. Similar deal with rape, although there's only one main reason for rape. What I mean is, anyone could commit a rape.

Amen.

We can't just trust that people will do their part and behave themselves. Those people who are driven more by greed, power, or laziness than they are by a "let's all hold hands and sing Kum-bah-yah" sense of brotherhood are NOT going to change, regardless of the type of government in place. Any system that relies on basic human goodness for success is going to fail miserably, because (a) not all humans are basically good, and (b) those that are, aren't good all the time.

Impractical. Move along.

The problem is that all pure systems (yes, pure capitalism included) rely on just that - an idealistic viewpoint of human beings. When it comes right down to it, no single economic or governmental view, taken in its pure form, is going to work with actual human beings. We're too diverse for that.

The problem is that all pure systems (yes, pure capitalism included) rely on just that - an idealistic viewpoint of human beings. When it comes right down to it, no single economic or governmental view, taken in its pure form, is going to work with actual human beings. We're too diverse for that.

Yes, but not all systems are created equally. Capitalism is a shitty system, but it is marginally less shitty than socialism and even if you modify it considerably it is much better at protecting individual liberties than even a substantially modified socialist system.

The problem is that in all but the smallest of social groups extensive state ownership requires extensive state authority. Once you are talking about more than a small farming collective you run into the problem who gets to administer resources, who chooses what resources are used for what, etc. Freedom cannot survive in a large collectivist society because the individual needs to submit to the group. In large modern societies freedom is largely dependant on how much power you have which is largely dependant on how much you own. In a capitalist society you could work for 30 years, save enough money to buy a plot of land out in the middle of nowehere, and live your life as a subsitance farmer with nothing to do with society. The power to opt out of society stems from the power to sustain yourself as an individual, which requires private ownership one one's property, especially on'es labor.

The porblem with a large socialist society is that it needs to be authoritarian to survive. By definition the state needs to own everything and that means that the people only have so much freedom as they are allowed by the state. In addition, centering all of the resources of a large community in the hands of a few individuals is a guarantee of tyranny. It is not a question of if a corrupt leader will take over and the socialist society becomes a despotism but rather when.


I have 2 responces to that:

1) Why must it be a big society? Why not have society be nothing more then many many self-contained and self-governed farming communes and the like?

2) Libertarian Communalism has many times in the past shows it's self to work on the large scale. Normally, it was destroyed by overwhelming military force that was arrayed against it from the beginning, no matter the set up of society. I direct your attention to:
The Spanish Revolution
The Paris Commune
Ukraine after the Czar was deposed and before the Bolshiviks took power
Kronstat durring the same time period
Those Israeli olive picking communes

Now, I am not a anarchist or a communalist. I don't subscribe to any spacific school of thought, just certain principles. I am just putting these points out for discussion.

the duty of the government is to protect our rights as described by a written constitution

for me the government would break down to

50% law enforcement, courts, and disaster relief
50% border protection and regulation / military

and why would libertarain refer to anyone but economic right wingers? thinking you should be able to smoke pot doesn't make you a libertarian.

and why would libertarain refer to anyone but economic right wingers?


Because back when the whole "left vs. right" paradigm got started, there were two kinds of liberal "left-wing" ideology that stood in opposition to the feudalist/aristocratic establishment: capitalism and socialism. With the defeat of the aristocratic establishment, capitalism became the new "right-wing" establishment and socialism remained as the "left-wing" opposition ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-Right_politics#Historical_origin_of_the_terms ).

Libertarianism is nothing more than a relatively "extreme" form of liberalism and, like liberalism, is divided along "left" and "right" economic ideologies. The "left" version (commonly refered to as "anarchism" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism)) is characterized by anti-statist cooperative/collectivist ideology, while the "right" version (commonly refered to in the United States as "Libertarianism," although some also claim "anarchism" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-Capitalism)) is typified by anti-statist capitalist ideology.

It is common for American Libertarians to claim that the "anti-statist" and "cooperative/collectivist" aspects of "left libertarianism" are in conflict or are incompatible. "Cooperative/collectivist" ideology will surely result in the (re)establishment and proliferation of the state. Well, we need only look around us and see how modern capitalism relies on and exploits an ever increasing and intrusive state, where bailouts, subsidies, corporate welfare and lobbying are established traditions.

Ah! But this is not real capitalism, the Right Libertarians will claim.

Are Lenin and Stalin necessarily representative of real Left Libertarianism, then? :)

We can't predict who will or won't commit crimes. As sad as it sounds, we have to assume that any good man can go bad, and write laws that limit individual freedoms far enough to protect people from one another's sins.I don't know that this is true. I mean, I would agree that you can say "Person X will commit a crime", but you can say "Person X more likely to commit a crime than Person Y." Do you agree with this statement:

I'd expect more crimes against property from people who didn't have much. I don't mean that in a nasty way. If I was dirt poor, I would steal to maintain myself without remorse or hesitation.
?

no such thing as a left wing libertarian.

no such thing as a left wing libertarian.See post #47, which is two posts above yours.

Yes, but not all systems are created equally. Capitalism is a shitty system, but it is marginally less shitty than socialism and even if you modify it considerably it is much better at protecting individual liberties than even a substantially modified socialist system.

That, my friend, is a matetr of opinion... and yet, again and again, you seem to assume it has some measure of 'fact'.

The difference is that capitalism is geared around 'me first', and socialism around 'the greatest good'.

If you accept "me first" as your defining credo, then capitalism is a much better (or, much less shitty) system than socialism.

On the other hand, if you accept "the greatest good" as your defining credo, then socialism is a far superior (or, much less shitty) system than capitalism.

Last point - the only 'individual liberties' that are protected 'better' under capitalism than under socialism (and THAT is still arguable... depending on the EXACT implementation, and definition)... are the liberties to 'own' things... which are only even really relevent under the (contemporary) capitalist model.

Overall, most liberties need be protected no more or less by either system... socialism cares as little about who you sleep with as capitalism does.

That, my friend, is a matetr of opinion... and yet, again and again, you seem to assume it has some measure of 'fact'.

The difference is that capitalism is geared around 'me first', and socialism around 'the greatest good'.

If you accept "me first" as your defining credo, then capitalism is a much better (or, much less shitty) system than socialism.

On the other hand, if you accept "the greatest good" as your defining credo, then socialism is a far superior (or, much less shitty) system than capitalism.

Last point - the only 'individual liberties' that are protected 'better' under capitalism than under socialism (and THAT is still arguable... depending on the EXACT implementation, and definition)... are the liberties to 'own' things... which are only even really relevent under the (contemporary) capitalist model.

Overall, most liberties need be protected no more or less by either system... socialism cares as little about who you sleep with as capitalism does.


I do subscribe to the "me first" doctrine, both for philosophical and practical reasons. Philosophically, I believe that individual liberty is the single most important factor for defining the worth of a society. Yes, this is a completely subjective assessment but, as libertarians have been saying for years, libertarianism "happens to" people. The aggregate experiances of my life, especially my experiances with government entities designed to protect the public good, has lead me to the conclusion that individual liberty is something worth dying or killing for. Let me tell you, individual liberty seems a lot less important until you've had it taken away.

In practice, I feel that capitalism is better able to protect freedom, and heres why. In a society based on ownership the taking of another's property requires due process. That gives an indlividual a certain amount of power over their own life, it lends a certain level of self-determination. When an ownership based society moves into a capitalistic model, that power grows exponentially because everything is property. From the land you live on (property rights) to the labor you generate (abolition of slavery) to your own body (4th ammendment and abortion rights) to your mind and soul (first amendment rights) everything is property and the taking or use of that property requires the consent of the owner. By nature the capitalist model provides for certain rights, albiet only individual rights, that no socialist model I have seen manages to provide from day one.

The problem with socialism is that it puts the group before the individual. If you do not own the land you live on you are just a tennant, you can be moved with little notice and you don't get to say a word about it. If you own nothing you cannot move into a dwelling that isn't assigned, and the quality of your dwelling is decided by whoever hands them out. The same is true for your labor. Without personal ownership of labor, you are nothing more than a slave, yes, you might get a job you like, but there is no guarantee that you will. You own nothing, the group owns everything, and that includes you.

I know what your response will be. You will accuse me of not being able to see the glory of your tribal system. You will say that I;m making a faulty assumption stating that someone will have to hand out goods, that administration is not necessary by nature. The problem is, if you look at any system of collective resources (the inner workings of a corporation is a very good example) there are ALWAYS beaureaucrats; as the system grows more and more beaureaucrats are needed just to keep things moving, just to keep resources flowing. Collectivist models become statist models once you begin to give them any sort of scale. Trying to break everything into small cells helps, but then all you do is make the cells individual entities rather than the individuals contained. The same problems develop, the human mind is designed to break into social groups and protect the interests of their group before all others. There is a Persian proverb that illustrates this tendancy well: "me against my borth, my brother and I against our cousin, my cousin and I against all others."

Even beyond these concerns, I lack faith in human beings. Most humans are followers, and most humans are fearful. Some humans are smart, strong, or manipulative. Some humans care more about themselves than anyone else, regardless of how well they're raised. A very small percentage of humans are smart, manipulative, strong, willful, charismatic, and machiavellian. As you have more people, the likelyhood of you finding one of these individuals grows. As you have more people, the likelyhood of this individual being recognized for what they are falls. With the notable exception of Hitler EVERY murderous tyrant in the 20th century has risen to prominance either in a society without the rule of law (as is the case with the military Juntas of people like Edi Amin) or in collectivist (usually socialist) societies (Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, the mess in the Balkins). Capitalist socieites, with a respect for individual freedoms and democratic elections, have largely escaped the horrors of tyranny for the better part of two centuries.

Why? Because if you get a bad president or prime minister you vote them out of office. There is little they can do to prevent it, because they sit behind the helms of governments that have fairly limited powers. Even the most socialist of the western European states have significantly less power than even Gorbachev's Russia. It is difficult for a tyrant to hold onto power, hell, it is difficult for a bad leader to even become a trant because they lack the strength to grab for much more power.

You are talking about libertarian-capitalism (individualism) vs. authoritarian communism (communalism). Ghandi envisioned a libertarian collectivist society, with a minimal or no state to run things, things were just run by the people. The difference between communism and capitalism is who owns things, the person, or everyone/the state. The differnce between libertaranism and authoritarianism is how much control a governing or outside body has over the life of the individual. Think

I see were you are coming from, I just can't see how it makes a difference. The point about the information problem is that all systems not based on voluntary exchange and trade will run into the information problem and so even if they start off as a libertarian collectivist 'society' they will end up as a totalist 'state'. Alternatively, even if you could run a libertarian collectivist society then the following would like happen. Farmer John has lots of goats. He wants lots of milk. Farmer Bob has lots of milk. He wants goats. So they swap. But Farmer Fred has neither goats nor milk but lots of wheat. Farmer Fred wants milk but Farmer Bob does not want wheat. So they all get together and pretend that some pieces of paper will represent a certain number of goats, milk or wheat. Saves them the bother of dragging a few hundred tonnes of bovine down the road too. And so you have the beginnings of a functioning capitalist system. A libertarian collectivist society is a nice idea but it just doesn't work.

Sounds very reasonable! =)

((I'm from the US by the way, so that's probably why there were a few discrepancies. I'm not as familiar with the way things are run in the UK, or in Europe in general)).

oo ta! I like to be thought of as reasonable. It doesn't happen very often!

Great response from your goodself. Made me think about the (many many) fuzzier parts of my political beliefs.

Cheers

6 pints

A large socialist society does NOT have to equate to statist socialism... it just usually will, because it is 'easier' to follow, than to lead.

By definition, the state does NOT 'own everything'... by definition, nobody really owns anything exclusively.

You do not seem to be able to get beyond the idea of socialism as centralised, statist and corrupt.

None of which is any MORE necessary in a socialist structure than in any other.... and LESS necessary than most.


Coupla points ...

How do you get past the information problem? The info problem is absent/negated to a large degree in capitalist systems. In Socialist systems the presence of the information problem tends to require an aggregation of power. And power is, as we know, corrupting. Look at the Stanford Uni experiment (it's the one where the students role-played guards and prisoners. The 'prisoners' lost their identity and the guards all went power-mad. It's a bit of an exaggeration, but you get the idea).

Second point - if nobody owns anything then the value of everything is zero. That's the reason why fish-stocks are collapsing. If wild fish aren't exclusively owned by anyone their value is zero and no-one will lift a finger to save them. If I and a few buddies owned the oceans and all the fish in them, you can bet there would be fees to fish, conservation programes, enforcement boats out 24/7,a great big kicking for anyone who tried to poach my fish and a careful introduction of the fish catch to given markets so I could maximise my profits - and others would be doing the same. So in a socialist-system the value of everything is set at zero, leading to a plundering of the resources which no-one will stop. No-one has any rights in or over the resources so the strongest power (the state) acquires them to itself even though 'officially' it owns nothing. It's the application of Orwell's 'all are equal but some are more equal than others'.

Large socialist societies do trend toward statist systems. It's inevitable.

I have 2 responces to that:

1) Why must it be a big society? Why not have society be nothing more then many many self-contained and self-governed farming communes and the like?



Yuk! Who wants to be a farmer? (no offense to anyone who is a farmer - I just don't want to be one). It's a serious point though. Under liberal capitalism (and can capitalism be anything but liberal? hmm sounds like the subject for a new thread) people engage in voluntary exchange. Now, I might work out that I am best at, and so can gain much much more by, exchanging my skills at X (e.g. being a fashion designer for example) than at being a farmer. So I do it. If everyone makes this decision (to do the thing that they are best at (as opposed to becoming a fashion designer!)) then the production/supply of all goods and services increases greatly and everyone has more of everything, which leads to a higher standard of living for all. In communes if everyone is a generalist rather than a specialist not as much is produced and so the standard of living is not as high. Clearly specialising individually is superior to generalising collectively.

And before anyone says that you can specialise in communes, ask yourself this - what do you do with all the surplus product you generate? You can't sell it to the other people in the commune 'cos their self-sufficient too. And you can't flog it to the other communes for the same reason.

RELIGION 100%
MILITARY 100%

LONG LIVE THE AMERICAIN EMPIRE AND OUR LEADER, GEORGE W BUSH XIII




jokes, but seriously though, thats how they want it to be

[QUOTE=6 pints and a curry]Yuk! Who wants to be a farmer? (no offense to anyone who is a farmer - I just don't want to be one). It's a serious point though. Under liberal capitalism (and can capitalism be anything but liberal? hmm sounds like the subject for a new thread) people engage in voluntary exchange. Now, I might work out that I am best at, and so can gain much much more by, exchanging my skills at X (e.g. being a fashion designer for example) than at being a farmer. QUOTE]

Which (I bet) is going to become a serious problem in our society. Farmers get no respect and no money and (I think) they work way harder than most people. Young people are leaving farms because of this. Something needs to be done to keep people on farms so we'll still have food. Alothugh it probably would help the rest of the world if we bought all of our food from them, that would cause ridiculous instability. I'm not a farmer but I think someone needs to say it : Farming is important, stop treaitng our farmers like dirt!

Which (I bet) is going to become a serious problem in our society. Farmers get no respect and no money and (I think) they work way harder than most people. Young people are leaving farms because of this. Something needs to be done to keep people on farms so we'll still have food. Alothugh it probably would help the rest of the world if we bought all of our food from them, that would cause ridiculous instability. I'm not a farmer but I think someone needs to say it : Farming is important, stop treaitng our farmers like dirt!


I agree something does need to be done. Namely, the scrapping of US farm protection, the dismantling of the the EU's evil Common Agricultural Policy and an opening up of the undeveloped nations to free trade in agricultural produce. It's the only policy that will a) deliver enough food for a growing global population b) produce incomes that farmers can live on c) stop wasting vast amounts of cash d) provide a good living for farmers in places like Africa and South America

I do subscribe to the "me first" doctrine, both for philosophical and practical reasons. Philosophically, I believe that individual liberty is the single most important factor for defining the worth of a society. Yes, this is a completely subjective assessment but, as libertarians have been saying for years, libertarianism "happens to" people. The aggregate experiances of my life, especially my experiances with government entities designed to protect the public good, has lead me to the conclusion that individual liberty is something worth dying or killing for. Let me tell you, individual liberty seems a lot less important until you've had it taken away.

In practice, I feel that capitalism is better able to protect freedom, and heres why. In a society based on ownership the taking of another's property requires due process. That gives an indlividual a certain amount of power over their own life, it lends a certain level of self-determination. When an ownership based society moves into a capitalistic model, that power grows exponentially because everything is property. From the land you live on (property rights) to the labor you generate (abolition of slavery) to your own body (4th ammendment and abortion rights) to your mind and soul (first amendment rights) everything is property and the taking or use of that property requires the consent of the owner. By nature the capitalist model provides for certain rights, albiet only individual rights, that no socialist model I have seen manages to provide from day one.

The problem with socialism is that it puts the group before the individual. If you do not own the land you live on you are just a tennant, you can be moved with little notice and you don't get to say a word about it. If you own nothing you cannot move into a dwelling that isn't assigned, and the quality of your dwelling is decided by whoever hands them out. The same is true for your labor. Without personal ownership of labor, you are nothing more than a slave, yes, you might get a job you like, but there is no guarantee that you will. You own nothing, the group owns everything, and that includes you.

I know what your response will be. You will accuse me of not being able to see the glory of your tribal system. You will say that I;m making a faulty assumption stating that someone will have to hand out goods, that administration is not necessary by nature. The problem is, if you look at any system of collective resources (the inner workings of a corporation is a very good example) there are ALWAYS beaureaucrats; as the system grows more and more beaureaucrats are needed just to keep things moving, just to keep resources flowing. Collectivist models become statist models once you begin to give them any sort of scale. Trying to break everything into small cells helps, but then all you do is make the cells individual entities rather than the individuals contained. The same problems develop, the human mind is designed to break into social groups and protect the interests of their group before all others. There is a Persian proverb that illustrates this tendancy well: "me against my borth, my brother and I against our cousin, my cousin and I against all others."

Even beyond these concerns, I lack faith in human beings. Most humans are followers, and most humans are fearful. Some humans are smart, strong, or manipulative. Some humans care more about themselves than anyone else, regardless of how well they're raised. A very small percentage of humans are smart, manipulative, strong, willful, charismatic, and machiavellian. As you have more people, the likelyhood of you finding one of these individuals grows. As you have more people, the likelyhood of this individual being recognized for what they are falls. With the notable exception of Hitler EVERY murderous tyrant in the 20th century has risen to prominance either in a society without the rule of law (as is the case with the military Juntas of people like Edi Amin) or in collectivist (usually socialist) societies (Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, the mess in the Balkins). Capitalist socieites, with a respect for individual freedoms and democratic elections, have largely escaped the horrors of tyranny for the better part of two centuries.

Why? Because if you get a bad president or prime minister you vote them out of office. There is little they can do to prevent it, because they sit behind the helms of governments that have fairly limited powers. Even the most socialist of the western European states have significantly less power than even Gorbachev's Russia. It is difficult for a tyrant to hold onto power, hell, it is difficult for a bad leader to even become a trant because they lack the strength to grab for much more power.

The biggest flaw with capitalism MAY be it's necessity to invent strawmen to defend itself against.

Libertarianism 'happens to people'. And? Socialism only affects clams, perhaps?

You go into a whole spiel about how capitalism protects property, through due process, or whatever. You somehow make an automatic connection between this 'property freedom', and other kinds of freedom - like they are somehow related. But - it's not a logical connection. Abortion isn't determined by capitalistic trends... it is determined by personal sovereignty, at the core of both left and right wing libertarianism, capitalist and communist anarchy... and almost every point in between.

You make some assertion that abortion-rights and abolition of slavery are somehow logical constructs of capitalism... and yet western-cultures have been capitalistically inclined for thousands of years - with abolition of slavery being a pretty recent developement... and abortion-rights even MORE recent.
(Which makes a mockery of your "no socialist model I have seen manages to provide from day one" comment).

And - of course, capitalist societies do not hold a monopoly on those values anyway.... so your argument is actually TWO strawmen.

If you do not own the land, you are just a tenant. Another strawman. Look at the American Natives. They generally had no systems of ownership, without this need to keep resorting to capitalist jargon.... the 'tenant' is irrelevent. This is OUR land, and we all live here.

"You can be moved with little notice and you don't get to say a word about it"... Another strawman... you might want to consider the ramifications of Eminent Domain.

"If you own nothing you cannot move into a dwelling that isn't assigned, and the quality of your dwelling is decided by whoever hands them out".

Another strawman. Once again... you 'invent' an office... this "whoever hands them out". I realise YOU think there is a need for this office - but it has nothing to do with the reality of the situation. You just cannot step outside of the capitalist mindset. You also ignore the fact that the 'dwelling' is not 'assigned'... it is shared - you are residing in the property of the community. And, as for quality of housing.... that's pretty much up to you and your associates, is it not? In a collective society, you don't get the privilige of 'passing the buck'.

Another strawman: "Without personal ownership of labor, you are nothing more than a slave". First - it's still true in capitalism... we even have a name for it "wage slaves". But, more importantly... in a socialist environment, it is in the BEST INTERESTS of everyone, to put people in jobs they do best. So - your most gifted medical students become your doctors, for example.

Indeed - a socialist scheme CAN be better for this than a capitalist one... since it doesn't encourage second-rate doctors to fill the medical ranks for the big money... and it doesn't hold out those of less privilige... who just couldn't afford medical school.

"administration is not necessary by nature. The problem is, if you look at any system of collective resources (the inner workings of a corporation is a very good example) there are ALWAYS beaureaucrats" The strawman here is, that you use a capitalistic model (the internal customer mechanism) to apply to a socialist structure... which it is not relevent to. Sure - some collective structures MIGHT still operate that way, but they don't HAVE to.

You are also too fond of imagining the 'corporate monopoly' model is appropriate. There is no NEED for social structures to grow the way you suggest. It is just as possible for a perfect cell-structure to grow, as it is for a more pyramidal heirarchy to appear.

The whole Hitler/ Idi Amin / Pol Pot situation isn't even worth addressing, I'm afraid. You carefully remove a capitalist controlled-state candidate from the list, and then make a sweeping generalistaion based on what is left. You try to draw a rule, but you edit out what doesn't suit you first.

Of course - there is no NECESSARY connection between 'no rule of law' and 'socialism'.... so again, capitalism relies on a strawman to prove it's worth.

And then - your last paragraph turns into a discussion of the relative merits of democratic elections versus party-elected representatives.... which is, of course, not only a strawman in the debate... but also COMPLETELY irrelevent. You need to get passed this idea that democratic capitalism and statist communism are the ONLY TWO alternatives.... and that democracy AUTOMATICALLY favours capitalism, and that Communism AUTOMATICALLY equates to statism.


I have to say - you could have actually finished the debate at: "I do subscribe to the "me first" doctrine"... because that was the point at which you admitted that the betterment of humanity and the greatest good for the greatest number, were never going to figure into your decision anyway.

Capitalism is, unfortunately, just naturally selfish... which is why it will last such a long time, and why it will have to go before our civilisation reaches it's 'next level'.

Coupla points ...

How do you get past the information problem? The info problem is absent/negated to a large degree in capitalist systems. In Socialist systems the presence of the information problem tends to require an aggregation of power. And power is, as we know, corrupting. Look at the Stanford Uni experiment (it's the one where the students role-played guards and prisoners. The 'prisoners' lost their identity and the guards all went power-mad. It's a bit of an exaggeration, but you get the idea).


The Stanford Experiment is irrelevent, because it is about creating tiered societies. Whenever you create inequality, and you condone that division, many people will assume the roles assigned. It's as true in capitalist societies, as it is in socialist societies... and specific to neither.

However, the advantage that a socialist society COULD have, is that socialism can be a leveller... bringing greater equality. While, capitalism BREEDS inequality... indeed, NEEDS it for it's very survival.

Second point - if nobody owns anything then the value of everything is zero. That's the reason why fish-stocks are collapsing. If wild fish aren't exclusively owned by anyone their value is zero and no-one will lift a finger to save them. If I and a few buddies owned the oceans and all the fish in them, you can bet there would be fees to fish, conservation programes, enforcement boats out 24/7,a great big kicking for anyone who tried to poach my fish and a careful introduction of the fish catch to given markets so I could maximise my profits - and others would be doing the same. So in a socialist-system the value of everything is set at zero, leading to a plundering of the resources which no-one will stop. No-one has any rights in or over the resources so the strongest power (the state) acquires them to itself even though 'officially' it owns nothing. It's the application of Orwell's 'all are equal but some are more equal than others'.


No. Fish stocks are collapsing because there is no collective stewardship of the resource... and people can make a profit out of plundering the remaining numbers.


Large socialist societies do trend toward statist systems. It's inevitable.

No. It's 'easy'. Not the same thing.

Which (I bet) is going to become a serious problem in our society. Farmers get no respect and no money and (I think) they work way harder than most people. Young people are leaving farms because of this. Something needs to be done to keep people on farms so we'll still have food. Alothugh it probably would help the rest of the world if we bought all of our food from them, that would cause ridiculous instability. I'm not a farmer but I think someone needs to say it : Farming is important, stop treaitng our farmers like dirt!


Please. Farming has gone corporate. Corporate farms can bring more money to the table, float their own debt, and use the latest technology to increase yields. Factory farming can give you high yield crops grown in synthetic fertilizer on strict rotation schedules for less than half of what farmer Bob can because they have three or four times as much by the time of harvest.
The job of "farmer" is becoming increasingly obsolete in the US.

Because back when the whole "left vs. right" paradigm got started, there were two kinds of liberal "left-wing" ideology that stood in opposition to the feudalist/aristocratic establishment: capitalism and socialism. With the defeat of the aristocratic establishment, capitalism became the new "right-wing" establishment and socialism remained as the "left-wing" opposition ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-Right_politics#Historical_origin_of_the_terms ).

Libertarianism is nothing more than a relatively "extreme" form of liberalism and, like liberalism, is divided along "left" and "right" economic ideologies. The "left" version (commonly refered to as "anarchism" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism)) is characterized by anti-statist cooperative/collectivist ideology, while the "right" version (commonly refered to in the United States as "Libertarianism," although some also claim "anarchism" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-Capitalism)) is typified by anti-statist capitalist ideology.

It is common for American Libertarians to claim that the "anti-statist" and "cooperative/collectivist" aspects of "left libertarianism" are in conflict or are incompatible. "Cooperative/collectivist" ideology will surely result in the (re)establishment and proliferation of the state. Well, we need only look around us and see how modern capitalism relies on and exploits an ever increasing and intrusive state, where bailouts, subsidies, corporate welfare and lobbying are established traditions.

Ah! But this is not real capitalism, the Right Libertarians will claim.

Are Lenin and Stalin necessarily representative of real Left Libertarianism, then? :)


i understand the implications of the word, i just try and keep with it's modern and realistic applications

libertarian is widely accepted as limited government, and because capitalism is the dominant economic theory in the world, limited government would support this end before supporting collectiveism.

Libertarianism 'happens to people'. And? Socialism only affects clams, perhaps?

Nope, just it's unfortunate subjects.

You go into a whole spiel about how capitalism protects property, through due process, or whatever. You somehow make an automatic connection between this 'property freedom', and other kinds of freedom - like they are somehow related. But - it's not a logical connection. Abortion isn't determined by capitalistic trends... it is determined by personal sovereignty, at the core of both left and right wing libertarianism, capitalist and communist anarchy... and almost every point in between.

Where do you think personal sovereignty comes from? Do ya think maybe Jaysus reaches down from heaven and imbues you with a right to do with yourself as you please? No, personal sovereignty comes from owning onesself. Especially in the Us, the whole concept of individual liberty grew from a society in which every person was owned by the king, in which all property was effectively owned by the king. Freedom is about being beholden to no one. It is about no one owning your soul and telling you who you can worship, no one owning your mind and telling you what you can think or say. Western liberty is built on the philosophical concept of ownership; that is how slavery was justified, certain classes could be owned and thus they did not get the rights of freemen.

You make some assertion that abortion-rights and abolition of slavery are somehow logical constructs of capitalism... and yet western-cultures have been capitalistically inclined for thousands of years - with abolition of slavery being a pretty recent developement... and abortion-rights even MORE recent.
(Which makes a mockery of your "no socialist model I have seen manages to provide from day one" comment).

Abortion is a pretty new concept, and it goes back to the issues of ownership more than you seem to notice. See, slavery and outlawing abortion go hand in hand in this discussion, both are things that are justified under the concept that one group of people is not in full ownership of themselves and does not get the same rights as a freeman. Women have not been treated much better than slaves through most of the world's history. A libertarian capitalist, which recognizes the self ownership of all people, provides a philosophical justification for human rights from the beginning. I still maintain that I have yet to see a socialist model that has an internal justification for human rights. You can explain where all rights come from in a libertarian capitalist model with the one concept on which it is based: ownership. Can you do the same with collectivism?

If you do not own the land, you are just a tenant. Another strawman. Look at the American Natives. They generally had no systems of ownership, without this need to keep resorting to capitalist jargon.... the 'tenant' is irrelevent. This is OUR land, and we all live here.

American natives were nomadic peoples. Show me a native nomadic culture on earth that did not war with neighboring tribes over territory or resources, over the best watering hole, over the best hunting grounds. They didn;t have the same concept of ownership as settled peoples, but that doesn't mean the concept wasn't there.

Without ownership what stops you from building your home over my home? What stops me from building a factory on the river you fish in? Sure, we all live here, but what happens when the community decided that where I live is an area better used for something else? Without ownership, what recourse do I have? Maybe my home means alot to me, maybe I painted pictures on the walls, maybe my family has lived there for generations, maybe I watched my children grow up here, maybe I built it with my own sweat and blood. What protections do I have without ownership, besides the hope that everyone will be nice and no one will try to displace me? I'm not interested in ending up on a trail of tears, you sing kumbaya and I'll shoot trespassers after one warning.

"You can be moved with little notice and you don't get to say a word about it"... Another strawman... you might want to consider the ramifications of Eminent Domain.

I have, in fact, I've donated both time and money to the Institute for Justice. I'm actually a big advocate of striking the last three words in the fifth amendment.

"If you own nothing you cannot move into a dwelling that isn't assigned, and the quality of your dwelling is decided by whoever hands them out".

Another strawman. Once again... you 'invent' an office... this "whoever hands them out". I realise YOU think there is a need for this office - but it has nothing to do with the reality of the situation. You just cannot step outside of the capitalist mindset. You also ignore the fact that the 'dwelling' is not 'assigned'... it is shared - you are residing in the property of the community. And, as for quality of housing.... that's pretty much up to you and your associates, is it not? In a collective society, you don't get the privilige of 'passing the buck'.

If there is no office, answer me this: how are disputes over land usage rights to be settled? Lets say I build a factory next to your home and borrown one of your walls like a townhouse? Lets say I build an outhouse a foot and a half from your kitchen window? Lets say were starting a community and we both want to build in the same location? How are these conflicts going to get resolved? Pistols at dawn? A town vote?

What if the town is white and don't like your complextion? What if it is a small town and your family happens to be the biggest and most heavily armed? What if I happen to be the town doctor and you're just a ditch digger? What if its a big town with a police force that you head and one of your officers wonders aloud about how the vote will influence police response times?

Another strawman: "Without personal ownership of labor, you are nothing more than a slave". First - it's still true in capitalism... we even have a name for it "wage slaves". But, more importantly... in a socialist environment, it is in the BEST INTERESTS of everyone, to put people in jobs they do best. So - your most gifted medical students become your doctors, for example.

Indeed - a socialist scheme CAN be better for this than a capitalist one... since it doesn't encourage second-rate doctors to fill the medical ranks for the big money... and it doesn't hold out those of less privilige... who just couldn't afford medical school.

It would be a beautiful thing if the world worked that way. Unfortunately I've run into far too many assholes and just plain lazy people. This is the pipedream problem with socialism, it requires faith in others. For socialism to work everyone has to work hard and be good people, everyone has to be friendly, everyone has to be smart enough to understand the concept of collective ownership and how important the menial job they perform is. Meanwhile I can't get a straight answer about postage rates from a supervisor whose paid $60,000 a year to care and I have to wait 10 minutes to turn out of the parking lot when I leave because no one is willing to get to their destination 10 seconds later so I can go. Unless you're going to start executing assholes (and other unmutual types) in the streets, I don't see socialism as being viable.

"administration is not necessary by nature. The problem is, if you look at any system of collective resources (the inner workings of a corporation is a very good example) there are ALWAYS beaureaucrats" The strawman here is, that you use a capitalistic model (the internal customer mechanism) to apply to a socialist structure... which it is not relevent to. Sure - some collective structures MIGHT still operate that way, but they don't HAVE to.

You are also too fond of imagining the 'corporate monopoly' model is appropriate. There is no NEED for social structures to grow the way you suggest. It is just as possible for a perfect cell-structure to grow, as it is for a more pyramidal heirarchy to appear.

Explain to me how you can feed 10,000 people without a beaureaucrat, without them all being farmers, and without every single one needing to go and gather the food themselves from a field. Explain to me how you sustain a large urban collectivist population without beaureaucracy.

I have to say - you could have actually finished the debate at: "I do subscribe to the "me first" doctrine"... because that was the point at which you admitted that the betterment of humanity and the greatest good for the greatest number, were never going to figure into your decision anyway.

Capitalism is, unfortunately, just naturally selfish... which is why it will last such a long time, and why it will have to go before our civilisation reaches it's 'next level'.

I've seen too much garbage justified by "the greater good" argument for it to fly with me. Let me explain to you why I say libertarianism happens to people. I have mild cerebral palsy and a nonverbal learning disability (that is to say, I have some serious trouble with spatial reasoning). Because of this I was not really taught, so much as shunted into an elementary school for children who weren't worth the trouble. We cost too much to teach and we were bad for the greater good (its disruptive for people to have bad fine motor skills or to need something explained twice). Thankfully, I had a bulldog for a mother, she subscribed to the "me and mine" first doctrine, and she fought hard to get me into a position where I could actually learn rather than be warehoused until social services got me a sweet gig at the local McWendyKing.

It can be a transformative experiance, looking at your life as a 10 year old and realizing that if you want to amount to anything you have to fight, realizing that the adults in charge are wrong and even if they think they have your best interests in mind they're going to damn you if you don't stand up. Go to a school for children with learning/behavioral/emotional disabilities, take a good long look at how disobediance is treated. Take a look at how many children are medicated into a stupor for "their own good." Ask me how I knew so much about the 44 position, 4 point restraints, seclusion rooms and other prison punishment techniques before I hit puberty.

The "me first" doctrine is a survival strategy. It is the best way I have found for protecting my individual liberty. I don't like the concept of a collective society because I know what concessions you have to make for one to work and I am unwilling. I am unwilling to cede my liberty for someone else's concept of the greater good, I am unwilling to submit.

I'm no libertarian, but I personally think "libertarian left" and "libertarian right" are oxymorons. Both sides favor more freedom than the other in certain areas, and less freedom (if any) in other areas. Whereas, a true libertarian favors freedom in all areas.

I don't know if I am exactly a "right-wing" libertarian. But my response would be similar to those already given. In theory.

But in practice...policy would vary depending on the particular nation; it's natural resources, population, environmet, etc. For instance- a huge capitalist system such as the U.S. could not be run on a strictly "libertarian" platform. Just like true communism, it cannot run on such a large scale. Human nature is inherently selfish, and both libertarianism and communism depend on a fair share of respect for oneself and for others in their pure forms.

So, in an environent such as the U.S., a policy of reform would have to be implemented. This is what I believe the LP needs to learn. Instead of no taxes and just user fees- a flat tax, and then just a national sales tax (which would gradually be lowered as the society adapts) should be adopted.

Legalizing all drugs should not be attempted immediately. Legalize marijuana, and tax it to the point where the price remains the same as it is now. (that's an estimated 90 billion a year at least) And decriminalize things like x and mushrooms. Then you can work on the crack and meth problems.

As for the military... close all non-essential oversees bases- immediately. All bases that are required ( Korea comes to mind) need to be phased out, with the exception of a few tactical bases, such as Diego Garcia is for the U.K.

as a "libertarian" myself,i have to agree with just about all of your comments.

i am a huge fan of a vat tax only,no federal flat tax,no state or local taxes,only value added taxes,if you don't want to pay into the system,you dont buy boats/cars or other non essential items(of coarse excluding food,clothing,utilities)that create the need for roads and other government services.
it would have the side benefit of creating a healthy barter system as well.

i dissagree with your comments on drug laws or legalazation.
i think anyone should be free to pollute their bodies as they deem,and for me to not have to subsidise their problem if it gets out of hand(crime..they go to jail,treatment programs...too bad..i am not funding rehab for you, if you go nuts with drugs..deal with it or not.if you dont,and commit crimes,then you pay,or if you have some personall responsibilities,you will deal with it and move on or you wont)
the government has no biz with peoples habits or behaviours,until they infringe on others,then they either go to jail or change like i did.

we are always going to need jails,but i think they should be used only for jailing crimminals,not people who have hurt no one but themselves.

the government in my opinion should be responsible only for the countries defence,a police force to protect from and jail violent crimminals,and basically to maintain order.
to deal with matters of trade and foreign interests.
and lastly,infrastructure..roads etc.

all this could be funded by trade and vat tax's imho,it will definately put a bunch of desk drivers out of work,but then again,i don't need and fcc or an sec or nine zillion other agencies.
if i get bilked out of my money it is my fault and mine alone.

the 1 exception i can think of is an agency to deal with enviromental issues.I do not want to drink polluted water from the scumbag up the road pissing in my water source,or breathing crappy air from unregulated refineries or mills or whatever.

imo,the government is a bloated morass of crap right now.it is akin to giving my teenage daughter an unlimited credit card.
could i reasonably expect her to not spend everything possible available?
the gov right now is no different as things stand,with a fixed amount of income they would have to adjust and prioritize or collapse.
and hopefully stay the hell out of my life.

we do not need to be the world's police,we do not need to have foreign wars in most cases,only in our real national interest"s,and we certainly do not need a nanny,at least i dont.

an aside,i strongly dissagree with the lp's position on unfettered immigration,i am the child of off the boat immigrants,so i am not against immigration,when you follow and obey the laws.

and yes,the gov's military's primary responsibility should be to secure our borders,but that falls in line with what i feel is their purpose..our security.

if we didn't meddle so much with other countries,we probably wouldn't have to be so worried about terrorists,not to excuse them.but it does give them some ammo.

i guess i am an isolationist at heart,leave me alone,and i will leave you alone.

i am also a realist,there are shitty people in the world,that want to not leave me alone,so i have no problem with a little preventive medicine.

rant off...good post by the way,and thank you for your insights,like i said,i just mainly disagree with your position on drug laws...and i dont do any drugs unless you count booze and cig's..which are ironically some of the most addictive and yet "legal" drugs..lol

...and because capitalism is the dominant economic theory in the world...

Incorrect. Corporate Socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_police_state) is the dominant economic theory in the world (see also: The United States of America and The People's Republic of China).

Incorrect. Corporate Socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_police_state) is the dominant economic theory in the world (see also: The United States of America and The People's Republic of China).

ok, an economy where property is privately owned is for the most part the dominant eocnomic theory in the world.

my point was that reducing govenrment would more likely lead to capitalism than democratic socialism.

nice wikipedia source

ok, an economy where property is privately owned is for the most part the dominant eocnomic theory in the world.


Only so long as there isn't a greater profit in doing otherwise (http://www.ij.org/private_property/connecticut/index.html), anyway.

Where do you think personal sovereignty comes from? Do ya think maybe Jaysus reaches down from heaven and imbues you with a right to do with yourself as you please? No, personal sovereignty comes from owning onesself. Especially in the Us, the whole concept of individual liberty grew from a society in which every person was owned by the king, in which all property was effectively owned by the king. Freedom is about being beholden to no one. It is about no one owning your soul and telling you who you can worship, no one owning your mind and telling you what you can think or say. Western liberty is built on the philosophical concept of ownership; that is how slavery was justified, certain classes could be owned and thus they did not get the rights of freemen.


This is rubbish... surely you know this? Neither in the US, nor anywhere else in the world, has 'personal sovereignty' been rooted in ownership by a monarchy. You seem to think our cultures came into being as whole units... integral and pre-delineated. Instead, our cultures are amalgamations of pragmatism... the US especially so.

The base unit of a society is the individual (hell, that's what the word means)... and an individual has only one 'god-given' right... and that is the right to be oneself. Every other 'right' we claim, is derived from that, or from our interactions with one another.

Freedom is about being the individual as much as possible. It is nothing to do with 'ownership', unles the individual makes it so.

Western liberty is NOT built on ownership - except in a negative sense... abolition of slavery being a REFUSAL of ownership, for example.


Abortion is a pretty new concept, and it goes back to the issues of ownership more than you seem to notice. See, slavery and outlawing abortion go hand in hand in this discussion, both are things that are justified under the concept that one group of people is not in full ownership of themselves and does not get the same rights as a freeman. Women have not been treated much better than slaves through most of the world's history. A libertarian capitalist, which recognizes the self ownership of all people, provides a philosophical justification for human rights from the beginning. I still maintain that I have yet to see a socialist model that has an internal justification for human rights. You can explain where all rights come from in a libertarian capitalist model with the one concept on which it is based: ownership. Can you do the same with collectivism?


Abortion is so NOT a new concept.... I'm finding it hard to work out how to respond to that... women have been aborting for millenia.

I find it bizarre that you seem to think there is a necessity for a REASON to justify human 'rights'... like people can't just be pro-people for no reward.


American natives were nomadic peoples. Show me a native nomadic culture on earth that did not war with neighboring tribes over territory or resources, over the best watering hole, over the best hunting grounds. They didn;t have the same concept of ownership as settled peoples, but that doesn't mean the concept wasn't there.


You not heard of the Anasazi? Just - you know - worth noting that not ALL natives were 'nomadic'. However, it was almost universal among native peoples here that they did not own the land. They resided here. It supported them. The idea of owning the land is as ludicrous, in that circumstance, as the idea of 'ownng' God.


Without ownership what stops you from building your home over my home? What stops me from building a factory on the river you fish in? Sure, we all live here, but what happens when the community decided that where I live is an area better used for something else? Without ownership, what recourse do I have? Maybe my home means alot to me, maybe I painted pictures on the walls, maybe my family has lived there for generations, maybe I watched my children grow up here, maybe I built it with my own sweat and blood. What protections do I have without ownership, besides the hope that everyone will be nice and no one will try to displace me? I'm not interested in ending up on a trail of tears, you sing kumbaya and I'll shoot trespassers after one warning.


Again.. something of a strawman. You are constructing instances to justify your capitalist viewpoint. Without PERSONAL ownership, such issues are, as ALL communal issues are, regulated by the will of the people. Your other strawman here is that you are using the capitalist value YOU apply to 'things' to attack the non-thing-orientated basis of communal living.

You'll perhaps care to note, by the way, that the Trail of Tears was a direct result of those democratic capitalist values colliding with a communal group.

Your 'capitalist' 'value for the individual' is a pipedream.


I have, in fact, I've donated both time and money to the Institute for Justice. I'm actually a big advocate of striking the last three words in the fifth amendment.


So - you are pro-Eminent Domain, but anti-compensation? That doesn't sound very libertarian...


If there is no office, answer me this: how are disputes over land usage rights to be settled? Lets say I build a factory next to your home and borrown one of your walls like a townhouse? Lets say I build an outhouse a foot and a half from your kitchen window? Lets say were starting a community and we both want to build in the same location? How are these conflicts going to get resolved? Pistols at dawn? A town vote?


The community works it out. For the best interest of all, for the best interest of the community.

Should you build your outhouse by my kitchen window? The community can weigh up how desperately you need access to your outhouse, against the risks to health.


What if the town is white and don't like your complextion? What if it is a small town and your family happens to be the biggest and most heavily armed? What if I happen to be the town doctor and you're just a ditch digger? What if its a big town with a police force that you head and one of your officers wonders aloud about how the vote will influence police response times?


What a collection of strange, and largely irrelevent questions. A collection of questions that are not unique to the situation of socialism or communal living... and that need feature no more prominently in that model... or be any harder to resolve in that model... than in the model you laud and magnify.


It would be a beautiful thing if the world worked that way. Unfortunately I've run into far too many assholes and just plain lazy people. This is the pipedream problem with socialism, it requires faith in others. For socialism to work everyone has to work hard and be good people, everyone has to be friendly, everyone has to be smart enough to understand the concept of collective ownership and how important the menial job they perform is. Meanwhile I can't get a straight answer about postage rates from a supervisor whose paid $60,000 a year to care and I have to wait 10 minutes to turn out of the parking lot when I leave because no one is willing to get to their destination 10 seconds later so I can go. Unless you're going to start executing assholes (and other unmutual types) in the streets, I don't see socialism as being viable.


Who are you envisioning getting paid $60000, in our imaginary socialism?

Or... is that another strawman?

Like - you can't imagine a socialist structure, unless you mirror (and, indeed, magnify) capitalist problems onto it?


Explain to me how you can feed 10,000 people without a beaureaucrat, without them all being farmers, and without every single one needing to go and gather the food themselves from a field. Explain to me how you sustain a large urban collectivist population without beaureaucracy.


I don't do any of those things. You are, once again, trying to copy and paste your capitalist dream onto a socialist concept.


I've seen too much garbage justified by "the greater good" argument for it to fly with me. Let me explain to you why I say libertarianism happens to people. I have mild cerebral palsy and a nonverbal learning disability (that is to say, I have some serious trouble with spatial reasoning). Because of this I was not really taught, so much as shunted into an elementary school for children who weren't worth the trouble. We cost too much to teach and we were bad for the greater good (its disruptive for people to have bad fine motor skills or to need something explained twice). Thankfully, I had a bulldog for a mother, she subscribed to the "me and mine" first doctrine, and she fought hard to get me into a position where I could actually learn rather than be warehoused until social services got me a sweet gig at the local McWendyKing.

It can be a transformative experiance, looking at your life as a 10 year old and realizing that if you want to amount to anything you have to fight, realizing that the adults in charge are wrong and even if they think they have your best interests in mind they're going to damn you if you don't stand up. Go to a school for children with learning/behavioral/emotional disabilities, take a good long look at how disobediance is treated. Take a look at how many children are medicated into a stupor for "their own good." Ask me how I knew so much about the 44 position, 4 point restraints, seclusion rooms and other prison punishment techniques before I hit puberty.

The "me first" doctrine is a survival strategy. It is the best way I have found for protecting my individual liberty. I don't like the concept of a collective society because I know what concessions you have to make for one to work and I am unwilling. I am unwilling to cede my liberty for someone else's concept of the greater good, I am unwilling to submit.

So - you were unlucky, and you got screwed, mainly because the world around you said "Me First". Your mom, on the other hand... said "For the greater good".

And now... you have embraced the tools of your tormentors. Four legs good....

I see were you are coming from, I just can't see how it makes a difference. The point about the information problem is that all systems not based on voluntary exchange and trade will run into the information problem and so even if they start off as a libertarian collectivist 'society' they will end up as a totalist 'state'. Alternatively, even if you could run a libertarian collectivist society then the following would like happen. Farmer John has lots of goats. He wants lots of milk. Farmer Bob has lots of milk. He wants goats. So they swap. But Farmer Fred has neither goats nor milk but lots of wheat. Farmer Fred wants milk but Farmer Bob does not want wheat. So they all get together and pretend that some pieces of paper will represent a certain number of goats, milk or wheat. Saves them the bother of dragging a few hundred tonnes of bovine down the road too. And so you have the beginnings of a functioning capitalist system. A libertarian collectivist society is a nice idea but it just doesn't work.

Farmer John wouldn't have goats, farmer Bob wouldn't have milk. They would all have a herd of cows and goats and a wheat feild between them, all take care of them, and all reap the benefits.

Personally, I believe in personal property, as well as "collective" property, or property owned by no one. Like, I have cows, you have goats, we can trade them and shit as we please, but there's a common green over yonder we can both graze on.

One of my biggest problems with pure capitalism is the results (despotism of those who amase power), and one of my biggest problems with pure collectivism is on principle, that I can't own my own property. There needs to be a balance.

One thing that bothers me, though, is when people say things like "no one owns things, so things are worth nothing" "if the point of sociey is the common good, then the indevidual has no rights" That's not true at all.

Yuk! Who wants to be a farmer? (no offense to anyone who is a farmer - I just don't want to be one). It's a serious point though. Under liberal capitalism (and can capitalism be anything but liberal? hmm sounds like the subject for a new thread) people engage in voluntary exchange. Now, I might work out that I am best at, and so can gain much much more by, exchanging my skills at X (e.g. being a fashion designer for example) than at being a farmer. So I do it. If everyone makes this decision (to do the thing that they are best at (as opposed to becoming a fashion designer!)) then the production/supply of all goods and services increases greatly and everyone has more of everything, which leads to a higher standard of living for all. In communes if everyone is a generalist rather than a specialist not as much is produced and so the standard of living is not as high. Clearly specialising individually is superior to generalising collectively.

OK, you can't specialise, society produces less. Instead of some people having a quality of life of 10 and 8, and others of 1 and 2, everyone has a standard of life of 4. Society as a whole is less advanced, but no one is comepletly fucked. Is that so bad?


And in responce to libertarian communsalism not working on the large scale of brcomming statist, I direct your attention to the Ukraine, before conquered by the Stalinists.

Also, see the Arawaks.

Bitches :)

Nope, just it's unfortunate subjects.



Where do you think personal sovereignty comes from? Do ya think maybe Jaysus reaches down from heaven and imbues you with a right to do with yourself as you please? No, personal sovereignty comes from owning onesself. Especially in the Us, the whole concept of individual liberty grew from a society in which every person was owned by the king, in which all property was effectively owned by the king. Freedom is about being beholden to no one. It is about no one owning your soul and telling you who you can worship, no one owning your mind and telling you what you can think or say. Western liberty is built on the philosophical concept of ownership; that is how slavery was justified, certain classes could be owned and thus they did not get the rights of freemen.



Abortion is a pretty new concept, and it goes back to the issues of ownership more than you seem to notice. See, slavery and outlawing abortion go hand in hand in this discussion, both are things that are justified under the concept that one group of people is not in full ownership of themselves and does not get the same rights as a freeman. Women have not been treated much better than slaves through most of the world's history. A libertarian capitalist, which recognizes the self ownership of all people, provides a philosophical justification for human rights from the beginning. I still maintain that I have yet to see a socialist model that has an internal justification for human rights. You can explain where all rights come from in a libertarian capitalist model with the one concept on which it is based: ownership. Can you do the same with collectivism?



American natives were nomadic peoples. Show me a native nomadic culture on earth that did not war with neighboring tribes over territory or resources, over the best watering hole, over the best hunting grounds. They didn;t have the same concept of ownership as settled peoples, but that doesn't mean the concept wasn't there.

Without ownership what stops you from building your home over my home? What stops me from building a factory on the river you fish in? Sure, we all live here, but what happens when the community decided that where I live is an area better used for something else? Without ownership, what recourse do I have? Maybe my home means alot to me, maybe I painted pictures on the walls, maybe my family has lived there for generations, maybe I watched my children grow up here, maybe I built it with my own sweat and blood. What protections do I have without ownership, besides the hope that everyone will be nice and no one will try to displace me? I'm not interested in ending up on a trail of tears, you sing kumbaya and I'll shoot trespassers after one warning.



I have, in fact, I've donated both time and money to the Institute for Justice. I'm actually a big advocate of striking the last three words in the fifth amendment.



If there is no office, answer me this: how are disputes over land usage rights to be settled? Lets say I build a factory next to your home and borrown one of your walls like a townhouse? Lets say I build an outhouse a foot and a half from your kitchen window? Lets say were starting a community and we both want to build in the same location? How are these conflicts going to get resolved? Pistols at dawn? A town vote?

What if the town is white and don't like your complextion? What if it is a small town and your family happens to be the biggest and most heavily armed? What if I happen to be the town doctor and you're just a ditch digger? What if its a big town with a police force that you head and one of your officers wonders aloud about how the vote will influence police response times?



It would be a beautiful thing if the world worked that way. Unfortunately I've run into far too many assholes and just plain lazy people. This is the pipedream problem with socialism, it requires faith in others. For socialism to work everyone has to work hard and be good people, everyone has to be friendly, everyone has to be smart enough to understand the concept of collective ownership and how important the menial job they perform is. Meanwhile I can't get a straight answer about postage rates from a supervisor whose paid $60,000 a year to care and I have to wait 10 minutes to turn out of the parking lot when I leave because no one is willing to get to their destination 10 seconds later so I can go. Unless you're going to start executing assholes (and other unmutual types) in the streets, I don't see socialism as being viable.



Explain to me how you can feed 10,000 people without a beaureaucrat, without them all being farmers, and without every single one needing to go and gather the food themselves from a field. Explain to me how you sustain a large urban collectivist population without beaureaucracy.



I've seen too much garbage justified by "the greater good" argument for it to fly with me. Let me explain to you why I say libertarianism happens to people. I have mild cerebral palsy and a nonverbal learning disability (that is to say, I have some serious trouble with spatial reasoning). Because of this I was not really taught, so much as shunted into an elementary school for children who weren't worth the trouble. We cost too much to teach and we were bad for the greater good (its disruptive for people to have bad fine motor skills or to need something explained twice). Thankfully, I had a bulldog for a mother, she subscribed to the "me and mine" first doctrine, and she fought hard to get me into a position where I could actually learn rather than be warehoused until social services got me a sweet gig at the local McWendyKing.

It can be a transformative experiance, looking at your life as a 10 year old and realizing that if you want to amount to anything you have to fight, realizing that the adults in charge are wrong and even if they think they have your best interests in mind they're going to damn you if you don't stand up. Go to a school for children with learning/behavioral/emotional disabilities, take a good long look at how disobediance is treated. Take a look at how many children are medicated into a stupor for "their own good." Ask me how I knew so much about the 44 position, 4 point restraints, seclusion rooms and other prison punishment techniques before I hit puberty.

The "me first" doctrine is a survival strategy. It is the best way I have found for protecting my individual liberty. I don't like the concept of a collective society because I know what concessions you have to make for one to work and I am unwilling. I am unwilling to cede my liberty for someone else's concept of the greater good, I am unwilling to submit.

Economically collectivist doesn't nessicarily mean socially collectivist. It can be a society of equal individuals co-operateing for the good of all involved.

6 pints and a curry

When I first saw your name, I read it as "6 pints of curry" and I thought to my self, I thought "that's a fucking lot of curry"

i dissagree with your comments on drug laws or legalazation...

I think you misunderstood me. I firmly believe that you should be able to do whatever drug you want to do. It's your life, and it's your body. I was talking about what the LP should do policywise, if they seriously want to change America. My post refers to the specific situation within the U.S., and why the LP is a crummy third party with no hope of affecting the system.

You can't just say "legalize all drugs" in this country and hope to get elected. You have to change the system gradually. Which is why I propose the stepped approach, legalizing marijuana first, decriminalizing mushrooms and x, and only going after dealers of crack, meth, etc until society adjusts- which paves the way for eventual full legalization. I used to be a very active member of the LP- but I got sick of it. Everyone acts as if they are on some damn witch hunt, calling out people who aren't "libertarian enough", saying so and so shouldn't get the LP endorsement because they are not completely party line on every issue. Being the "party of principle" is all well and good on paper, but in practice it is a recipe for failure. Do the Republicrats kick people out of the party because they do not fall completely into line? No. That's why you have some pro-choice republicans, and democrats who favor the death penalty.

Until the LP wakes up and learns that if they want to change this country they have to adjust and play ball, rather then preaching from a soapbox, all they will be is out-of-the-loop idealists. I don't like to pay taxes either. But a platform of eliminating the income tax and legalizing all drugs immediately will NEVER get you elected. So you have to take things one step at a time. Legalize pot, go for the flat tax. In ten or twenty years, who knows. Think evolutionary, rather than revolutionary.

I'm no libertarian, but I personally think "libertarian left" and "libertarian right" are oxymorons. Both sides favor more freedom than the other in certain areas, and less freedom (if any) in other areas. Whereas, a true libertarian favors freedom in all areas.How is it possible to favor freedom in all areas? If you believe that you should be the only one to use a piece of property, you can't simultaneously believe that everyone should be able to use that piece of property. That's just one example.

This is rubbish... surely you know this? Neither in the US, nor anywhere else in the world, has 'personal sovereignty' been rooted in ownership by a monarchy. You seem to think our cultures came into being as whole units... integral and pre-delineated. Instead, our cultures are amalgamations of pragmatism... the US especially so.

The base unit of a society is the individual (hell, that's what the word means)... and an individual has only one 'god-given' right... and that is the right to be oneself. Every other 'right' we claim, is derived from that, or from our interactions with one another.

Freedom is about being the individual as much as possible. It is nothing to do with 'ownership', unles the individual makes it so.

Western liberty is NOT built on ownership - except in a negative sense... abolition of slavery being a REFUSAL of ownership, for example.

I see where you are coming from, I really do, but I still disagree. Individualism cannot really be separated from private ownership. In order to be oneself an individual needs to have certain abilities: the ability to say what they believe, think what they wish, gather as they like, believe what they choose, have the ability to defend these rights from external threats. While you might not feel that this is an example of ownership, it definately fits the bill to me. "Just because" isn't ever a good enough answer for me.

Why can you not rummage through my personal effects? Why is that wrong? Why can you not threaten me with violence if I refuse to do what you ask? Why is that wrong? Why can you not force me to believe in the religion you believe in? Why is that wrong? Why can you not prevent me from saying things you dislike? Why is that wrong? Ultimately "just because," "that is the way things are," or "god says so" aren't good enough reasons. The reason is that, in a society based upon individualism, the individual must be the final arbiter of it's own being and existance. In a society based upon the individual the right of the individual to do to determine it's own fate -even it's actions may not be good for society at large- is sacrosanct. The only exception to this is when the actions of an individual would directly infringe upon the right of a different individual (not group or class) to determine it's own fate.

Lets take this up one small level. Why can I not take your car if I need it? Why can I not appropriate a room in your home? Why can I not eat an apple from your tree? Because you own those thing and in our society ownership denotes the power to decide the usage and distribution of those resources owned. Ownership and individualism differ only in the resource being governed. I am what I am because I am mine an no other has the power to choose for me. In a society without property, the final explaination is lacking. Ultimately personal freedom becomes in excercise in whatever society allows. A benevolent society might allow a great deal of latitude, but no matter how broad the boarders, a cage is still a cage.



Abortion is so NOT a new concept.... I'm finding it hard to work out how to respond to that... women have been aborting for millenia.

Yes, and for exactly how long has it been anything other than a sin or a crime? In how many societies has it been considered acceptable? Abortion as an acceptable behavior is a new concept. Sure, there may have been some societies here and there that didn't recoil from it, but by and large it has been forbidden.

In the coldest light abortion is simply another questioin of ownership, of resource usage. I am pro-choice because I don't believe anyone has the authority to tell another individual how to use their own body. An unwanted pregnancy is an interloper, a tresspasser to be evicted as the owner of the property sees fit. I don't care if they child will be the next Einstein or the next Hitler, I don't care who the mother is or what kind of person she is, none of these things matter in the slightest. The individual is the only person with a right to decide how their body can be used, anyone who threatens that right (consciously, willingly, or not) is to be removed.

Traditionally, if a woman wanted to excercise this right she needed to do so in secret, avoiding the attention of all the others who claimed ownership over her (her family, her society, her husband, her child, her god). She had to put herself in serious danger in order to get an abortion. Today, we live in a slightly better world, a world where the law is supposed to recognize a woman's right to control her own body. She doesn't have to slink off to some back alley like a criminal, she can go to a clinic as a citizen. Personally, I feel she has the right take the life of anyone who would stand in her way.


I find it bizarre that you seem to think there is a necessity for a REASON to justify human 'rights'... like people can't just be pro-people for no reward.

A society based on the rule of law needs reasons and justification. It needs an explaination so that no one can challenge the right. There are evil people in the world who would take the rights of individuals to suit their own aims and a society based on law needs to have a defense against these individuals. I'm not lucky enough to believe in some benevolent father figure in the sky who will reach down and explain his commands to us. I don't believe in god-given rights. In the real world, individuals only have the rights they are strong enough to defend, and the law is a far more civilized weapon than the rifle or the sword.


You not heard of the Anasazi? Just - you know - worth noting that not ALL natives were 'nomadic'. However, it was almost universal among native peoples here that they did not own the land. They resided here. It supported them. The idea of owning the land is as ludicrous, in that circumstance, as the idea of 'ownng' God.

And what, exactly, do anthropologists suspect was their fate? Better yet, why is it that we have only anthropologists to speak for them?


Again.. something of a strawman. You are constructing instances to justify your capitalist viewpoint. Without PERSONAL ownership, such issues are, as ALL communal issues are, regulated by the will of the people. Your other strawman here is that you are using the capitalist value YOU apply to 'things' to attack the non-thing-orientated basis of communal living.

Ok, well, I'll come out and say it again, I don't trust the will of the people with my wellbeing. The will of the people has justified atrocity after atrocity in our time. Every genocide in history has had the backing of one group of people or another, from the crusades on up to the tribal warring in Africa. Which brings us to your next point...

You'll perhaps care to note, by the way, that the Trail of Tears was a direct result of those democratic capitalist values colliding with a communal group

An excellent point. What protected that communal group when faced with a hostile outside enemy? Communal groups depend on their neighbors goodness, they depend on peace and harmony that is simply not the mark of human beings. We're predators and scavengers, we're aggressive warmblooded beasts. A successful society has to be one that is designed to both channel those natural urges into productive venues and to safeguard against the most savage of it's members. Otherwise, the greedy and aggressive cripple you from within while the greedy and aggressive constantly push you back. I wish it weren't the case but, as my grandfather used to say, "dems da breaks."


So - you are pro-Eminent Domain, but anti-compensation? That doesn't sound very libertarian...

Either you're intentionally misunderstanding me or you weren't reading carefully. Removing the last three words of the 5th amendment would forbid takings for public use entirely. It would effectively remove the eminent domain power from the government toybox. Not for schools, not for parks, not for roads or taxes or economic development. The government must obtain land just like everyone else, with a checkbook, and if the owner isn't willing to sell then you just have to find somewhere else to build. Most public works projects are just a low bid contract for a friend anyway.



The community works it out. For the best interest of all, for the best interest of the community.

Should you build your outhouse by my kitchen window? The community can weigh up how desperately you need access to your outhouse, against the risks to health.

Again, that requires you to trust your community to defend you, and it requires that you be willing to allow the community to decide what is best for you. It is that second part that really disgusts me. "The best interest of all" is a nice way of saying mob rule.


What a collection of strange, and largely irrelevent questions. A collection of questions that are not unique to the situation of socialism or communal living... and that need feature no more prominently in that model... or be any harder to resolve in that model... than in the model you laud and magnify.

Are you blind? Those questions are neither strange nor irrelevant. They are, unfortunately, some of the most important questions in any political discussion. Yes, problems of racism, discrimination, and power are present in any system, but in a system where the "community" is the final arbiter, they are amplified. In a system based on property, if you move onto my land, you have to leave. It doesn't really matter if I'm black and you're white, because there is a simple formula to be followed to determine who is right. Discrimination is much more obvious in this case and, as a result, much easier to appeal. If the community decides (either by direct vote or by use of a tribunal/council/whatever) it can come to it's conclusion using any logic it wants. All that is required is an explaination of why they feel their ruling is best for the community, that shifts the burden of proof to me to prove that the community is wrong.

I don't do any of those things. You are, once again, trying to copy and paste your capitalist dream onto a socialist concept.

Stop dodging. I'll reword:

Explain to me how your communal society can feed 10,000 people without a beaureaucrat, without them all being farmers, and without every single one needing to go and gather the food themselves from a field. Explain to me how your communal soceity sustain a large urban collectivist population without beaureaucracy.

I am asking how you can manage to get vital resources to large numbers of people geographically removed from the source without resorting to a beaureaucratic system to distribution. How does farmer Bob get his carrots to Plumber Ted who lives and works 20 miles away and how does society ensure that neither Bob nor Ted abuses eachother in the process?

So - you were unlucky, and you got screwed, mainly because the world around you said "Me First". Your mom, on the other hand... said "For the greater good".

And now... you have embraced the tools of your tormentors. Four legs good....

No, the world around me made a calculated decision that it would be destructive to the greater good for me to be in the mainstream. Their logic was no doubt based on past experianc and a desire to distribute limited resources in such a way as to yield the maximum gain for society. There was no malice in ther decision, just a Millesque utilitarianism. My mother refused to abide by the ruling, and fought. There was every indicator that my being mainstreamed would lead to a reduction in the gains of those students who had to share a classroom with me. The only reason that wasn't true was because I was not a statistic, I wasn't the 50th percentile, I was an individual and I had a desire and a drive to succeed.

As for your assumption that I have embraced the tools of my tormenters, I'll use it to point out a small chink in your communal armor. I'm not the everyman of capitalism. I'm me, an individual. I'm working hard on a postgraduate degree, forgoing a chance at a lucrative career, digging myself into debt, because I want to put myself in a position to help save children like myself from getting trapped in the same system I was. I'm taking the hard road and studying and underutilized branch of psychology that I feel is best able to provide patients with the tools that they need to thrive.

Yeah, I'm sure it seems like a contradiction, but I really don't feel that it is. See, I don't have anything against working towards the common good, I feel that the best and brightest of society will and that it is my responsiblity as a citizen to do so. Hell, I'm trying to make sure that there are more people willing to do so in the future. I simply temper this hope with an understanding that there will always be people who don't care about the common good, people who don't respect individual rights, people who try to do the right thing but fail. I believe that a capitalist system rooted in individual freedoms, while imprefect, is best equipped to defend the individual. In my world view that equates to being best equipped to advance the greater good.

For the purposes of this thread, let's define right-wing libertarians as supporters of capitalism who support a limited and tiny government, and anarcho-capitalists as supporters of capitalism who support no government. For the purposes of simplicity, in the future when I say libertarians, I mean right-wing libertarians.

So the question is: what exactly do libertarians believe the purpose of government should be? More to the point, I want you to list the purpose, but also list the amount of time that you think realistically the government would be taking up with its business. For instance, you might have the purposes listed as courts (internal defense, or perhaps defense of private property), roads, army(external defense), and other things. So putting percentages to it might look like this:

Courts 45%
Roads 25%
Army 20%
Other things 5%

In other words, 45% of the government's business would be dealing with courts and those issues, etc.

The purpose of this thread is because I say that anarcho-capitalism over libertarianism (though I dislike both.) But my reasons why will make more sense if people answer in the fashion that I ask. Thank you.

Nonexistance 100%

Personally, I believe in personal property, as well as "collective" property, or property owned by no one. Like, I have cows, you have goats, we can trade them and shit as we please, but there's a common green over yonder we can both graze on.

Unfortunately, commons like that tend to be abused. Look at the problem of overfishing and of fishermen who routinely break quota. In social psychology this is referred to as the Commons Dilemma. Having commons can work well in small groups but as the groups expand it becomes more likely that individuals will exploit resources, see their own actions as having smaller impact, and have more trouble identifying with those harmed because they are less likely to have first-hand interactions with those people.

If anyone would like citations for the specific studies in which those results were found, just tell me and I'll dig them up. You'll probably need access to a university library or a large regional library that collects academic journals to read more than the abstracts, though.

Yuk! Who wants to be a farmer? (no offense to anyone who is a farmer - I just don't want to be one). It's a serious point though. Under liberal capitalism (and can capitalism be anything but liberal? hmm sounds like the subject for a new thread) people engage in voluntary exchange. Now, I might work out that I am best at, and so can gain much much more by, exchanging my skills at X (e.g. being a fashion designer for example) than at being a farmer.

Which (I bet) is going to become a serious problem in our society. Farmers get no respect and no money and (I think) they work way harder than most people. Young people are leaving farms because of this. Something needs to be done to keep people on farms so we'll still have food. Alothugh it probably would help the rest of the world if we bought all of our food from them, that would cause ridiculous instability. I'm not a farmer but I think someone needs to say it : Farming is important, stop treaitng our farmers like dirt!

Whoa, don't worry! If farm production drops the price of food will rise causing farmers to earn more revenue which they can use to pay higher wages to attract more employees or to invest in new technology. Once again the market saves the day!(as it always does)

Of course farm subsidies are completely ridiculous, they force third-world nations into poverty and steal from citizens of a country to give to other citizens, usually because farmers are becoming obsolete and uncompetitive(often as a result of regulation).

When I first saw your name, I read it as "6 pints of curry" and I thought to my self, I thought "that's a fucking lot of curry"

LOL: That would indeed be "a fucking lot of curry" :)

Originally Posted by 6 pints and a curry
Large socialist societies do trend toward statist systems. It's inevitable.

No. It's 'easy'. Not the same thing.

The Stanford Experiment is irrelevent, because it is about creating tiered societies.

The Stanford Experiment reference is relevant in the context I used it in. You correctly point out that corruption can exist in all societies. But I also pointed out that Socialist systems tend to have an aggregation of power owing to the presence of the information problem, which is absent or largely mitigated in capitalist systems. Owing to the greater concentration of power there is a greater likelihood of corruption in a socialist system then a capitalist system. That people are/can be corrupted is shown by the Stanford Uni experiment.


However, the advantage that a socialist society COULD have, is that socialism can be a leveller... bringing greater equality. While, capitalism BREEDS inequality... indeed, NEEDS it for it's very survival.


You're right - socialist society is a great leveller. It certainly levelled the Russian Kulaks and other 'class enemies' ... it levelled them about six feet under.


Originally Posted by 6 pints and a curry
[QUOTE=6 pints and a curry] Large socialist societies do trend toward statist systems. It's inevitable.

No. It's 'easy'. Not the same thing.

Which, even if you accept that view, is pretty damning in and of itself. It's 'easy' for a slide to statist system? History shows us that statist systems that trend towards pretty evil methods . Liberal capitalist systems trend toward freedom and civil rights. And anyway, I don't accept that view that it is easy and not inevitable. History also shows that socialist systems trend towards statism. And you still haven't addressed the socialist's information problem.

The Stanford Experiment reference is relevant in the context I used it in. You correctly point out that corruption can exist in all societies. But I also pointed out that Socialist systems tend to have an aggregation of power owing to the presence of the information problem, which is absent or largely mitigated in capitalist systems. Owing to the greater concentration of power there is a greater likelihood of corruption in a socialist system then a capitalist system. That people are/can be corrupted is shown by the Stanford Uni experiment.


But, my friend, you are making the same mistake we keep seeing. You've got passed the idea that corruption ONLY exists in socialist structures, but you are still thinking in purely 'modern-capitalist-democracy' terms about HOW government needs to take place. You cite 'concentration of power' as though it is inevitable in either model. Whereas, of course, NEITHER system 'needs' an excessive concentration of power, and both extremes actually tend AWAY from such concentrations.

And - again, we KNOW people CAN be corrupted, but the real revelation of Stanford was about 'tiered' societies.

Looking at modern politics, especially at the current problems facing the Republican Party, corruption seems to be pretty successful in (theoretically) 'democratic' capitalist societies.


You're right - socialist society is a great leveller. It certainly levelled the Russian Kulaks and other 'class enemies' ... it levelled them about six feet under.


Russian peasant farmers were not 'killed by Socialism', they were killed by a regime. Regimes, of many different flavours, have acted in fairly unfriendly fashions under a WEALTH of different banners.


Which, even if you accept that view, is pretty damning in and of itself. It's 'easy' for a slide to statist system? History shows us that statist systems that trend towards pretty evil methods . Liberal capitalist systems trend toward freedom and civil rights. And anyway, I don't accept that view that it is easy and not inevitable. History also shows that socialist systems trend towards statism. And you still haven't addressed the socialist's information problem.

It is 'easy'... but not inevitable.

History shows us that statist systems trend in given directions... but that is irrelevent to what SOCIALIST structures must/might do... because socialist structures don't HAVE TO BE statist structures.

Some people just LIKE to grab power. They do it in capitalist structures, and they do it in communist structures. But they are NOT the 'definition' of either.

Has history REALLY shown us that socialist structures trend towards statism? Maybe some of the RECENT history might head that way.... since many of the bloody uprisings of disenfranchised masses have followed semi-socialist agendas, in recent times... but a quick look at a historical OVERVIEW shows 'socialistic' communities dwelling in the US for thousands of years, before the 'democratic capitalists' turned up on their shores. ANd then slaughtered them.

I think the only purposes for the government are:

1) Ensure the safety of the people and their property from:
a) Other Citizens
b) Citizens of other countries
c) The government itself

2) Providing:
a) Clean water
b) Electricity
c) Natural Gas
d) Garbage Disposal


I see no other purpose for the government.

20% Courts and Police
40% Rehabilitation for Criminals, Drug Addicts and Homeless People
40% Deep Water Navy and Navy Airforce

Alright, The Sutured Psyche has made a pretty damn good argument up to this point, but I have one major barrier stopping me from believing that "that market will regulate everything and a capitalist system will protect everyone's rights." Explaine to me how a situation such as that in the US under the robber barrons/captains of industry would be prevented or resolved, with things like reduciously long work hours, little pay, unsafe conditions, virtual slavery to your employer, and the government (and by extantion that army) is in the hands of the few rich powerful, so they will do nothing to right the wrong?

(strangly worded, I'm sorry, but I think you get the point of my question. It's late, and I have little brain juice left.

Courts 45%
Roads 25%
Army 20%
Other things 5%

5% Budget Surplus?

Firstly, these considerations utterly defy hypothetical consideration. They must be considered in terms of a prevailing situation, however in terms of infrastructure, I prefer the private sector.

In fact, I would restrict access to government-run courts to those who cannot resolve their disputes through private arbitration, and introduce high user fees for government courts. Why? Because I don't see why I should foot the bill for idiots who can't act like ladies and gentlemen and solve their own disputes reasonably.

The purpose of government is certainly not protecting people from, or pandering to, the stupidity of certain citizens.

As to policing, I think the private sector shouldn't be frozen out by the state. Private security should be allowed, including the use of lethal force to protect the life, liberty, and property of the clients of the services. This leads into more complexs questions, such as what if the people of a street throw some cash into the pot and get themselves security, what should the limits be. I'd say the properties and the street itself, with the exception is traffic offences (excluding parking in that street).

Private sector armies? I think this is an area in which the state should retain control, although I cannot exclude the state hiring mercenaries.

A poster in this thread brought up the possibility of fire protection. Firstly, I think Jello Biafra's intention was to include it in courts, as he specified it as including all means of "internal protection". Secondly, insurance companies would fund fire brigades to fight fires on properties they protect, and, more importantly, prevent fires spreading from unprotected properties to protected properties. The state should not have a monopoly, but I do see it as having a legitimate role.

Explaine to me how a situation such as that in the US under the robber barrons/captains of industry would be prevented or resolved, with things like reduciously long work hours, little pay, unsafe conditions, virtual slavery to your employer, and the government (and by extantion that army) is in the hands of the few rich powerful, so they will do nothing to right the wrong?

Firstly, big business is a creature of the state. It gets big through institutions like eminent domain, regulation (which greatly increases the cost of doing business), and limited-liability.

Secondly, why would people want to work at such jobs? Under an unregulated free market, with the removal of limited-liability, there are no barriers to entry for new firms. Better pay and conditions will attract workers.

To keep government out, better constitutional arrangements are needed. If the interstate commerce clause, and eminent domain were kept out of the Consititution, they could not do the harm they've done.

Grave_n_idle, you haven't addressed the information problem. This is the biggest problem with socialism, there is no information upon which sound economic calculation can be made. In capitalism, there is.

Fish stocks are collapsing because there is no collective stewardship of the resource

Bollocks. No one is responsible for it, so they are depleted. Have you not read of "the tragedy of the commons". Individual ownership ensures good stewardship of resources, because no one wants to lose the value of what they have.

Your mom, on the other hand... said "For the greater good".

No, his mum acted in accordance with her biological instincts. She is a mammal (presumably), ergo she nurtures her children.

Or she may simply realise that her child is her meal ticket in old age.

How is it possible to favor freedom in all areas? If you believe that you should be the only one to use a piece of property, you can't simultaneously believe that everyone should be able to use that piece of property. That's just one example.

Because your freedoms can only extend to that which is yours. Once you believe (as the socialists do) that one has freedom over that which he doesn't own, we enter tyranny.

This is not a restriction on freedom because to restrict a freedom, it must have been there in the first place, and in the case of being "free" to do what one will with the property of others, that freedom never existed.

5% Budget Surplus?Perhaps, or possibly the amount of taxation would be so small that that 5% goes to the civil servants. Or not, it was just a hypothetical anyway. (Yes, I did make a math mistake, dammit.)

Firstly, these considerations utterly defy hypothetical consideration. They must be considered in terms of a prevailing situation, however in terms of infrastructure, I prefer the private sector.Was the idea of your country becoming libertarian not specific enough a prevailing situation?

Because your freedoms can only extend to that which is yours. Once you believe (as the socialists do) that one has freedom over that which he doesn't own, we enter tyranny.

This is not a restriction on freedom because to restrict a freedom, it must have been there in the first place, and in the case of being "free" to do what one will with the property of others, that freedom never existed.The socialist would argue that the freedom was there in the first place, and that all property is owned in common by everyone, and that capitalism usurped that freedom for its own convenience.

Perhaps, or possibly the amount of taxation would be so small that that 5% goes to the civil servants.

I figured that was part of the existing preferences, you know, the budget covers all the expenses of the particular function, including admininstrative civil servants.

Although 5% for a rainy day, requiring the sudden expansion of one or more of the functions seems prudent.

Yes, I did make a math mistake, dammit

You're forgiven.

Was the idea of your country becoming libertarian not specific enough a prevailing situation?

That's not what I was referring to. Regarding defence, the question is put in terms of the country's present position, the world situation (generally), and the country's neighbours. Regarding law and order, the amount of crime, and civil disputes requiring court action. Regarding infrastructure, the present state of infrastructure, and future needs.

Again, all too specific to be addressed by a hypothetical.

The socialist would argue that the freedom was there in the first place, and that all property is owned in common by everyone, and that capitalism usurped that freedom for its own convenience.

The argument is essentially fallacious.

Alright, The Sutured Psyche has made a pretty damn good argument up to this point, but I have one major barrier stopping me from believing that "that market will regulate everything and a capitalist system will protect everyone's rights." Explaine to me how a situation such as that in the US under the robber barrons/captains of industry would be prevented or resolved, with things like reduciously long work hours, little pay, unsafe conditions, virtual slavery to your employer, and the government (and by extantion that army) is in the hands of the few rich powerful, so they will do nothing to right the wrong?
And this is exactly where (and only where) voluntary Unions have a role.

Alright, The Sutured Psyche has made a pretty damn good argument up to this point, but I have one major barrier stopping me from believing that "that market will regulate everything and a capitalist system will protect everyone's rights." Explaine to me how a situation such as that in the US under the robber barrons/captains of industry would be prevented or resolved, with things like reduciously long work hours, little pay, unsafe conditions, virtual slavery to your employer, and the government (and by extantion that army) is in the hands of the few rich powerful, so they will do nothing to right the wrong?

(strangly worded, I'm sorry, but I think you get the point of my question. It's late, and I have little brain juice left.


A good pack of questions. As a libertarian I am for a free market, theres a reason for that first word. A monopolized industry isn't part of a free market, it is every bit as harmful as a government monoploy, and neither is really a free market. If you believe that the main job of the government is to protect the liberty of citizens, then the government must play the referee in the market sometimes. Antitrust laws are a good way to start, as are laws that limit certain predatory buisness practices and false advertising. In a free market corporations are individuals and are treated as such, there is nothing wrong with punishing them if they attempt to infringe upon the liberty of others.

The next part of your question regards labor practices and even I'll admit that it is a difficult issue. Circumstances will always, to some degree, be bad for unskilled laborers. Anyone can flip a burger or dig a ditch, so the power in that interaction tilts rather severely towards the employer. Skilled workers are in something of a better position, and they get better off the more skills they offer. The American economy is shifting towards a skilled economy, there isn't much of a demand for assembly line workers, so I feel that this issue isn't all that important.

While I am reflexively suspicious of government invovlement, I am open to some degree of legislation in this area. No single political system is perfect, and if we want to really get libertarianism working there will have to be some compromise. I'd want to see alot of work by skilled individuals put into the crafting of laws designed to protect laborers, but I'm not against them as a concept.

The final issue you raised is one of the dark ones. Corruption is inevitable. Every government in history has eventually devolved into a tyranny run by powerful interests. Thankfully, a libertarian world view has a solution built right in, though it is kind of an ugly one. A free populace is an armed populace, and armies are staffed by citizens. If things get bad enough, armed revolution should always be on the table as a political last resort. I know, it isn't some elegant systematic solution to the problem of corruption but lets face it, sometimes you cannot simply abide injustice for generations while you wait for your opressors to grant you your freedom. Sometimes you just have to kill a lot of people.

The socialist would argue that the freedom was there in the first place, and that all property is owned in common by everyone, and that capitalism usurped that freedom for its own convenience.

Umm...maybe if you're a biblical literalist. Unless you believe that the world was created by god(s) and then some terrible evil happened to upset the balance, socialism isn't the natural order of things. Tribal tyrannies based on leadership decided by monomacy are the default. Animals don't share resources they fight over them and the winners get to use the resources, the losers get to starve/dehydrate/be eaten. More importantly, animals with the highest degrees of social order are also the ones who defend their resources with the highest level of violence (ants, bees, and wasps are a good example).

I can understand an argument for socialism that revolves around the concept of socialism being used to subvert our base nature (hell, capitalism is just a method of sublimating our anti-social urders and channeling that energy into productive venues), but the idea that socialism is the default way of things is laughable.

That's not what I was referring to. Regarding defence, the question is put in terms of the country's present position, the world situation (generally), and the country's neighbours. Regarding law and order, the amount of crime, and civil disputes requiring court action. Regarding infrastructure, the present state of infrastructure, and future needs.By position, what exactly are you referring to? It doesn't seem to be geographic position, since you state that also.

The argument is essentially fallacious.The communist would argue that the capitalist's argument is the one that's fallacious.

Umm...maybe if you're a biblical literalist. Unless you believe that the world was created by god(s) and then some terrible evil happened to upset the balance, socialism isn't the natural order of things. Tribal tyrannies based on leadership decided by monomacy are the default. There have been plenty of tribes that weren't tyrannical and ran on what was basically a communist manner. Cooperation is the natural order of things for humans, not competition.

Animals don't share resources they fight over them and the winners get to use the resources, the losers get to starve/dehydrate/be eaten. More importantly, animals with the highest degrees of social order are also the ones who defend their resources with the highest level of violence (ants, bees, and wasps are a good example). There are plenty of animals who share resources. For instance those very ants you mentioned have been known to help each other out. And let's not get started on apes or penguins.

1) What restrictions, if any, would you permit to impose upon property? (Some of you have answered this already.)

2a)Is a person's body their property?
2b) If yes, who does a child's body belong to?

By position, what exactly are you referring to? It doesn't seem to be geographic position, since you state that also.

I didn't also mention geography. I mentioned the country's hypothetical neighbours, referring to their policies. Geography is important for several reasons. A landlocked country will need to spend less than a country with a coast line, all other things being equal. A country like Switzerland need not field extensive forces of maneuver. Small nations may not need so much strategic mobility. Archipeligo's need highly deployable forces and that costs.

Also, the general need may be reduced because a libertarian government won't engage in "trade wars", which tend to lead to the more familiar kind of war.

However, my point stands, these questions are two specific to be definitively addressed in a hypothetical situation, as they are purely situational.

You have listed the proper priorities (basically, the roads point is debatable), however making exact projections of the proper proportions with the information you gave is impossible, and were more information, the proportioning would merely reflect the specifics of the situation.

The communist would argue that the capitalist's argument is the one that's fallacious.

The communist must neglict self-ownership, the phenomenon of "homesteading" (mixing your labour with "virgin" natural resources)

There have been plenty of tribes that weren't tyrannical and ran on what was basically a communist manner.

An extended family doesn't lend support to your arguments. Families tend to be urn in such a manner, and only work because of the biological bonds. They can not be said to show that there is a way in general society.

Cooperation is the natural order of things for humans, not competition.

That applies only in the tribal situation, which is basically an extended family.


To enforce any real socialism on a society that is more than an extended family, a thorough tyranny is needed.

1) What restrictions, if any, would you permit to impose upon property? (Some of you have answered this already.)

Your rights extend to what you own. It is as simple as that.

It therefore follows that you cannot use your property to help violate the rights of another.

This cannot be defined as a real restriction, because restricting something implies a prior right to it.

2a)Is a person's body their property?

Yes.

2b) If yes, who does a child's body belong to?

The child, however the control should be exercised by the parents. If not by the parents, then those who wish to, provided the child's rights and welfare is respected. The absence of that respect equals the relinguishment of responsiblity, meaning the child must leave them, and go to someone else.

You have listed the proper priorities (basically, the roads point is debatable), however making exact projections of the proper proportions with the information you gave is impossible, and were more information, the proportioning would merely reflect the specifics of the situation.Fair enough. All right, to be more specific, do you think your country would have a crime problem if this suddenly happened?

The communist must neglict self-ownership, the phenomenon of "homesteading" (mixing your labour with "virgin" natural resources)But nonetheless land itself is not the product of anyone's labor.

Your rights extend to what you own. It is as simple as that.

It therefore follows that you cannot use your property to help violate the rights of another.

This cannot be defined as a real restriction, because restricting something implies a prior right to it.Would it be acceptable for people to lay claim to the air or to water sources?

The child, however the control should be exercised by the parents. If not by the parents, then those who wish to, provided the child's rights and welfare is respected. The absence of that respect equals the relinguishment of responsiblity, meaning the child must leave them, and go to someone else.Would the government step in and ensure that the children whose welfare isn't being respected would go to someone else?

Fair enough. All right, to be more specific, do you think your country would have a crime problem if this suddenly happened?

All countries have a crime problem. The introduction of a libertarian government would greatly reduce the crime problem, even if only by abandoning the failed, tyrannical farce of drug prohibition (why the US persued drug prohibition, after the extremely costly, and bloody failures of alcohol prohibition, and the utter failure of unfashionable-gun prohibition is too damned perplexing for me, there's a saying about insanity, and people doing the same thing to get a different result)

There would also be the removal of the so-called offences, which are not criminal (villification laws, for example)

But nonetheless land itself is not the product of anyone's labor.

That the land has value is a result of the combination of labour with it. A natural "resource" is totally valueless until human labour turns it into something useful.

Would it be acceptable for people to lay claim to the air or to water sources?

Your question doesn't seem that well thought out. You may well say "air, air, everywhere, so everybody inhale", but if a chap is underwater, inhaling tends to be a little dangerous. A lethal teaspoon. One can combine one's labour with air (among other things), and produce breathing equipment for many applications.

As to water, you speak as though it is highly common in useful quantities. Less than 1% of the Earth's surface is covered in water which we can use. People combine their labour with it, with the result that when you turn on the tap, water flows out.

Would the government step in and ensure that the children whose welfare isn't being respected would go to someone else?

If you mean they'd ask for people willing and able to do so, then yes. If you mean government run "foster" care, then no.

The government certainly has a role in terms of investigating violation of childrens' rights, and punishing the criminals.

All countries have a crime problem. The introduction of a libertarian government would greatly reduce the crime problem, even if only by abandoning the failed, tyrannical farce of drug prohibition (why the US persued drug prohibition, after the extremely costly, and bloody failures of alcohol prohibition, and the utter failure of unfashionable-gun prohibition is too damned perplexing for me, there's a saying about insanity, and people doing the same thing to get a different result)How about crimes against property? Would they be likely to increase?

That the land has value is a result of the combination of labour with it. A natural "resource" is totally valueless until human labour turns it into something useful.This only means that the laborer has the right to the product of his labor + the resource, not the resource itself.

Your question doesn't seem that well thought out. You may well say "air, air, everywhere, so everybody inhale", but if a chap is underwater, inhaling tends to be a little dangerous. A lethal teaspoon. One can combine one's labour with air (among other things), and produce breathing equipment for many applications.

As to water, you speak as though it is highly common in useful quantities. Less than 1% of the Earth's surface is covered in water which we can use. People combine their labour with it, with the result that when you turn on the tap, water flows out.True, but that isn't owning the right to the source of the air or water itself, simply some of the air and water.

If you mean they'd ask for people willing and able to do so, then yes. If you mean government run "foster" care, then no.What happens if nobody is willing and able to do so?

How about crimes against property? Would they be likely to increase?

They will be greatly reduced, as the state is the main agent committing such crimes. As for the "private sector", ending drug probition (without the exhorbitant taxes that some advocates of "decriminalisation") will tend to reduce such crimes, just as the ending of booze prohibition in the US did.

This only means that the laborer has the right to the product of his labor + the resource, not the resource itself.

If you're talking about normal employment, the worker is provided the resources which are the property of another already. If you're talking about homesteading, you nowhere near the mark.

It is not a resource without his labour, because without his labour, it is useless. That which has no use cannot be a resource.

No one else has a claim on it (remember, we are discussing homesteading of "virgin" stuff), only the chap homesteading.

True, but that isn't owning the right to the source of the air or water itself, simply some of the air and water.

So what? It doesn't change the validity of my argument. They own that portion of the air and water with which their labour is combined.

What happens if nobody is willing and able to do so?

What if the world blew up this very second? It is an absurd objection. The fact is that such people do exist, and are keen to take care of children.

There have been plenty of tribes that weren't tyrannical and ran on what was basically a communist manner. Cooperation is the natural order of things for humans, not competition.

There are plenty of animals who share resources. For instance those very ants you mentioned have been known to help each other out. And let's not get started on apes or penguins.

Maybe you grew up in an area that didn't have many ants, but ants only help eachother if they are from the same colony, any and that smells like "the other" is killed. As for apes, let me ask you this, in your average gathering of great apes, how many fully mature adult males are there in a single community? What happens when two fully mature adult males meet? Are you familiar with the rather common practice of non-dominant male chimpanzees stealing and killing young chimpanzees?

Anyway, back to your initial response. You are right that cooperation is the natural order of things for humans and you are right. We are a tribal people. That doesn't really have much of an effect on my statement that humans are brutal and tyrannical. Human beings cooperate and share resources within their social group but, like ants, they are hostile to those of other groups. There is not a culture on earth that does has not warred with other humans as far back as they can remember. Think of all the stories, all the archetypes that you see in culture after culture. What generally defines a hero? What do Arthur, Beowulf, Gilgamesh, Ulysses, Khan, Mulan, Boone, Rambo, and Batman all have in common? They cross cultures, times, and tastes, yet every single one's story would be immediately recognizable in any culture on earth. They are the warrior-kings, the tribal heroes, the individuals who (for various cultural reasons) go out and do violance against those who threaten their social circle.

Why is it that every culture on earth knows what genocide is? Why is it that every major power on earth has committed genocide at some point in it's past? Collectivism is a concept that has existed far longer in Asia than in the West, why is it that they have always had borders, always had war? The reality is that when resources are scarce, animals compete. It is good survival strategy to bring those close to you into a coopertive relationship, because that means that you will be more able to obtain and defend necessary resources. In the real world obtaining and holding resources almost always means doing so at the expense of others, especially for predators. Yeah, we have pants and forks and widescreen TVs and guilt. but at the end of the day human beings are still pack predators and we cooperate because that makes it easier to compete.

1) What restrictions, if any, would you permit to impose upon property? (Some of you have answered this already.)

2a)Is a person's body their property?
2b) If yes, who does a child's body belong to?

1) I would only restrict property in order to prevent the actual sale of human beings and to prevent the monopolization of vital resources (Lake Michigan can't be owned by John Smith, though he could own pumping stations).

2) Yes, a person's body is their property, period. They only exception to this is when someone has been convicted of a crime and is deprived of their liberty through due process as a form of punishment. Yes, this extends to the death penalty.

2a) It belongs to the child with the child's legal guardian acting as executor.

You know what we need? The great workers revolution! freedom for the politerat! long live unions, long live socializied health care and education! Long live comrade Lenin! libertarianism is against the workers

They will be greatly reduced, as the state is the main agent committing such crimes. As for the "private sector", ending drug probition (without the exhorbitant taxes that some advocates of "decriminalisation") will tend to reduce such crimes, just as the ending of booze prohibition in the US did.The state isn't prosecuted for such crimes, I was talking about crimes which people are prosecuted for. I see your point about drug and booze prohibition; the cost would go down if they we legalized and undated and so people wouldn't need to steal as often to feed their habits.

If you're talking about normal employment, the worker is provided the resources which are the property of another already. If you're talking about homesteading, you nowhere near the mark.

It is not a resource without his labour, because without his labour, it is useless. That which has no use cannot be a resource No one else has a claim on it (remember, we are discussing homesteading of "virgin" stuff), only the chap homesteading.Certainly coal is useless without someone to dig it up, but all that means is that everyone should be entitled to the coal that they dig up. Why would someone have the right to restrict others' ability to use their own labor to dig up the coal?

So what? It doesn't change the validity of my argument. They own that portion of the air and water with which their labour is combined.I was referring to things like rivers. Should someone be able to own a river? Should someone be able to own the air over a certain area?

What if the world blew up this very second? It is an absurd objection. The fact is that such people do exist, and are keen to take care of children.The fact is that there are children living in state-run orphanages now. I fail to see why this would change within your system.

Anyway, back to your initial response. You are right that cooperation is the natural order of things for humans and you are right. We are a tribal people. That doesn't really have much of an effect on my statement that humans are brutal and tyrannical. Human beings cooperate and share resources within their social group but, like ants, they are hostile to those of other groups.So then in order to have world peace, that means it would be a good idea to unite everyone within one social group, right?

2a) It belongs to the child with the child's legal guardian acting as executor.Does this mean that child prostitution is acceptable as long as the child and the child's legal guardian are okay with it?

Does this mean that child prostitution is acceptable as long as the child and the child's legal guardian are okay with it?

What it means is that a Libertarian does not necessarily accept the right of the State to interfere in right and wrong.

1. We detect a phenomenon.
2. We decide this phenomenon is wrong.
3. It is the State's business to right all wrongs.
4. Therefore, it is the State's business to right the wrongness of this phenomenon.
Valid reasoning? Not necessarily so.

A Libertarian takes exception to point 3.
He or she thinks that point 3 is limited by the 9th and 10th Ammendment.
And if he or she reads the Constitution again, he or she will come to the conclusion that the State may not interfere in prostitution ( a commercial activity ) - UNLESS that prostitution involves an element of Interstate Commerce.

Roberts was spot on in his Hapless Toad argument.

What it means is that a Libertarian does not necessarily accept the right of the State to interfere in right and wrong.

1. We detect a phenomenon.
2. We decide this phenomenon is wrong.
3. It is the State's business to right all wrongs.
4. Therefore, it is the State's business to right the wrongness of this phenomenon.
Valid reasoning? Not necessarily so.

A Libertarian takes exception to point 3.
He or she thinks that point 3 is limited by the 9th and 10th Ammendment.
And if he or she reads the Constitution again, he or she will come to the conclusion that the State may not interfere in prostitution ( a commercial activity ) - UNLESS that prostitution involves an element of Interstate Commerce.

Roberts was spot on in his Hapless Toad argument.I don't know that all libertarians agree. Disraeliland 3 is a libertarian, and he said that the welfare of the child must be protected.

I don't know that all libertarians agree. Disraeliland 3 is a libertarian, and he said that the welfare of the child must be protected.


What it means is that a Libertarian does not necessarily accept the right of the State to interfere in right and wrong.

Sure.
does not necessarily

One question has always knawed at me about Right-Wing Libertarianism. If public money is to be devoted to solely defence matters and legal system; in what shape or form would the penal system exist?

Would it seek to rehabilitate or punish?

Sure.
does not necessarilyBut the "right and wrong" in question was the specific instance of child prostitution, not right and wrong in general. I suppose it was a miscommunication between us.

One question has always knawed at me about Right-Wing Libertarianism. If public money is devoted to solely defence and legal system; in what shape or form does the penal system entail?

Does is seek to rehabilitate or punish?

On the record?
It just seeks to keep the creeps out of our way.

Off the record?
To exercise sadism. Just as it does so in all 'honest' legal systems.
Corporal punishment remains forever popular for the sole reason that most people have a sadistic streak a mile wide. And the notion of 'justice' makes us feel selfrighteous about exercising our sadism. Punishment is the perfect excuse to do whatever you have in mind.

*shrug* take a good look at public reaction to Abu Ghraib. Is there any possibility that public reaction was so ...ineffectual... because most people just plain enjoyed the whole show?

What about the endless popularity for hanging teenage girls for whatever infraction can be thought of in places like Iran?
I'm not saying the Iranians are worse than you and me. Sadism is human.
We may never admit it... but we are delighted and fascinated by the idea of a hapless young female slowly being tortured to death for all to see.

Now, it being a GIVEN that we all delight in cruel bloodsport, a wise Libertarian is EXTREMELY cautious about giving anyone ( most especially the State! ) the power to punish. We know Man for what he is...

But the "right and wrong" in question was the specific instance of child prostitution, not right and wrong in general. I suppose it was a miscommunication between us.


I don't think so. You used an extreme example. I decided to come up with a generic example, despite being sorely tempted to make abortion the example instead.

Trust me... the repeated use of the term 'not necessarily' was on purpose.

Furthermore, we might vastly differ in our definition of child.
You might consider prostitution by a 17 year old to be a form of child prostitution. I might counter that I do not consider 17 to be a child.

That being so, I generalise, and make judicious use of the phrase 'not necessarily'.

On the record?
It just seeks to keep the creeps out of our way.

Off the record?
To exercise sadism. Just as it does so in all 'honest' legal systems.
Corporal punishment remains forever popular for the sole reason that most people have a sadistic streak a mile wide. And the notion of 'justice' makes us feel selfrighteous about exercising our sadism. Punishment is the perfect excuse to do whatever you have in mind.

*shrug* take a good look at public reaction to Abu Ghraib. Is there any possibility that public reaction was so ...ineffectual... because most people just plain enjoyed the whole show?

What about the endless popularity for hanging teenage girls for whatever infraction can be thought of in places like Iran?
I'm not saying the Iranians are worse than you and me. Sadism is human.
We may never admit it... but we are delighted and fascinated by the idea of a hapless young female slowly being tortured to death for all to see.

Now, it being a GIVEN that we all delight in cruel bloodsport, a wise Libertarian is EXTREMELY cautious about giving anyone ( most especially the State! ) the power to punish. We know Man for what he is...

An interesting point about human nature. While I am merely a social liberal and an economic centrist, I do concur that we are just as likely as human beings to be cruel and sadistic as we are to be generous and compassionate.

In many of the threads concerning torture, I have seen the argument that it should never be used on the grounds that it is dehumanising to both the torturor and the tortured; I would argue that it is actually a very human action. That is not to say I don't oppose torture on all grounds and circumstances; I do. I reason that if we torture our fellow man and woman, that while fulfilling our nature as humans, it destroys any ground of moral superiority we may have and ruins our chances at progressing from humanity to a state more noble.

So, to continue, if a wise libertarian is concerned about the power of punishment, does that mean that they would support rehabilitation by some means?

An interesting point about human nature. While I am merely a social liberal and an economic centrist, I do concur that we are just as likely as human beings to be cruel and sadistic as we are to be generous and compassionate.

In many of the threads concerning torture, I have seen the argument that it should never be used on the grounds that it is dehumanising to both the torturor and the tortured; I would argue that it is actually a very human action. That is not to say I don't oppose torture on all grounds and circumstances; I do. I reason that if we torture our fellow man and woman, that while fulfilling our nature as humans, it destroys any ground of moral superiority we may have and ruins our chances at progressing from humanity to a state more noble.

So, to continue, if a wise libertarian is concerned about the power of punishment, does that mean that they would support rehabilitation by some means?

Depends on the Libertarian you ask.
If you ask me, I'd argue that spending money on, say, handicraft-classes in prisons is a better idea than spending the same money on more electric chairs.

Why? Because I think BOTH facilities ( handicraftclasses and old sparkies ) will be used to the max.
While I remain sceptical about the notion that rehab works, it is only a nuisance.
On the other hand, I'm darned sure that if we build another Old Sparky, 99 out of 100 jurors, judges, and what have you not, will develop a tight niche focus on setting folks in the frying pan.

I don't necessarily believe in progress ( how irascible and unreasonable of me! ) but I most necessarily disbelieve in returning to the Dark Age!

I vote for rehab and keep my fingers crossed... for I shudder in fear when I think of Human Nature and the urge to selfrighteously punish!

Do I advocate spending more money on the legal system? No I don't, and would not have to.
There will always be a plethora of panderers who WILL use whatever crimerate there is as an excuse to spend more and more. Better that the new expenditure be pointless than downright negative.

I don't necessarily believe in progress ( how irascible and unreasonable of me! ) but I most necessarily disbelieve in returning to the Dark Age!

Your statement could be seen as confusing.
It could be argued that in order to not advocate a return to the Dark Age, one might logically have to believe that some form of progress exists.

Surely for there to be a possibility of regress, there is to have existed some form of progress?

Perhaps you do believe in some form of progress?

I don't think so. You used an extreme example. I decided to come up with a generic example, despite being sorely tempted to make abortion the example instead. I used an extreme example because it is an example that is outside of the typical libertarian realm of focus. Libertarians are against "victimless crimes" being illegal - crimes that only hurt the individual committing them. Prostitution is an example of such a thing.
Are victimless crimes things that the government shouldn't interfere with, whether or not they're wrong? If so, then what would be the reasoning behind the government interfering with child prostitution? (By child prostitution, I mean the realm of childhood between birth and legal adulthood.) Or would the government not interfere with such a thing?

So then in order to have world peace, that means it would be a good idea to unite everyone within one social group, right?

To quote John Lennon "[w]e'd all love to see the plan."

Does this mean that child prostitution is acceptable as long as the child and the child's legal guardian are okay with it?

A trap. Your question forgets that children, by definition, are treated differently by the law. A child cannot consent, enter into a legal contract, or work. A guardian cannot change that because they are not the owner of the child, merely the steward.

Lets say I asked you to watch my house while I was on an extended journey. Would any rational mind construe your responsibility to extend to selling my couch, having a party in my basement, painting my siding orange, or putting my property on the market? In any real life situation you would be in the wrong if you did those things, your friends and neighbors would look down upon you for your irresponsibility, and you could very well be in an actionable position.

A trap. Your question forgets that children, by definition, are treated differently by the law. A child cannot consent, enter into a legal contract, or work. A guardian cannot change that because they are not the owner of the child, merely the steward.

I was ganna answer the child prostitution question, but SP summed it up nicely.

One thing that gets me is that everything goes back to property rights. You say you own your body, and that's where rights come from. I say you cannot own your body, because you *are* your body. For something to be owned (your body) implies an other, and owner. I just see it as an unnessicary step.

You say rights such as free speach come from property rights, that they can't just come from nowhere. Where do property rights come from.

For you, it's a given that one has property rights. For me, it's a given that one has the right to do as once pleases.

Capitalism is, unfortunately, just naturally selfish... which is why it will last such a long time, and why it will have to go before our civilisation reaches it's 'next level'.

Rubbish. Humans are selfish. The real debate is which way puts selfishness to the use which is least harmful/most beneficial.

It is capitalism hands down. History shows it.

The state isn't prosecuted for such crimes, I was talking about crimes which people are prosecuted for. I see your point about drug and booze prohibition; the cost would go down if they we legalized and undated and so people wouldn't need to steal as often to feed their habits.

If you are talking about breaking the law, say so. Talking about crime is different. Crime is an assault on the life, liberty, and property of others. As to your distinction over crimes against property, it is not a distinction that should be made, crimes against life and liberty are just as immoral, and just as deserving of punishment, and severe punishment at that.

Certainly coal is useless without someone to dig it up, but all that means is that everyone should be entitled to the coal that they dig up. Why would someone have the right to restrict others' ability to use their own labor to dig up the coal?

There is no reason, but if I buy a piece of land which happens to bear coal in commercially useful concentrations, you can't mine on it without my permission. They are entitled to that coal they dig up from land they already own, or land which is unowned by anyone. As I said "virgin resources" can be homesteaded.

Of course, coal itself is a more complex problem. You could buy some land, and dig coal yourself, or stake a claim on unowned land and dig, but if I get investors on board, buy a large amount of land with coal, hire miners, and buy good tools, you won't be selling much coal, as I would produce more at less cost.

I was referring to things like rivers. Should someone be able to own a river? Should someone be able to own the air over a certain area?

Why not?

The fact is that there are children living in state-run orphanages now. I fail to see why this would change within your system.

State-run "charity" crowds out private charity. People are concerned, but they think "the government does it, so I don't have to".

One question has always knawed at me about Right-Wing Libertarianism. If public money is to be devoted to solely defence matters and legal system; in what shape or form would the penal system exist?

The penal system is part of the legal system (the question you have asked is not actually a question about libertarianism, it is a misunderstanding of the verious terms libertarians use). When Libertarians talk about courts, or legal systems, what we tend to mean is a complete justice system, laws, administration of laws (courts), and enforcement of laws, and administration of law (prisons, people used to collect the payments arising from suits)

That this must be provided is accepted. How is a matter of debate. Were it my decision, I would look at who provides the best service for the best price. As to the focus, I would vary that depending on the criminal.

I would like to add that rehabilitation is largely a failure, but prison isn't a good solution in all cases. I think there is a great deal of currency in the view that it is better to give a minor criminal some lashes, and send him on his way (after having seen the nurse, of course!), than to lock him up for 6-12 months during which time he learns to be a professional criminal.

So then in order to have world peace, that means it would be a good idea to unite everyone within one social group, right?

Not necessary. What the world needs is liberty, private property, and trade. And a f***ing lot less government! Where goods cross borders, soldiers don't. Restrictions on trade by government tend to cause wars.

Does this mean that child prostitution is acceptable as long as the child and the child's legal guardian are okay with it?

A child is not capable of giving informed consent for sex. They will tend to follow the guardian.

Prostitution is a commercial activity, but the question is should a child be allowed to engage in that form of commercial activity. I do not accept that it is the same as selling lemonade, or doing a newspaper route because it requires a child to do something it is not capable of doing (providing informed consent for sex).

Since a child cannot provide informed consent to sex (I am referring to young children, for the sake of clarity, for people of 16 up, considerations must become more situational), child prostitution becomes a form of fraud.

As to the setting of the age, it is a continuum question (where do we set the line). As such all we are likely to get is agreement in terms of the extremes (e.g. I think we can all agree that 3 years old is too young), and continual argument over the exact placement. It is up to the individual to make up his own mind, or possibly compromise over the exact point. For me, I'd say 16 is the best point, based on my experience, and ideas.

to prevent the monopolization of vital resources (Lake Michigan can't be owned by John Smith, though he could own pumping stations).

Resource monopolies are a myth. They can only survive with the state's grant of privilige. Without the latter, people will simply use the alternatives.

You know what we need? The great workers revolution! freedom for the politerat! long live unions, long live socializied health care and education! Long live comrade Lenin! libertarianism is against the workers

Socialist governments have murdered 170 million workers. Libertarian/classical liberal governments have murdered none.

Socialism is against the workers, it is a system or murder, torture, and slavery.

A trap. Your question forgets that children, by definition, are treated differently by the law. A child cannot consent, enter into a legal contract, or work. A guardian cannot change that because they are not the owner of the child, merely the steward.I understand that currently children are treated differently by current laws, but I was thinking that this would be different in your system.
The reason why I believed it would be different comes, of course, to the issue of property. You say that a child's body is the property of the child. But if a child cannot consent, then this means that the child cannot do what he or she wants with his or her own property - in this case, the child's body. Essentially a law against sex with minors is a law against property rights.
So that's the reason that I brought this up - how do you reconcile having laws (or at least a law) against a person's using their own property when you believe they should be upheld to the utmost degree? This isn't a case of someone using their property to interfere with that of another, otherwise it would make sense.

If you are talking about breaking the law, say so. Talking about crime is different. Crime is an assault on the life, liberty, and property of others. As to your distinction over crimes against property, it is not a distinction that should be made, crimes against life and liberty are just as immoral, and just as deserving of punishment, and severe punishment at that.I made the distinction because I believed that crimes against property would go up, and still do, although not as severely due to the point about drug legalization. I don't see why a switch to a libertarian system would cause other crime rates to do up, though.

There is no reason, but if I buy a piece of land which happens to bear coal in commercially useful concentrations, you can't mine on it without my permission. They are entitled to that coal they dig up from land they already own, or land which is unowned by anyone. As I said "virgin resources" can be homesteaded.Right, but that brings us back to the original point - why does homesteading allow a person to restrict a tract of land from other people's use?

Why not?Who would you buy the river or the air from? Could you simply "claim" it?

State-run "charity" crowds out private charity. People are concerned, but they think "the government does it, so I don't have to".State-run charity has been proven necessary since private charity doesn't go far enough.

I understand that currently children are treated differently by current laws, but I was thinking that this would be different in your system.
The reason why I believed it would be different comes, of course, to the issue of property. You say that a child's body is the property of the child. But if a child cannot consent, then this means that the child cannot do what he or she wants with his or her own property - in this case, the child's body. Essentially a law against sex with minors is a law against property rights.
So that's the reason that I brought this up - how do you reconcile having laws (or at least a law) against a person's using their own property when you believe they should be upheld to the utmost degree? This isn't a case of someone using their property to interfere with that of another, otherwise it would make sense.

The point is that children are in fact different. They lack the ability to make the informed decisions necessary.

What you don't seem to be getting is that rights go hand in hand with responsibility. Children, due to their lack of maturity cannot be expected to fulfill their responsibilities, so others exercise their rights for them.

A libertarian system can't change the fact that children aren't grown up (at least we don't claim to be able to change human nature!)

This relates very much to child sex being criminal. For sex to be considered OK, there must be mutual, informed consent. Since children cannot make such a decision, due to their lack of maturity, child sex cannot be said to ever have mutual, informed consent.

As to where the line should be drawn, I draw your attention to my previous post.

I made the distinction because I believed that crimes against property would go up, and still do, although not as severely due to the point about drug legalization. I don't see why a switch to a libertarian system would cause other crime rates to do up, though.

The assertion that crimes against property would go up has no basis. Firstly, the principal agent of crimes against property will be brought into line (namely the state and its clients, you simply cannot dismiss this by claiming that the state doesn't committ crimes, a crime is an assault against life, liberty, and/or property, and during the last one hundred years, the principal agent of such crimes has been the state).

Secondly, since private property will be enshrined as one of the three cardinal principles of a libertarian state, the means of defending it become legitimate. In Britain, crimes against property are skyrocketing, this is partly because property owners who try to defend their property against aggression are treated as criminals.

Thirdly, commercial operations which are considered now illigitimate will become quite legal, drugs being the main one. I shall refer you back to alcohol prohibition. Prohibition meant that the alcohol trade was taken over entirely by criminal gangs, who used criminal methods to do business (rather than economic methods). Where alcohol is legal, the trade in it no longer attracts organised criminals, but normal entrepeneurs.

Fourth, genuine property rights would mean that one could own, without restrictions, such property which is necessary for defence, and this property can be effective. An asthmatic, who cannot use pepper spray, can have a pistol. Cricket bats under the counter can give way to shotguns.

Civilian disarmament increases violent crime (in a dictatorship, this means crime by the state, in a more free society, it means normal criminals), but is something which cannot happen in a state in which property rights are enshrined.

Current events, and history show that crimes against property increase where property rights are undermined. Britain is an example, as I indicated earlier (another point, more and more burglaries are taking place in occupied homes, in places where self-defence of life, liberty, and property are considered good things, burglaries tend to happen less, and mainly in unoccupied houses)

Right, but that brings us back to the original point - why does homesteading allow a person to restrict a tract of land from other people's use?

Since there is no existing claim, it is a finders-keepers situation (which is a thread that runs through all my posts on this topic, you should have seen it, with my references to "virgin resources", and the lack of reference to previous claims)

I think the reason that you may not be getting this is a previous government intervention. Have you heard the term "Crown Land"? It is a phrase used in the 15 countries that share Queen Elizabeth II as Queen. What it means is this. When, for example, Australia, was discovered, the first thing the officers and sailors did was plant a Union Flag, and say something like "I claim this land in the name of Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II".

Of course, the person for whom the land is claimed doesn't mix her labour with it, and her employees only do so on an extremely limited basis. In the case of monarchy, I must point out that ownership is expressed in these personal terms of using the Queen's name, however, it is the same idea as talking about a "Federal Reservation", it is a socialistic appropriation.

Who would you buy the river or the air from? Could you simply "claim" it?

That is the point of homesteading. You could claim a river, because it has a definable location. Air does not, except where one says "the air above this piece of land". Of course that air can flow out, but, you have have noticed that the earth has an atmosphere, new air will replace it.

This leads me to pollution. If you dump toxic waste in the part of the river you own, and it kills fish in the part I own, I'd say you are directly liable, not only for my loss of income from the sale of fish, or licenses to fish, but for any health effects in people who have eaten the poisoned fish. A libertarian state would be able to fully enforce such a claim, you would have full rights, and full responsibilities. In a contemporary system, there are many legal loopholes, starting with limited liability laws, that subvert the responsibility of owners for their property. It is the same for air pollution.

State-run charity has been proven necessary since private charity doesn't go far enough.

Nonsense. When appeals for charitable donations are made, the response is massive. People want to give.

Secondly, I put the word "charity" in inverted commas in the phrase "state-run charity" because "state-run charity" is a contradiction in terms. If I put a gun to your head, take your money, and give it to a beggar, I have not done a charitable act. Charity is when you voluntarily give what is yours. It is important to understand what words mean.

Thirdly, the existance of private orphanages proves you wrong.

Fourthly, a shortfall in private charity was not what got the state involved, it was the idea that politicians have that they must do something ... regardless of the consequences.

I was ganna answer the child prostitution question, but SP summed it up nicely.

One thing that gets me is that everything goes back to property rights. You say you own your body, and that's where rights come from. I say you cannot own your body, because you *are* your body. For something to be owned (your body) implies an other, and owner. I just see it as an unnessicary step.

You say rights such as free speach come from property rights, that they can't just come from nowhere. Where do property rights come from.

For you, it's a given that one has property rights. For me, it's a given that one has the right to do as once pleases.


Thanks.

Rights are never a "given." All right are simply privilages that society has decided are so vital to the nature of it's government that they are off limits. It goes back to philosophy of government and the social contract. In western society, and in the US in particular, the law is based on the concept of ownership. The unifying thread between the feudal system and the modern capitalist republic is ownership, the only real difference is that the power to own is granted to everyone and ownership of people is forbidden. The gradual shift away from feudalism that we call progress is a gradual shift of property rights.

Those worthy of representation were first the white male property owners, then all white males, then all whites, then finally all citizens. Each step represents a broadening of property rights. A vote isn't just something you get because that is how we choose our leaders, it is recognition of an individual who has both a stake in the government and a right to have a say in how it is a run. It is a share of stock.

You might believe that an individual is their body and that the concept of personal ownership is unnecessary, but you don't have to look too many years back to see why personal ownership is vital. Individuals who are not seen by society as to be in ownership of themselves (blacks, women, children) have historically been treated as the property of others. If someone does not have ownership over themselves in this society they don't get to make their own decisions. If you want to see a good example, take a look at the abortion debate.

I understand that currently children are treated differently by current laws, but I was thinking that this would be different in your system.
The reason why I believed it would be different comes, of course, to the issue of property. You say that a child's body is the property of the child. But if a child cannot consent, then this means that the child cannot do what he or she wants with his or her own property - in this case, the child's body. Essentially a law against sex with minors is a law against property rights.
So that's the reason that I brought this up - how do you reconcile having laws (or at least a law) against a person's using their own property when you believe they should be upheld to the utmost degree? This isn't a case of someone using their property to interfere with that of another, otherwise it would make sense.

Children are treated differently because they are different. A child is not simply a small adult with an inexplicable appreciation for songs sung by puppets, a child is an individual with a physically immature brain and a severe lack of experiance. Our juvenile justice system exists because there is an understanding that children are incapable of understanding the consequences of their actions before certain developmental milestones. Laws treating children differently exist for the same reason that laws concerning false advertisement exist, because there are issues not just of consent but of informed consent. Having sex with a child is a case of using one's property to interfere with another's property, sex without consent can be very damaging, especially when children are concerned.

Now, I know, you're going to ask me what a child is, what the cutoff age is, and what the real difference between having existed for 17 years 364 days and 18 years is. I don't like 18 as the cutoff age, I think 16 is a better age because the mean population has reached most of the major developmental milestones by that time, has had enough experiance in the world, and has good enough descision making skills and forward thinking to understand the consequences of one's actions. No, it isn't a shoe that is going to fit everyone, but a just society needs a certain uniformity of law.

You might believe that an individual is their body and that the concept of personal ownership is unnecessary, but you don't have to look too many years back to see why personal ownership is vital. Individuals who are not seen by society as to be in ownership of themselves (blacks, women, children) have historically been treated as the property of others.

I's say that the enslavement of Africans was less because they weren't in ownership of themselves, and more bacsue they weren't seen as people.

I can see that our disagreement is more an issue of semantics and metaphysics then o anything that can be resloved by debate. And seeing as we both get to the same conclusion, that you have aboslute right over yourself, it's really pointless to go on with a battle of semantics. Let us agree to agree :D

Rights are never a "given." All right are simply privilages that society has decided are so vital to the nature of it's government that they are off limits.

That is a contradiction in terms. Either something is a right, or it is a privilege.

A privilege is delegated by some higher authority, e.g. I give you permission to drive my car.

I can revoke it at any time, and the ultimate decision is mine.

A right is not delegated by a higher authority, it is inherient to your being human, e.g. you may drive your car any time you bloody well please.

A right requires no permission.

You are right, however when you say that rights relate to ownership.

Basically, if you own something, you can do what you wish with it. If you don't own it, you must ask permission to do something.

Rights are not privileges.

I suggest you download Michael Badnarik's Constitution Class. Part One lays it all out. http://www.archive.org/details/Michael_Badnarik (the rest of the site contains many interesting works, it is well worth a visit, several in fact)

That is a contradiction in terms. Either something is a right, or it is a privilege.

A privilege is delegated by some higher authority, e.g. I give you permission to drive my car.

I can revoke it at any time, and the ultimate decision is mine.

A right is not delegated by a higher authority, it is inherient to your being human, e.g. you may drive your car any time you bloody well please.

A right requires no permission.

You are right, however when you say that rights relate to ownership.

Basically, if you own something, you can do what you wish with it. If you don't own it, you must ask permission to do something.

Rights are not privileges.

I suggest you download Michael Badnarik's Constitution Class. Part One lays it all out. http://www.archive.org/details/Michael_Badnarik (the rest of the site contains many interesting works, it is well worth a visit, several in fact)


I've read Badnarik. I've also read Nozick and Locke. I am familiar with the theoretical arguments regarding rights and freedoms, I even agree. That doesn't change the fact that in the real world people are not always concerned with theory. Any of the rights we hold dear can be summarily revoked by a tyrant at a moment's notice. Sure, in some intellectual realm we still have them, but in practice we do not.

Take America as an example. Our nation did not simply wake up one day to discover that the natural world had imbued us with certain rights which we were now free to enjoy. A group of revolutionaries reached a point where they were no longer willing to tollerate the intrusions of government and they started killing agents of that government in the streets. Those rights were claimed by war and safeguarded by the threat of force. The contract of our society exists with the understanding that certain rights cannot be violated. The reasons these rights cannot be violated is because society has deemed it so, these rights have been built into our laws, into the fabric of our civilization, and citizens are vested with the power (in theory) to rise up and kill any leader who would seek to meddle with that arrangement.

I'm sorry if you disagreed with my wording, but I was simply being realistic. Rights can (and are) violated every single day, the only thing that prevents this from being a more common situation is our society.

It was the recognition of the rights that the American revolutionaries fought for. The purpose of the war can be summarised as: the use of force to make the King recognise the existance of certain natural rights, or to remove him altogether"

The "society" process is one of recognition of the fact that people are endowed with certain rights.

We may simply be at a crossed wire in terms of semantics, however, the concept of recognition is vital, otherwise, the impression is created that "rights" are granted by some higher authority (which implies that the same can revoke them)

Any of the rights we hold dear can be summarily revoked by a tyrant at a moment's notice. Sure, in some intellectual realm we still have them, but in practice we do not.

The rights are not revoked, they are violated. If a right could be revoked, it would not be a right, and would never have been a right.

It was the recognition of the rights that the American revolutionaries fought for. The purpose of the war can be summarised as: the use of force to make the King recognise the existance of certain natural rights, or to remove him altogether"

The "society" process is one of recognition of the fact that people are endowed with certain rights.

We may simply be at a crossed wire in terms of semantics, however, the concept of recognition is vital, otherwise, the impression is created that "rights" are granted by some higher authority (which implies that the same can revoke them)



The rights are not revoked, they are violated. If a right could be revoked, it would not be a right, and would never have been a right.


I think this is a semantic issue. You are speaking from a theoretical position whereas I have a tendancy (on the boards at least) to speak from a much more practical perspective. I understand the need for recognition in the law and in society, but the practical effect of a right being violated is exactly the same as if it were "revoked."

There is also something slightly more cynical in my statement. You talk about what the revolutionaries fought for, you argue that it was recognition. That is definately what we are taught and it is likely what the revolutionaries believed they were fighting for. I feel that what the revolution did was impose the will of the founders on society. It was a battle for primacy, a fight between the old rulers and those who wanted to be the new rulers. Perhaps it is just a semantic question, but were they fighting for recognition of natural rights or were they fighting for the creation of natural rights?

Further, I just dislike the term "natural rights." I dislike the concept. It grants too much deferrance to the monotheistic society it comes from. The idea of "natural rights" is one which can only exist in a worldview that assumes an ordered creation helmed by some thoughtful creator. It absolves man of responsibility for his own freedom by making the source of that freedom external. In that sense, "natural rights" become privilages granted by God, not freedoms fought for requiring constant vigilance to maintain.

Further, I just dislike the term "natural rights." I dislike the concept. It grants too much deferrance to the monotheistic society it comes from. The idea of "natural rights" is one which can only exist in a worldview that assumes an ordered creation helmed by some thoughtful creator. It absolves man of responsibility for his own freedom by making the source of that freedom external. In that sense, "natural rights" become privilages granted by God, not freedoms fought for requiring constant vigilance to maintain.

But isn't the right to property a "natural right"?

Personally, I don't think the term "natural rights" needs to have anything to do with God. Or even if it does, that does not excuse man the responcibility to safeguard, fight for, and be worthy of these "gifts," if that is what you believe they are.

But isn't the right to property a "natural right"?

Personally, I don't think the term "natural rights" needs to have anything to do with God. Or even if it does, that does not excuse man the responcibility to safeguard, fight for, and be worthy of these "gifts," if that is what you believe they are.

Like I said, I'm not really a fan of the concept of natural rights. I believe that property is a fundamental right, that it is vital to a free society, that robust private ownership manages to safeguard liberty by channeling the competitive nature of humanity into more socially appealing pursuits.

The difference between a fundamental right and a natural right is all about context. A fundamental right is necessary for a free society, it exists because society cannot exist without it. A natural right is a right that simply is. While a right that simply is might be an appealing concept, I simply do not hold to the belief that there are absolutes of that nature. Those kinds of absolutes require a thoughtfully ordered universe. Even worse, they require a belief in the ultimate primacy of man because natural rights are demonstrably absent in the rest of nature. "There is a plan to the universe and man is a special part of it" is the foundation of the concept of natural rights and I find that foundation too weak to be defended. Natural rights need god in the same way that intelligent design does. Fundamental rights, on the other hand, don't need anything other than a will to hold anarchy, tyranny, and chaos off. Every system of law needs a flagstone, and I'd much rather mine be the will to freedom than some divine privilage.

Natural rights to absolve people of a certain degree of responsibility because they remove human beings from the source of their freedom. When rights come from a source other than will they become someone else's problem. It is the responsibility of God, or your rulers, or nature to protect your rights, you are merely a casual observer until things become so terribe you are willing to die to change them. A fundamental right rests the responsibility of it's defense on the shoulders of every citizen. A government is an affiliation of individuals, each with the duty and the interest to defend their collective freedoms. If those fundamental rights come from the will of the people, then the government those people form is based around the protection of those rights.

Man is fundamentally different to the rest of nature, in that only man can fulfill the responsibilities that come with rights.

Man is fundamentally different to the rest of nature, in that only man can fulfill the responsibilities that come with rights.

Well, that leads us to another question now, doesn't it? If man is fundamentally different from the rest of nature what causes this difference? There are really only two answers to that question: either man is "special" because man is infused with some magic spiritual component (which drives right back into my major problems with the concept of "natural" rights) or man has some basic evolutionary differences that have set him apart from everything else.

If the former is true, if some god has stepped down from the heavens and blessed man with a soul, then what we are talking about aren't natural rights at all but rather divine privilages. Aside from the psychological problems I have already mentioned, this view begs all the questions (and shows all the flaws) that religions in general face. At the very core, the concept of natural law hinges on faith, it builds a society and a system of law based on faith. The problem with building on faith is that it both excludes those who do not share that faith and provides a ready reason for those who do not believe to ignore the system.

If the latter is true, if what makes man special is some advantageous bundle of evolutionary features, then the world isn't really ordered and natural rights are creations of man. Good creations, but creations all the same. The factors that make man different are clear enough, the ability for higher order and abstract thinking, opposable thumbs, language, and a society that has grown to the point where people have enough time and experiance to consider the world around them in depth. These factors have allowed man to build a civilization, to consider what is best for humanity, to decide what is valued and what is not. Written language has allowed mankind to aggregate it's experiances not simply across tribes but across thousands of years. The points of a given scholar can be argued for or against even thousands of years after that scholar's death. Over time these debates and experiances have lead us to discover certain things that are simply good for all, certain ideals and freedoms that are necessary for a society to thrive, necessary for quality of life. These are the fundamental rights, the inalienable rights, the rights which most rational members of society agree are so important that it is ok to kill your leaders if they violate them.

Fundamental rights set the basis of society and of the law on a firm ground, on the consensus reached through thousands of years of debate and being continually honed and perfected. Fundamental rights are the ultimate triumph of humanity, they represent mankind dragging itself out of the world of the animals and into something unprecidented and new. It is the first real evolutionary shift for our species since mankind figured out that you could stay in one place if you stuck the right seeds in the right ground at the right time. To liken the difference between natural and fundamental rights to kingship, natural rights are a grand coronation for humanity, fundamental rights are mankind snatching the crown from Pius VII and placing it on it's own head.

It was the recognition of the rights that the American revolutionaries fought for. The purpose of the war can be summarised as: the use of force to make the King recognise the existance of certain natural rights, or to remove him altogether"

The "society" process is one of recognition of the fact that people are endowed with certain rights.



There ARE no 'natural rights'. We are not imbued with an native 'right' mechanisms... we have to form societies to allow us to impose our wills on our environment, and then decide how we allow 'rights' within those societies.

The problem is a confusion that exists at the basic level.

A person in isolation can pick up and hold a thing. In a society, we call THAT 'mechanism' "Ownership"... and we consider it a right.

But - does the individual actually 'own' the thing? Only in as much as he recognises his dominion over it, his stewardship of it.

If another individual arrives and tries to take the same item, either negotiation or force must be used to resolve the issue... there is no 'implicit' ownership as an OBJECTIVE entity.

So - does the individual, in isolation, have 'rights'? He can do things, and he can do them to the extent to which he is not prevented by other factors... but there is no OBJECTIVE 'capacity' to do things that he can 'assert'. So - an individual, in isolation, has no actual 'rights'.


But - if you fail to understand that individuals have no inherent 'rights', you will continue to perpetuate that fallacy when you extrapolate the society from the individual.


We, that live within societies, DO have 'rights', but they are not 'natural', nor explicitly 'human'... they are just the 'rights' allowed to us by the societies in which we live.

There ARE no 'natural rights'. We are not imbued with an native 'right' mechanisms... we have to form societies to allow us to impose our wills on our environment, and then decide how we allow 'rights' within those societies.

The problem is a confusion that exists at the basic level.

A person in isolation can pick up and hold a thing. In a society, we call THAT 'mechanism' "Ownership"... and we consider it a right.

But - does the individual actually 'own' the thing? Only in as much as he recognises his dominion over it, his stewardship of it.

If another individual arrives and tries to take the same item, either negotiation or force must be used to resolve the issue... there is no 'implicit' ownership as an OBJECTIVE entity.

So - does the individual, in isolation, have 'rights'? He can do things, and he can do them to the extent to which he is not prevented by other factors... but there is no OBJECTIVE 'capacity' to do things that he can 'assert'. So - an individual, in isolation, has no actual 'rights'.

But - if you fail to understand that individuals have no inherent 'rights', you will continue to perpetuate that fallacy when you extrapolate the society from the individual.

We, that live within societies, DO have 'rights', but they are not 'natural', nor explicitly 'human'... they are just the 'rights' allowed to us by the societies in which we live.

Not quite true.

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness I have a Right to Exist, and concomitant with that Right is the Right to defend that existence. That is an absolute 'natural' right extant in all living things. Ditto for "pursuit of happiness" inasmuch as it can be defined by any entity. "Liberty" is stickier as it is manifestly subjective term - even moreso than "happiness", thus:
That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Note that "ownership of property" in this sense exists only under the rubric of "pursuit of happiness".

So, Yes, there is an absolute, inviolable 'natural' Right, the Right to (continue to) Exist and to defend that continuance.

If you assert that there is no Right to Existence, except at the sufferage of Government, you really need to reevaluate somthing.

Not quite true.

I have a Right to Exist, and concomitant with that Right is the Right to defend that existence. That is an absolute 'natural' right extant in all living things. Ditto for "pursuit of happiness" inasmuch as it can be defined by any entity. "Liberty" is stickier as it is manifestly subjective term - even moreso than "happiness", thus:
Note that "ownership of property" in this sense exists only under the rubric of "pursuit of happiness".

So, Yes, there is an absolute, inviolable 'natural' Right, the Right to (continue to) Exist and to defend that continuance.

If you assert that there is no Right to Existence, except at the sufferage of Government, you really need to reevaluate somthing.

No. You do not have 'a right to exist'.

You exist... but no 'right' is exerted by that fact, justified by that fact, or endorsed by that fact. You just 'are'.

You are confusing things 'you can do' with what you have 'rights' to do.

If your corporeal form is placed on the event horizon of a singularity, your claim to a 'right to exist' is meaningless. It is something you 'do', but not something you have any mechanism to 'support'.

What do you think I need to re-evaluate? Our 'rights' are granted to us by societies. Your 'right to be free from personal harm' will not protect you from falling rocks. Your 'right to life' will not stop a tiger eating you.

But - once you live within a society, the mechanism evolve that allow you to have 'rights'. Where once your neighbour or yourself could happily eat the other, now the society allows for your being to be protected from the predations of your neighbour... but ONLY in as much as it tries to safeguard your person (with preventative measures), and punishes infringement (with punishment of cannibals).

There are still not 'natural' rights... there are just the conditions our societies are willing to allow, or able to enforce.

The point is that children are in fact different. They lack the ability to make the informed decisions necessary.

What you don't seem to be getting is that rights go hand in hand with responsibility. Children, due to their lack of maturity cannot be expected to fulfill their responsibilities, so others exercise their rights for them.

A libertarian system can't change the fact that children aren't grown up (at least we don't claim to be able to change human nature!)I understand that to a libertarian, with rights comes responsibility, but only insofar as a lack of responsibility causes harm to someone else's property. There are plenty of ways to be irresponsible: you could burn your money, commit suicide, go bungee jumping, blow up your car...all things with are demonstrably irresponsible, but to my knowledge not illegal in (most) libertarian systems.

This relates very much to child sex being criminal. For sex to be considered OK, there must be mutual, informed consent. Since children cannot make such a decision, due to their lack of maturity, child sex cannot be said to ever have mutual, informed consent.So then it's acceptable to have laws against what a person can do with their own property other than laws preventing a person from harming others?

The assertion that crimes against property would go up has no basis. Firstly, the principal agent of crimes against property will be brought into line (namely the state and its clients, you simply cannot dismiss this by claiming that the state doesn't committ crimes, a crime is an assault against life, liberty, and/or property, and during the last one hundred years, the principal agent of such crimes has been the state).Typically, crime is used in the context of something illegal. But it's not that important of a quibble, so I'll drop it, and agree that crimes against property by the state would go down. I still, however, assert that if you discount the state, crimes against property would increase.

Current events, and history show that crimes against property increase where property rights are undermined. Britain is an example, as I indicated earlier (another point, more and more burglaries are taking place in occupied homes, in places where self-defence of life, liberty, and property are considered good things, burglaries tend to happen less, and mainly in unoccupied houses)Naturally, if you're going to consider an undermining of property rights a crime against property, then by definition crimes against property would go up.

Since there is no existing claim, it is a finders-keepers situation (which is a thread that runs through all my posts on this topic, you should have seen it, with my references to "virgin resources", and the lack of reference to previous claims)So then what you're saying is that it's acceptable to claim any and all unclaimed resources on the basis that you will at some point use your labor or hire someone else's labor to make something from those resources?

I think the reason that you may not be getting this is a previous government intervention. Have you heard the term "Crown Land"? It is a phrase used in the 15 countries that share Queen Elizabeth II as Queen. What it means is this. When, for example, Australia, was discovered, the first thing the officers and sailors did was plant a Union Flag, and say something like "I claim this land in the name of Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II".That is part of the reason - the sole claim of labor on the land (being the first person to find it) was obliterated by the European powers claiming the land for themselves, in other words stealing it.

Of course, the person for whom the land is claimed doesn't mix her labour with it, and her employees only do so on an extremely limited basis. In the case of monarchy, I must point out that ownership is expressed in these personal terms of using the Queen's name, however, it is the same idea as talking about a "Federal Reservation", it is a socialistic appropriation.Not exactly. The Queen is claiming the land for herself, an individual, to give out as she pleases. Socialists view land ownership as being impossible, and therefore the only acceptable ownership of land is everyone owning it. Land use rights, on the basis of personal use, would probably be acceptable, but would be revoked once the individual ceases to use the land.

That is the point of homesteading. You could claim a river, because it has a definable location. Air does not, except where one says "the air above this piece of land". Of course that air can flow out, but, you have have noticed that the earth has an atmosphere, new air will replace it

This leads me to pollution. If you dump toxic waste in the part of the river you own, and it kills fish in the part I own, I'd say you are directly liable, not only for my loss of income from the sale of fish, or licenses to fish, but for any health effects in people who have eaten the poisoned fish. A libertarian state would be able to fully enforce such a claim, you would have full rights, and full responsibilities. In a contemporary system, there are many legal loopholes, starting with limited liability laws, that subvert the responsibility of owners for their property. It is the same for air pollution.Would you not have to prove it was the pollution that I dumped that caused the death of your fish?

Nonsense. When appeals for charitable donations are made, the response is massive. People want to give.But never massive enough.

Secondly, I put the word "charity" in inverted commas in the phrase "state-run charity" because "state-run charity" is a contradiction in terms. If I put a gun to your head, take your money, and give it to a beggar, I have not done a charitable act. Charity is when you voluntarily give what is yours. It is important to understand what words mean.If I say "the cost of living here is X, and you pay X, I am free to do with the fee what I want. This includes giving part of the fee that you paid to the beggar. This fee is also known as taxes.

Thirdly, the existance of private orphanages proves you wrong.I never said they didn't exist, I said there weren't enough of them, and there never would be.

Fourthly, a shortfall in private charity was not what got the state involved, it was the idea that politicians have that they must do something ... regardless of the consequences.But nonetheless there was a shortfall of private charity, and the only way to obtain sufficient funds was through taxation.

Children are treated differently because they are different. A child is not simply a small adult with an inexplicable appreciation for songs sung by puppets, a child is an individual with a physically immature brain and a severe lack of experiance. Our juvenile justice system exists because there is an understanding that children are incapable of understanding the consequences of their actions before certain developmental milestones. Laws treating children differently exist for the same reason that laws concerning false advertisement exist, because there are issues not just of consent but of informed consent. Having sex with a child is a case of using one's property to interfere with another's property, sex without consent can be very damaging, especially when children are concerned.I pose the same question to you: Does this mean it's acceptable to pass laws which say that the state can interfere with an individual's use of their own property in cases other than when a person's use of their own property harms someone else?

I pose the same question to you: Does this mean it's acceptable to pass laws which say that the state can interfere with an individual's use of their own property in cases other than when a person's use of their own property harms someone else?

In the case of children, yes.

In the case of children, yes.So then it's acceptable to also pass laws which state that children are not allowed to work until a certain age (16 seems to be the agreed-upon age)?

Your statement could be seen as confusing.
It could be argued that in order to not advocate a return to the Dark Age, one might logically have to believe that some form of progress exists.

Surely for there to be a possibility of regress, there is to have existed some form of progress?

Perhaps you do believe in some form of progress?

Sorry for being far far away, but...
Basically, I see human history as a slow upward long term trend, easily hidden by 'seasonal' variations.
There is no doubt that we're better off ( in the west ) than our progenitors in the late stone age. But I would not say that our medieval ancestors were better off as well.

I used an extreme example because it is an example that is outside of the typical libertarian realm of focus. Libertarians are against "victimless crimes" being illegal - crimes that only hurt the individual committing them. Prostitution is an example of such a thing.
Are victimless crimes things that the government shouldn't interfere with, whether or not they're wrong? If so, then what would be the reasoning behind the government interfering with child prostitution? (By child prostitution, I mean the realm of childhood between birth and legal adulthood.) Or would the government not interfere with such a thing?

While I might agree with the notion that prostitution hurts a six-year-old, I would not accept the notion that, say, a seventeen year old is necessarily worse off for prostituting. It would depend on his status before and after.

I don't think Gov't should get involved in stamping out victimless crimes.

The Government's right to interfere in anything is - at least in America - bounded by Constitutional factors. There is no such thing as a natural right to do so.

As an after thought... I might decide that a six year old is unable to act in her own interest. This inability.. would be ground for interference.

While I might agree with the notion that prostitution hurts a six-year-old, I would not accept the notion that, say, a seventeen year old is necessarily worse off for prostituting. It would depend on his status before and after.

I don't think Gov't should get involved in stamping out victimless crimes.

The Government's right to interfere in anything is - at least in America - bounded by Constitutional factors. There is no such thing as a natural right to do so.Taxation is also in the Constitution, I presumed that since you would eliminate the 16th Amendment, you would also take out other parts that are unfavorable to your philosophy or would make it impossible to carry out.

Taxation is also in the Constitution, I presumed that since you would eliminate the 16th Amendment, you would also take out other parts that are unfavorable to your philosophy or would make it impossible to carry out.


On the 16th Ammendment:

http://w3f.com/patriots/the16th.html

In general:
if it ain't codified by the Constitution and the Bill or Rights, it has no business existing in the first place.

It is extraordinarily easy to make any basic law ( including a Constitution ) pointless by making it too long. You're bound to start introducing paradoxes that defy paradoctoring.

A further note on the 16th...
I would say that today's regressive tax-climate ( courtesy of the GOP ) is a living proof that the basic reasoning behind the 16th was flawed ab ovo.

So then it's acceptable to also pass laws which state that children are not allowed to work until a certain age (16 seems to be the agreed-upon age)?

Depends on the kind of work, but yes, I am in favor of special laws protecting those too young and undeveloped to fend for themselves.

I pose the same question to you: Does this mean it's acceptable to pass laws which say that the state can interfere with an individual's use of their own property in cases other than when a person's use of their own property harms someone else?

In a word, no. What you are talking about is a paternalistic government that limits the freedoms of it's citizens "for their own good." The government is not my parent and it does not get to tell me what I can and cannot do if what I do harms no one who does not consent.

You are misreading both my statement and my intent. Children are treated differently not because the government has some power to interfere with the individual, but because children are unable to consent. That inability to consent means that the government has a compelling interest in preventing the rights of that child to be violated.

Think of child protection laws as similar to laws regarding false advertising. If I tell you that my new magic pill will cure your herpes, make you beautiful, and make you lose fat and grow muscle while sitting on your ass, if I sow you all sorts of testamonials that turn out to be actors, fake statistics, etc, you aren't really able to consent because I have lied to you. The government has the right to step in not because it has the right to interfere with my use of property, but because I am not allowed to violate your rights. There is the issue of harm.

So then it's acceptable to also pass laws which state that children are not allowed to work until a certain age (16 seems to be the agreed-upon age)?


Again, this really has little to do with your question because there is an issue of harm present in interactions with children stemming from their lack of ability to consent.

In a word, no. What you are talking about is a paternalistic government that limits the freedoms of it's citizens "for their own good." The government is not my parent and it does not get to tell me what I can and cannot do if what I do harms no one who does not consent. Isn't that why children are unable to consent to sex: it's for their own good?

You are misreading both my statement and my intent. Children are treated differently not because the government has some power to interfere with the individual, but because children are unable to consent. That inability to consent means that the government has a compelling interest in preventing the rights of that child to be violated. Why would a child be able to consent to labor, but be unable to consent to sex?

Again, this really has little to do with your question because there is an issue of harm present in interactions with children stemming from their lack of ability to consent.There is plenty of labor that is harmful to everyone (and even more labor that is harmful to children). Would you support laws banning children from certain, more harmful jobs?

I understand that to a libertarian, with rights comes responsibility, but only insofar as a lack of responsibility causes harm to someone else's property. There are plenty of ways to be irresponsible: you could burn your money, commit suicide, go bungee jumping, blow up your car...all things with are demonstrably irresponsible, but to my knowledge not illegal in (most) libertarian systems.

True, and entirely beside the point.

A child is by definition, not mature. Maturity can basically be defined as the ability to make an informed decision with consideration of the relevant consequences, and the ability to accept those consequences.

Immaturity means that consent to any act is impossible.

The acts you describe are not good for one, but we must presume that in adults, these acts are done with knowledge of the consequeces, and acceptance of them.

Jello, you are stepping around the whole point of this children angle you have chosen to persue. Children are different because they lack maturity. They cannot make a decision in the way an adult can.

So then it's acceptable to have laws against what a person can do with their own property other than laws preventing a person from harming others?

Children are not the same as adults, as has been explained to you time and time again. I can't help but think you're being deliberately obtuse.

I still, however, assert that if you discount the state, crimes against property would increase.

That assertion has absolutely no basis whatsoever. I think you just pulled it from nowhere to invent a "point" to use against libertarians.

Naturally, if you're going to consider an undermining of property rights a crime against property, then by definition crimes against property would go up.

You do know that libertarians are for strengthening property rights? I should think that this has been made clear to you.

I shall say it simply: Libertarians are for property rights.

I don't see what your point has to do with libertarianism, unless you're holding Britain today as an example of a libertarian state. If so, you're certifiably insane.

So then what you're saying is that it's acceptable to claim any and all unclaimed resources on the basis that you will at some point use your labor or hire someone else's labor to make something from those resources?

In the first place, what you describe isn't a claim. Its merely an irrelevant statement. Did you read what I said about "homesteading"? It means that if you find some unowned land, you can set up there and homestead it. You can build, or grow crops on it. Homesteading means mixing your labour with unowned nature.

Not exactly. The Queen is claiming the land for herself, an individual, to give out as she pleases

Do you understand the role of a Monarch is, and what it means when people from a Monarchy talk about "The Crown", or "In the Queen's Name"?

If you're going to tell me about what monarchy means, you should learn about it. The Monarch is not simply an individual, she is the personification of the state. The Queen of Australia is the Australian Government, she is the head of Parliament, the courts dispense The Queen's Justice, she is the head of the Executive branch, and she is the Commander-in-Chief of the Australian Defence Force.

To claim something "in the name of Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II" is to say "this land belongs to the Commonwealth of Australia". She does not own the land in the way she would own a dress.

The Monarchy is a bit of a lingual trick. An American would probably say something closer to the truth like "I claim this land for the United States of America".

Would you not have to prove it was the pollution that I dumped that caused the death of your fish?

Yes. Is that not self-evident?

But never massive enough.

You're arguing by assertion.

If I say "the cost of living here is X, and you pay X, I am free to do with the fee what I want. This includes giving part of the fee that you paid to the beggar. This fee is also known as taxes.

No, taxes involve you saying "I have a squad of armed men in natty uniforms behind me, if you don't pay up, you will be in some rather awful trouble"

I never said they didn't exist, I said there weren't enough of them, and there never would be.

An assertion without proof, however, there is proof that higher taxes correlate with reduced charitable giving.

But nonetheless there was a shortfall of private charity, and the only way to obtain sufficient funds was through taxation.

No, there wasn't. In either case, charities have proven far more effective in actually helping people. Trillions of dollars spent in a "war on poverty" introduced by that son-of-a-bitch LBJ have actually seen matters become worse for the people supposed to benefit.

Isn't that why children are unable to consent to sex: it's for their own good?

They are unable to consent, full stop. They have not sufficiently developed to do so.

Why would a child be able to consent to labor, but be unable to consent to sex?

You are way off base. Children are unable to consent, full stop.

Surely even someone like you can see that there is a definite, qualitative difference between a 14-year-old flipping burgers during the school holidays, and a 6-year-old being sold for sex?

In the first instance, what they are doing is unquestionable good for them, it will advantage them in later life. In the second case, what you'd end up with is an adult who's ability to form normal relationships has been taken from them.

True, and entirely beside the point.

A child is by definition, not mature. Maturity can basically be defined as the ability to make an informed decision with consideration of the relevant consequences, and the ability to accept those consequences.

Immaturity means that consent to any act is impossible.

The acts you describe are not good for one, but we must presume that in adults, these acts are done with knowledge of the consequeces, and acceptance of them.

Jello, you are stepping around the whole point of this children angle you have chosen to persue. Children are different because they lack maturity. They cannot make a decision in the way an adult can.I am aware that children aren't mature, but what I am looking at is some consistency. Even if there isn't going to be a different set of rights for children and adults, then that's fine, as long as the differences are consistent. If they aren't consistent, then I don't know how a libertarian would justify an inconsistency, and am trying to find out.

That assertion has absolutely no basis whatsoever. I think you just pulled it from nowhere to invent a "point" to use against libertarians.Of course it has basis. Whenever wealth inequality goes up, so does crime against property. Libertarianism encourages wealth inequality.

You do know that libertarians are for strengthening property rights? I should think that this has been made clear to you.

I shall say it simply: Libertarians are for property rights.

I don't see what your point has to do with libertarianism, unless you're holding Britain today as an example of a libertarian state. If so, you're certifiably insane.The point was that if you consider what the state does a crime against property, then if you make it so that the state cannot do that, then crimes against property would by definition go down. (Perhaps I typed the wrong word before.)

In the first place, what you describe isn't a claim. Its merely an irrelevant statement. Did you read what I said about "homesteading"? It means that if you find some unowned land, you can set up there and homestead it. You can build, or grow crops on it. Homesteading means mixing your labour with unowned nature.I see this, but a person who is homesteading does not mix their labor with all of the resources on that particular piece of land. Why does homesteading allow the person to also claim those resources?

Do you understand the role of a Monarch is, and what it means when people from a Monarchy talk about "The Crown", or "In the Queen's Name"?

If you're going to tell me about what monarchy means, you should learn about it. The Monarch is not simply an individual, she is the personification of the state. The Queen of Australia is the Australian Government, she is the head of Parliament, the courts dispense The Queen's Justice, she is the head of the Executive branch, and she is the Commander-in-Chief of the Australian Defence Force.

To claim something "in the name of Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II" is to say "this land belongs to the Commonwealth of Australia". She does not own the land in the way she would own a dress.

The Monarchy is a bit of a lingual trick. An American would probably say something closer to the truth like "I claim this land for the United States of America".All right, why was the Queen's claim to a piece of land more valid than the claim of the people who owned the land beforehand?

Yes. Is that not self-evident?Yes, it is self-evident, but I was just wondering how you would prove it was my pollution that caused your fish to become deformed or whatever and not the pollution of someone further up the river.

You're arguing by assertion.History has shown that private charity hasn't been enough.

No, taxes involve you saying "I have a squad of armed men in natty uniforms behind me, if you don't pay up, you will be in some rather awful trouble"Isn't that what your landlord says when he's threatening to evict you for not paying rent?

An assertion without proof, however, there is proof that higher taxes correlate with reduced charitable giving.I don't dispute this, but it's not really relevant, either.

No, there wasn't. In either case, charities have proven far more effective in actually helping people. Trillions of dollars spent in a "war on poverty" introduced by that son-of-a-bitch LBJ have actually seen matters become worse for the people supposed to benefit.I don't dispute that LBJ was a son-of-a-bitch, but the "war on poverty" failed because it didn't go far enough.

Surely even someone like you can see that there is a definite, qualitative difference between a 14-year-old flipping burgers during the school holidays, and a 6-year-old being sold for sex?

In the first instance, what they are doing is unquestionable good for them, it will advantage them in later life. In the second case, what you'd end up with is an adult who's ability to form normal relationships has been taken from them.While it is unlikely that the 14-year-old would be injured flipping burgers, it is possible that the 14-year-old would be injured doing high rise construction. Would you have laws banning 14-year-olds from doing high rise construction?

I would also say that the 6-year-old's being sold for sex would be harmful to the 6-year-old, but the person doing the selling may argue that this is good for the 6-year-old as it will introduce the 6-year-old to a network of potential business partners and customers that could benefit the 6-year-old later in life.

Isn't that why children are unable to consent to sex: it's for their own good?

Why would a child be able to consent to labor, but be unable to consent to sex?

There is plenty of labor that is harmful to everyone (and even more labor that is harmful to children). Would you support laws banning children from certain, more harmful jobs?

*sigh*

Maybe you're not hearing me, maybe you're confusing previous posts with mine, I don't know, but I'll say again what I've been saying this whole time.

Before I start, let me make one thing very clear: consent is not just about sex. Consent is involved in sex, but in society the word consent refers to the ability to agree to certain terms. The legal framework around why a 12 year old cannot consent to sex is exactly the same as the legal framework around a 12 year old being unable to join the army or take out a mortgage.

Children are not unable to consent "for their own good." Children are unable to consent because their brains are not yet fully developed and thus not yet able to fully appreciate the consequences of their actions. This isn't some paternalistic interventionalist policy, this is a simple understanding of basic human development. You're making a special issue of sex. The idea is the same for sex, labor, legally binding contracts, anything where informed consent it a necessity.

Once someone is developmentally able to consent, then they get to make their own choices about sex, work, and all the rest.

I am aware that children aren't mature, but what I am looking at is some consistency. Even if there isn't going to be a different set of rights for children and adults, then that's fine, as long as the differences are consistent. If they aren't consistent, then I don't know how a libertarian would justify an inconsistency, and am trying to find out.

You've had consistancy all along! There is no inconsistancy. We are not talking about a separate set of rights, in the case of children, their inability to properly exercise the rights, and discharge their responsibilities due to their lack of maturity (which you have finally acknowledged, because all your previous posts have regarded children as mere miniature adults who prefer Donald Duck to Charlotte Bronte) means their rights are held in "trust" by a guardian.

Whenever wealth inequality goes up, so does crime against property. Libertarianism encourages wealth inequality.

No, it doesn't. It discourages coercive measures to force equality (and all such measures involve dragging people down). The correlation between poverty and crime isn't causation. Many years ago, crime was far less common, yet there was arguably more poverty, and indeed such measures as segregation.

I see this, but a person who is homesteading does not mix their labor with all of the resources on that particular piece of land. Why does homesteading allow the person to also claim those resources?

Because his efforts in homesteading have increased the want satisfying capacity of previously useless natural resources. I would further add that increasing want satisfying capacity doesn't necessarily mean changing the resources into something, it could simply mean moving them. For example, a piece of fruit is useless to you if it is in some foreign country, but if I bring it to you, I have increased its capacity to satisfy your wants, because you can now eat the fruit, and get the satisfaction of eating it.

It creates title because those resources would be useless without that person's efforts. As to how much. it is not a question that can be exactly answered. Lets look at growing crops on previously unowned land, in terms of how many you should grow every square metre to be enough to create title, I'd suggest it depends on the fertility of the soil, and how conducive the general conditions are to growing crops. The better both are, the more is needed, and vice versa.

All right, why was the Queen's claim to a piece of land more valid than the claim of the people who owned the land beforehand?

You really aren't reading my posts. Did you read the bit about monarchies playing language tricks, like talking about Crown Copyright. What this means is that the government owns a copyright to, for example, a photo taken by a soldier who is employed as a photographer by the military.

Neither you nor I are actually talking about a monarch owning something. When something is claimed in the name of a monarch it is actually claimed for the state. As I said, an American in the same situation would say something that better represents what is happening, like "I claim this land for the United States of America". It is the same as claiming something in the name of a monarch, but it is expressed in a les ambiguous way.

As to the specific legalities of such a claim, they are beyond the scope of this thread, except to say that a government has no rights, only an individual has rights, and all individuals have the same rights.

Yes, it is self-evident, but I was just wondering how you would prove it was my pollution that caused your fish to become deformed or whatever and not the pollution of someone further up the river.

That's not really a question that can be fully answered in terms of libertarian theory. Now, I'm not working in an agency that does this work, but the government certainly thinks it can prove who is polluting what, and the judges who preside over the cases certainly agree.

Under a libertarian system, there would be a market for these environmental forensic services, because lawyers arguing these cases would need the evidence they can provide in order to win their cases.

P.S. If you're looking for libertarianism to provide a definitive answer for every question, you don't really understand it. Libertarianism is an intellectual tradition, placing individual liberty and rights above all else. In political terms, libertarians can be quite diverse.

History has shown that private charity hasn't been enough.

It has shown no such thing.

Isn't that what your landlord says when he's threatening to evict you for not paying rent?

No. In the landlord case, the tenant is clearly breaching a contract. Breach of contract is the same as stealing. The tenant, in not honouring the contract is depriving the landlord of his property. Eviction isn't nice, but breach of contract is a crime. The landlord's rights are clearly being broken by this tenant.

I don't dispute that LBJ was a son-of-a-bitch, but the "war on poverty" failed because it didn't go far enough.

Trillions of dollars isn't far enough? Quadrillions? Quintenzillions? Hypermegareallyquitesupercalifragilisticexpialidocouslylargegazillionbajillions?

Should the US Government have stolen the entire wealth of the world, and morgaged everyone to the point that one's great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandchildren were still paying interest?

Once again, you've made an assertion that doesn't make sense, and is downright wrong. Every increase has only seen worse results.

Welfare doesn't work.

While it is unlikely that the 14-year-old would be injured flipping burgers, it is possible that the 14-year-old would be injured doing high rise construction. Would you have laws banning 14-year-olds from doing high rise construction?

It would depend on the situation.

I would also say that the 6-year-old's being sold for sex would be harmful to the 6-year-old, but the person doing the selling may argue that this is good for the 6-year-old as it will introduce the 6-year-old to a network of potential business partners and customers that could benefit the 6-year-old later in life.

Try that in court, see how far you'd get (all the way to prison!). I can't believe that you'd argue that there is a plus side to child abuse.

Children are not unable to consent "for their own good." Children are unable to consent because their brains are not yet fully developed and thus not yet able to fully appreciate the consequences of their actions. This isn't some paternalistic interventionalist policy, this is a simple understanding of basic human development. You're making a special issue of sex. The idea is the same for sex, labor, legally binding contracts, anything where informed consent it a necessity.

Once someone is developmentally able to consent, then they get to make their own choices about sex, work, and all the rest.There, that is what I was looking for. Aside from the initial couple of posts, I wasn't trying to make an issue out of sex, it seemed as though you viewed sex as something the child couldn't consent to because it was dangerous to the child (for other reasons) but you had said nothing about dangerous labor. It seemed inconsistent to disallow one dangerous practice but not another.
Since you have answered that informed consent in all things is necessary, and not just sex, that is what I was trying to find out - is libertarian theory consistent, and if not, why not? Since your theory is consistent, that answers my question.

You've had consistancy all along! There is no inconsistancy. We are not talking about a separate set of rights, in the case of children, their inability to properly exercise the rights, and discharge their responsibilities due to their lack of maturity (which you have finally acknowledged, because all your previous posts have regarded children as mere miniature adults who prefer Donald Duck to Charlotte Bronte) means their rights are held in "trust" by a guardian.There is inconsistency if the child cannot consent to sex because it is harmful to the child, but can legally do high rise construction or other types of labor that is harmful to the child.

No, it doesn't. It discourages coercive measures to force equality (and all such measures involve dragging people down). The correlation between poverty and crime isn't causation. Many years ago, crime was far less common, yet there was arguably more poverty, and indeed such measures as segregation.Depends on your definition of many years ago - either way I don't think your argument can be held up.

Because his efforts in homesteading have increased the want satisfying capacity of previously useless natural resources. I would further add that increasing want satisfying capacity doesn't necessarily mean changing the resources into something, it could simply mean moving them. For example, a piece of fruit is useless to you if it is in some foreign country, but if I bring it to you, I have increased its capacity to satisfy your wants, because you can now eat the fruit, and get the satisfaction of eating it.

It creates title because those resources would be useless without that person's efforts. As to how much. it is not a question that can be exactly answered. Lets look at growing crops on previously unowned land, in terms of how many you should grow every square metre to be enough to create title, I'd suggest it depends on the fertility of the soil, and how conducive the general conditions are to growing crops. The better both are, the more is needed, and vice versa.Fair enough, but what if you claim a piece of land with peach trees on one end of it. You build a house, but do nothing with the peach trees, except pick one for yourself occasionally. Why should you be allowed to keep me from picking peaches from the trees?

You really aren't reading my posts. Did you read the bit about monarchies playing language tricks, like talking about Crown Copyright. What this means is that the government owns a copyright to, for example, a photo taken by a soldier who is employed as a photographer by the military.

Neither you nor I are actually talking about a monarch owning something. When something is claimed in the name of a monarch it is actually claimed for the state. As I said, an American in the same situation would say something that better represents what is happening, like "I claim this land for the United States of America". It is the same as claiming something in the name of a monarch, but it is expressed in a les ambiguous way.

As to the specific legalities of such a claim, they are beyond the scope of this thread, except to say that a government has no rights, only an individual has rights, and all individuals have the same rights.Fair enough. But it seems as though the government's claim on a piece of land (Australia or the U.S., take your pick) is valid, because otherwise the government would have been unable to dispense land rights as it saw fit, and the people who benefitted from that dispersal would not still have the land that they do.

That's not really a question that can be fully answered in terms of libertarian theory. Now, I'm not working in an agency that does this work, but the government certainly thinks it can prove who is polluting what, and the judges who preside over the cases certainly agree.In the present day that's true, but present systems also don't allow private ownership of rivers.

P.S. If you're looking for libertarianism to provide a definitive answer for every question, you don't really understand it. Libertarianism is an intellectual tradition, placing individual liberty and rights above all else. In political terms, libertarians can be quite diverse.Your personal views of libertarianism are sufficient for argument's sake.

No. In the landlord case, the tenant is clearly breaching a contract. Breach of contract is the same as stealing. The tenant, in not honouring the contract is depriving the landlord of his property. Eviction isn't nice, but breach of contract is a crime. The landlord's rights are clearly being broken by this tenant.If you want, calling it a utility fee is just as apt.

Trillions of dollars isn't far enough? It didn't alleviate the problem, did it?

Should the US Government have stolen the entire wealth of the world, and morgaged everyone to the point that one's great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandchildren were still paying interest?

Once again, you've made an assertion that doesn't make sense, and is downright wrong. Every increase has only seen worse results.

Welfare doesn't work.Welfare works better than a system without it.

It would depend on the situation.Are there situations where there is work so dangerous that a child could not consent to perform it, or aren't there?

There is inconsistency if the child cannot consent to sex because it is harmful to the child, but can legally do high rise construction or other types of labor that is harmful to the child.

For the millionth time, the child doesn't consent in either case. Consent is given by a guardian on the child's behalf. I can't see why this simple concept, which I, and others have outlined to you is so difficult to understand.

I never said they could consent to anything, the guardian provides consent.

As I said, a guardian exercises the child's rights on its behalf. Guardianship is a duty, and I define that duty as the guardian doing the best he can to prepare the child for the time at which he becomes an adult.

As to the question of danger, first a tautology: all activities are dangerous in some way. You and I are partaking in a dangerous activity in posting, we risk everything from being burnt in an electrical fire, to a repetitave stress injury. Where the danger can be adequately controlled, then I would consider it OK. We must also consider the nature of the possible harms, and their probability.

Child sex is one area in which I do not, and can never see the danger being adequately controlled. You might disagree (and if so, you are well advised to stay away from the younger members of my family :D ;) )

http://www.walterblock.com/publications/block-children.pdf This .pdf bascially explains what I believe in this regard. He explains it better than I.

Depends on your definition of many years ago - either way I don't think your argument can be held up.

Poverty, over time has been reduced. Crime has increased over time. Furthermore, areas most dependent on welfare are also areas with the highest crime.

Fair enough, but what if you claim a piece of land with peach trees on one end of it. You build a house, but do nothing with the peach trees, except pick one for yourself occasionally. Why should you be allowed to keep me from picking peaches from the trees?

The trees are on my piece of land. It doesn't matter where they are on my piece of land, you have no right to interfere with them.

If you want the peaches, you would have to buy them.

In the present day that's true, but present systems also don't allow private ownership of rivers.

Irrelevant.

If you want, calling it a utility fee is just as apt.

No, it isn't. I can opt out of a utilities with no consequences, or I can choose different providers. If I opt out of taxes, I go to gaol.

It didn't alleviate the problem, did it?

You have to make the case that it could, or that more definately would. Now, private charity has done more with much less money.

Welfare works better than a system without it.

No, it doesn't. Private charity has achieved more with less resources, and without the perverse consequences that have accompained welfare.

Are there situations where there is work so dangerous that a child could not consent to perform it, or aren't there?

That question is not logical. The child cannot consent to anything, even picking daisy's. Consent is given on behalf of the child by a guardian

For the millionth time, the child doesn't consent in either case. Consent is given by a guardian on the child's behalf. I can't see why this simple concept, which I, and others have outlined to you is so difficult to understand.

I never said they could consent to anything, the guardian provides consent.

As I said, a guardian exercises the child's rights on its behalf. Guardianship is a duty, and I define that duty as the guardian doing the best he can to prepare the child for the time at which he becomes an adult.I suppose there is a technical difference there, in that case I should have typed "the child's guardian" instead of "the child".

As to the question of danger, first a tautology: all activities are dangerous in some way. You and I are partaking in a dangerous activity in posting, we risk everything from being burnt in an electrical fire, to a repetitave stress injury. Where the danger can be adequately controlled, then I would consider it OK. We must also consider the nature of the possible harms, and their probability. That's true, and while it can be difficult to quantify harm, there are definitely certain things that are more harmful than others.

Child sex is one area in which I do not, and can never see the danger being adequately controlled. You might disagree (and if so, you are well advised to stay away from the younger members of my family :D ;) I don't disagree, however I would say that there are things that are more harmful to the child than child sex. Even things that are legal for adults to do, such as drug use or suicide, would be harmful to the child, especially in the case of suicide, I think a child suicide would be more harmful to the child than child sex. It therefore seems natural to me to believe that the child's guardian could not also consent to the child's attempting suicide, either.

I would also say that child sex can be more harmful to a child at a certain age than others, for instance it's more harmful to a 6-year-old than to a child who is 15 and 364 days old (to use your idea that 16 should be the legal age of consent). So the same amount of harm that would befall the child in question should be compared to other things, if those other things have as great a chance of harming the child, or if the child has an equal chance of being harmed by those other things as they would to child sex, then those other things should not be things that the child's guardian would not be able to consent to either.

http://www.walterblock.com/publications/block-children.pdf This .pdf bascially explains what I believe in this regard. He explains it better than I.I will check this out, thanks.

Poverty, over time has been reduced. Crime has increased over time. Furthermore, areas most dependent on welfare are also areas with the highest crime.I wouldn't agree with that. While it can be argued that crime statistics have increased, that argument fails to take into account all of the crimes that aren't reported, or that the police don't enter into the official crime records. For instance, the assault of a black man might never enter the record if a racist police officer is the one who takes the initial call.
It seems likely that cases of spousal abuse would end up with the husband getting off with just a warning, or the wife would be less likely to report it for various reasons.

I would argue also that there are greater numbers of law enforcement than there used to be - crime statistics on drug use would only include the number of people caught doing drugs. Security cameras can catch people on film stealing things, they can determine if it was multiple people who stole multiple things or just one person; a storekeeper many years ago reporting the crime (if it did get reported) might assume it was just one person who did it.

Lastly, I would agree that overall crime statistic have gone up because there are more things illegal now than there were many years ago. I suppose when I said poverty was linked to crime, I should have specified that the crimes I was concerned with were (illegal) crimes against property.

The trees are on my piece of land. It doesn't matter where they are on my piece of land, you have no right to interfere with them.But you didn't mix your labor with them, why do you have the right to claim them?

No, it isn't. I can opt out of a utilities with no consequences, or I can choose different providers. If I opt out of taxes, I go to gaol.I answered this question in the other libertarian thread (that you are also answering question in). Here is a copy of my response to this:

Exactly my point. If the only way of getting a bottle of milk is to pay $2, and you take the bottle of milk, you agree to the contract. If you took the bottle of milk without paying, you would be punished for it, and rightly so.


Quote:
Taxes cannot be equated to a fee because I'm being forced to pay for stuff I never contracted for.

By choosing to live in a country, you contract to pay taxes, as taxes are what the state (who are theoretically the people chosen by a society to run things for them) requires to live in the society, just as $2 is what Woolworth's requires for the bottle of milk.


Quote:
In the case of a utility fee, I have choice, I can choose different providers, each provider may have different structures of services and payments. I can choose not to use it.

And likewise, you can choose to move to a different country (a different provider with a different structure of services and payments), or you can choose to move to a deserted island (choosing not to use the utility).


Quote:
Taxes are theft. I have proven this fact, theft is the nonconsensual deprivation of property, and taxation is a nonconsensual deprivation of property.

You consent by the very fact of continuing to live in the country, just as you would consent to being billed by a utility company by continuing to use their services.


Quote:
If it were consensual, people who don't pay their taxes wouldn't be sent to prison.

People who don't pay their taxes are sent outside of society, since taxes are what society requires to live in it. (Just as someone who doesn't pay their utility fee is cut off, as the fee is what the utility company requires to use the utility). Prison is one way of sending someone outside of a society, deportation is another. Personally, I'd prefer deportation.

Furthermore, please be aware that when I say society, and the benefits thereof, this doesn't necessarily mean a tangible benefit, there are plenty of intangible benefits of living in a society.

You have to make the case that it could, or that more definately would. Now, private charity has done more with much less money.I would agree that private charity has done more with an equivalent amount of money, but not that private charity has done more than the government has with its vast amounts of money.

No, it doesn't. Private charity has achieved more with less resources, and without the perverse consequences that have accompained welfare.The welfare system needs to be reformed in its own way, but eliminating it would be disastrous.
I also find it rather odd that libertarians seem to be so worried about welfare given to individuals when it is corporate welfare that takes up much more money and is a much bigger problem. If that money was diverted to welfare for citizens, who knows what we'd see, but certainly something better than what we have now.

For the millionth time, the child doesn't consent in either case. Consent is given by a guardian on the child's behalf. I can't see why this simple concept, which I, and others have outlined to you is so difficult to understand.

I never said they could consent to anything, the guardian provides consent.

As I said, a guardian exercises the child's rights on its behalf. Guardianship is a duty, and I define that duty as the guardian doing the best he can to prepare the child for the time at which he becomes an adult.I suppose there is a technical difference there, in that case I should have typed "the child's guardian" instead of "the child".

As to the question of danger, first a tautology: all activities are dangerous in some way. You and I are partaking in a dangerous activity in posting, we risk everything from being burnt in an electrical fire, to a repetitave stress injury. Where the danger can be adequately controlled, then I would consider it OK. We must also consider the nature of the possible harms, and their probability. That's true, and while it can be difficult to quantify harm, there are definitely certain things that are more harmful than others.

Child sex is one area in which I do not, and can never see the danger being adequately controlled. You might disagree (and if so, you are well advised to stay away from the younger members of my family :D ;) I don't disagree, however I would say that there are things that are more harmful to the child than child sex. Even things that are legal for adults to do, such as drug use or suicide, would be harmful to the child, especially in the case of suicide, I think a child suicide would be more harmful to the child than child sex. It therefore seems natural to me to believe that the child's guardian could not also consent to the child's attempting suicide, either.

I would also say that child sex can be more harmful to a child at a certain age than others, for instance it's more harmful to a 6-year-old than to a child who is 15 and 364 days old (to use your idea that 16 should be the legal age of consent). So the same amount of harm that would befall the child in question should be compared to other things, if those other things have as great a chance of harming the child, or if the child has an equal chance of being harmed by those other things as they would to child sex, then those other things should not be things that the child's guardian would not be able to consent to either.

http://www.walterblock.com/publications/block-children.pdf This .pdf bascially explains what I believe in this regard. He explains it better than I.I will check this out, thanks.

Poverty, over time has been reduced. Crime has increased over time. Furthermore, areas most dependent on welfare are also areas with the highest crime.I wouldn't agree with that. While it can be argued that crime statistics have increased, that argument fails to take into account all of the crimes that aren't reported, or that the police don't enter into the official crime records. For instance, the assault of a black man might never enter the record if a racist police officer is the one who takes the initial call.
It seems likely that cases of spousal abuse would end up with the husband getting off with just a warning, or the wife would be less likely to report it for various reasons.

I would argue also that there are greater numbers of law enforcement than there used to be - crime statistics on drug use would only include the number of people caught doing drugs. Security cameras can catch people on film stealing things, they can determine if it was multiple people who stole multiple things or just one person; a storekeeper many years ago reporting the crime (if it did get reported) might assume it was just one person who did it.

Lastly, I would agree that overall crime statistic have gone up because there are more things illegal now than there were many years ago. I suppose when I said poverty was linked to crime, I should have specified that the crimes I was concerned with were (illegal) crimes against property.

The trees are on my piece of land. It doesn't matter where they are on my piece of land, you have no right to interfere with them.But you didn't mix your labor with them, why do you have the right to claim them?

No, it isn't. I can opt out of a utilities with no consequences, or I can choose different providers. If I opt out of taxes, I go to gaol.I answered this question in the other libertarian thread (that you are also answering question in). Here is a copy of my response to this:

Exactly my point. If the only way of getting a bottle of milk is to pay $2, and you take the bottle of milk, you agree to the contract. If you took the bottle of milk without paying, you would be punished for it, and rightly so.


Quote:
Taxes cannot be equated to a fee because I'm being forced to pay for stuff I never contracted for.

By choosing to live in a country, you contract to pay taxes, as taxes are what the state (who are theoretically the people chosen by a society to run things for them) requires to live in the society, just as $2 is what Woolworth's requires for the bottle of milk.


Quote:
In the case of a utility fee, I have choice, I can choose different providers, each provider may have different structures of services and payments. I can choose not to use it.

And likewise, you can choose to move to a different country (a different provider with a different structure of services and payments), or you can choose to move to a deserted island (choosing not to use the utility).


Quote:
Taxes are theft. I have proven this fact, theft is the nonconsensual deprivation of property, and taxation is a nonconsensual deprivation of property.

You consent by the very fact of continuing to live in the country, just as you would consent to being billed by a utility company by continuing to use their services.


Quote:
If it were consensual, people who don't pay their taxes wouldn't be sent to prison.

People who don't pay their taxes are sent outside of society, since taxes are what society requires to live in it. (Just as someone who doesn't pay their utility fee is cut off, as the fee is what the utility company requires to use the utility). Prison is one way of sending someone outside of a society, deportation is another. Personally, I'd prefer deportation.

Furthermore, please be aware that when I say society, and the benefits thereof, this doesn't necessarily mean a tangible benefit, there are plenty of intangible benefits of living in a society.

You have to make the case that it could, or that more definately would. Now, private charity has done more with much less money.I would agree that private charity has done more with an equivalent amount of money, but not that private charity has done more than the government has with its vast amounts of money.

No, it doesn't. Private charity has achieved more with less resources, and without the perverse consequences that have accompained welfare.The welfare system needs to be reformed in its own way, but eliminating it would be disastrous.
I also find it rather odd that libertarians seem to be so worried about welfare given to individuals when it is corporate welfare that takes up much more money and is a much bigger problem. If that money was diverted to welfare for citizens, who knows what we'd see, but certainly something better than what we have now.

I would also say that child sex can be more harmful to a child at a certain age than others, for instance it's more harmful to a 6-year-old than to a child who is 15 and 364 days old (to use your idea that 16 should be the legal age of consent). So the same amount of harm that would befall the child in question should be compared to other things, if those other things have as great a chance of harming the child, or if the child has an equal chance of being harmed by those other things as they would to child sex, then those other things should not be things that the child's guardian would not be able to consent to either.

I've actually addressed this point before. Clearly, in terms of enforcing laws, there has to be some age at which a person is considered able to consent. As to the exact age, you have you ideas, and I mine. I generally find that 16-21 is where most people will tend to agree, and where the line tends to be placed, but neither of us can actually come up with an ideal age of consent.

The amount of harm actually done isn't that important from a legal standpoint, it is the potential for harm.

I wouldn't agree with that. While it can be argued that crime statistics have increased, that argument fails to take into account all of the crimes that aren't reported, or that the police don't enter into the official crime records. For instance, the assault of a black man might never enter the record if a racist police officer is the one who takes the initial call.
It seems likely that cases of spousal abuse would end up with the husband getting off with just a warning, or the wife would be less likely to report it for various reasons.

The crime stats are the only fully acceptable record. Speculating about unreported crimes doesn't make your arguments.

But you didn't mix your labor with them, why do you have the right to claim them?

You did say it was on my land, all that is on the land is mine. The exact size of the valid claim I derive by building a house on the land is a 'continuum question', that is to say it is like the age of consent point above. There clearly must be a boundary between my land, yours, and his, and boundary must be definable.

I would agree that private charity has done more with an equivalent amount of money, but not that private charity has done more than the government has with its vast amounts of money.

People give prodigiously out of their own pockets, even while they are taxed to the hilt. Without taxes, generous sould can give that much more. We already know they want to because they give out of a smaller pot of income.

I also find it rather odd that libertarians seem to be so worried about welfare given to individuals when it is corporate welfare that takes up much more money and is a much bigger problem. If that money was diverted to welfare for citizens, who knows what we'd see, but certainly something better than what we have now.

Welfare came up in the thread, it is subjected to greater attack because it is a harder target. Almost everyone hates corporate welfare, it is an easy target, not something for which a great deal of effort is necessary.

People give prodigiously out of their own pockets, even while they are taxed to the hilt. Without taxes, generous sould can give that much more. We already know they want to because they give out of a smaller pot of income.

Here you are just making assumptions. You have no hard evidence that private charity will fill the needs of...whatever group you've been talking about.

Not at all, people under the existing environment of extremely high taxes still give generously.

I think libertarians are attention-seekers, but that's just my opinion.

Where are the real stances on monopolies? I can never get a straight answer out of libs. How would a lib society deal with monopolies? Yes, yes, I know all the talk of the government being responsible for most monopolies, but the fact is is that monopolies would arise in a free market society. How would they be dealt with?

What about businesses buying political favors from senators, etc? The government, as libs assure me, wouldn't have power to do this... but if the government could be changed into a lib. gov. then what's stopping it from becoming a bribe-infested one?

People who post without reading the thread should not call others attention seekers.

Monopolies are correctly defined as government grants of privilege. A monopoly cannot survive in a free market. The reason it can't survive is that in a free market, there are no barriers to entry. If a monopoly in a free market decides it will increase prices beyond the market clearing level to increase profits, other people will notice the increasing profits, and say to themselves "I'd like a piece of that", and enter the industry, or offer an alternative product.

The only way to stop this is to get the government to erect barriers (no Beavis and Butthead references, please).

I would further add that so-called anti-trust laws are an incredibly bad way to solve a false problem. They are based on the premise that there is a perfect shape for the market, which can be determined scientifically by bureaucrats. This is impossible. The market is always a process of discovery. Anti-trust laws enable corrupt politicians to prosecute anyone who refuses to donate to their party. Under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, a business man can be prosecuted is he:


Charges higher prices than his competitors while retaining 8% of the market (where the hell did they pull that figure from, I suppose this is another Beavis and Butthead reference)
Charges the same as his competitors (cartelisation, and collusion); or
Charges less than his competitors (cut-throat pricing)


I would like you to consider something. Can one charge any price other than more, less, or same as one's competitors? I don't think so. If your competitor is charging $1000 for his product, you can only charge more than $1000, less than $1000, or exactly $1000. I don't see anywhere else to go.

I now quote the absurd remarks of the presiding judge summing up against ALCOA:

It was not inevitable that it should always anticipate increases in the demand for ingot and be prepared to supply them. Nothing compelled it to keep doubling and redoubling its capacity before others entered the field. It insists that it never excluded competitors; but we can think of no more effective exclusion than progressively to embrace each new opportunity as it opened and to face every newcomer with new capacity already geared into a great organization, having the advantage of experience, trade connections and the elite of personnel

What this judge is saying is that ALCOA was committing a crime by:


Meeting the demands of the market
Doing it in an efficient manner
Putting great effort into finding new markets
Taking advantage of the existing experience in the organisation
Recruiting good people.


Perhaps an athletic analogy would help, were this judge judging a foot race, he might say "this runner did not have to run faster than his competitors. He was not required to eat well, and train hard. It was not inevitable that he would procure the services of a good coach"

There are even more examples:

Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, the grossly biased judge in the Microsoft case, has frequently compared Bill Gates to John D. Rockefeller, thereby perpetuating another statist myth -- that Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Company was a "monopoly." But Standard Oil caused the price of refined petroleum to fall from over 30 cents per gallon in 1869 to 5.9 cents by 1897 while stimulating an enormous amount of innovation in the industry, just as Microsoft has stimulated innovation in today’s computer industry. For this great service to consumers, Rockefeller was prosecuted and forced to break up his company.

...

For example, the American Tobacco Company was found guilty of "monopolization" in 1911, even though the price of cigarettes (per thousand) had declined from $2.77 in 1895 to $2.20 in 1907, despite a 40 percent increase in raw material costs.

...

In 1962 the government forbade the Brown Shoe Company, which had 1 percent of the shoe market, from acquiring Kinney Shoes, which also had a 1 percent market share. A company with 2 percent of the shoe market, according to the government, constituted a monopoly.

...

Antitrust regulation killed Pan American World Airways by forbidding it from acquiring domestic routes. Lacking "feeder" traffic for its international flights, the company went bankrupt.

I would like you to demonstrate exactly how a free market can create, and sustain a monopoly, when it never has done before.

Initially, monopoly actually was defined by mianstream economists as grants of government privilege. A business man would go to the King, and ask him for a monopoly over this territory, and the King (after getting a fee) would grant it.


As for political favours, a libertarian state is constrained to do only three things, operate defensive military forces, operate a police force, and operate courts of law.

What favours do you imagine would be for sale in such a state? In contemporary, Western mixed economies, political favours are certainly a problem, in any system in which the government has licence to poke its nose in whereever it pleases, political favours are going to be a problem. The problem is not that people want to buy them, the problem is that there are political favours to sell.

I find it interesting that no one seems to want to address this point (which has been raised before, read before posting in future, especially before posting gratuitous insults). Politicians in a libertarian state are in a position to grant no favours. Answer the simple question: what could a body politic that is restricted to military defence; and law and order actually do in terms of granting favours?

You could try to bribe me to reverse the direction of the Earth's rotation. You could give me millions to do it. But I can't reverse the rotation of a planet.

I've actually addressed this point before. Clearly, in terms of enforcing laws, there has to be some age at which a person is considered able to consent. As to the exact age, you have you ideas, and I mine. I generally find that 16-21 is where most people will tend to agree, and where the line tends to be placed, but neither of us can actually come up with an ideal age of consent.

The amount of harm actually done isn't that important from a legal standpoint, it is the potential for harm.And likewise, a job with an equal potential for harm to a minor (equal to the potential harm that the minor would receive from underage sex) should not be something that the minor's legal guardian can consent to.

The crime stats are the only fully acceptable record. Speculating about unreported crimes doesn't make your arguments.I disagree that the crime stats are an acceptable record, for the reasons I've stated.

You did say it was on my land, all that is on the land is mine. The exact size of the valid claim I derive by building a house on the land is a 'continuum question', that is to say it is like the age of consent point above. There clearly must be a boundary between my land, yours, and his, and boundary must be definable.I stated that you had claimed the land. You stated that land claims were acceptable because theoretically people would be mixing their labor with the land, and mixing one's labor with the land is what validates the claim. As you did not mix your labor with the peach trees, your claim on them would be unacceptable according to the guidelines you'd established.

Definable boundaries would be, for instance, the boundary of land which an individual is using, with all land rights based upon usage of said land.

People give prodigiously out of their own pockets, even while they are taxed to the hilt. Without taxes, generous sould can give that much more. We already know they want to because they give out of a smaller pot of income.I don't know of anyone who's taxed to the hilt.
While it is provable that without taxes, people would give more, it isn't provable that they would give a proportion of their income that is the same as it was after taxes.

Welfare came up in the thread, it is subjected to greater attack because it is a harder target. Almost everyone hates corporate welfare, it is an easy target, not something for which a great deal of effort is necessary.Fair enough.

As for political favours, a libertarian state is constrained to do only three things, operate defensive military forces, operate a police force, and operate courts of law.Constained by what? The law. So all the state has to do is change the law.

What favours do you imagine would be for sale in such a state? In contemporary, Western mixed economies, political favours are certainly a problem, in any system in which the government has licence to poke its nose in whereever it pleases, political favours are going to be a problem. The problem is not that people want to buy them, the problem is that there are political favours to sell.The problem is that people have the ability to buy them and to sell them.

I find it interesting that no one seems to want to address this point Politicians in a libertarian state are in a position to grant no favours. Answer the simple question: what could a body politic that is restricted to military defence; and law and order actually do in terms of granting favours?

You could try to bribe me to reverse the direction of the Earth's rotation. You could give me millions to do it. But I can't reverse the rotation of a planet.There isn't a powerful force outside of human capacity in this case, all there is are humanmade laws and institutions, which can be changed according to the dictates of humans.

For the purposes of this thread, let's define right-wing libertarians as supporters of capitalism who support a limited and tiny government, and anarcho-capitalists as supporters of capitalism who support no government. For the purposes of simplicity, in the future when I say libertarians, I mean right-wing libertarians.

So the question is: what exactly do libertarians believe the purpose of government should be? More to the point, I want you to list the purpose, but also list the amount of time that you think realistically the government would be taking up with its business. For instance, you might have the purposes listed as courts (internal defense, or perhaps defense of private property), roads, army(external defense), and other things. So putting percentages to it might look like this:

Courts 45%
Roads 25%
Army 20%
Other things 5%

In other words, 45% of the government's business would be dealing with courts and those issues, etc.

The purpose of this thread is because I say that anarcho-capitalism over libertarianism (though I dislike both.) But my reasons why will make more sense if people answer in the fashion that I ask. Thank you.

Whoooa - you are way off. Under libertarianism there would be far fewer laws - so law enforecement and courts would be much less expensive. The government would also no longer be centralized - so the federal government bufget would be considerably different from the state budget which would differ more from the local governments.

Whoooa - you are way off. Under libertarianism there would be far fewer laws - so law enforecement and courts would be much less expensive. The government would also no longer be centralized - so the federal government bufget would be considerably different from the state budget which would differ more from the local governments.Certainly they would be less expensive, but there would be far fewer taxes, and since libertarian governments deal with fewer things, law enforcement and courts would take up an even greater part of the budget than they do now, unless you have some compelling reason why they wouldn't.
Furthermore, while your vision of a libertarian government might be that of a federal system, nothing about libertarianism implies that, it could also be a confederate or a unitary system.

Well, it would appear that I was proven wrong by my ignorant beliefs of monopolies... Thank you disraeliland. :)

I disagree that the crime stats are an acceptable record, for the reasons I've stated.

The so-called evidence to which you referred cannot be objectively evaluated. It is nothing more than speculation.

I stated that you had claimed the land. You stated that land claims were acceptable because theoretically people would be mixing their labor with the land, and mixing one's labor with the land is what validates the claim. As you did not mix your labor with the peach trees, your claim on them would be unacceptable according to the guidelines you'd established.

You stated that it was my land. My claim's acceptability is determined solely by the amount of land I can legitimately claim as a result of mixing my labour with some, and how much labour. You gave no specific information in your little scenario (which is a habit for you, you in fact started this thread in this manner) including the size of the house, the height of it, or the amount of land surrounding it claimed. The trees are on land I have claimed as a result of my mixing my labour with the land, ergo, the trees are mine, and you cannot use them without my permission.

As to the exact size of the legitimate claim established, it is as I said a continuum question that takes several different factors into account including scarcity of useful land, and the population density.

I don't know of anyone who's taxed to the hilt.

You ought to get out more.

While it is provable that without taxes, people would give more, it isn't provable that they would give a proportion of their income that is the same as it was after taxes.

Nor is it necessary to prove that. Also, you must consider that government welfare programs spend money into the trillions, and produce no real improvements, no great reduction in poverty, the dependency and lack of incentives to self-improvement created by government welfare have typically led to such odious phenomena as teenage pregnancies, drug dependency, and high crime.

Private charities have acheived much more with much less, as you have acknowledged.

Constained by what? The law. So all the state has to do is change the law.

Governments are typically constrained by not only legislation, but constitutions, divisions of power, separation of power, courts of law, and houses of review. These have been fairly effective.

One can devise all sorts and manner of ways to do this, and this is beyond the scope of the thread.

People can only ever buy something if someone is able to sell it. If no one can sell something, how can someone buy it?

The problem is that people have the ability to buy them and to sell them.

That makes no sense whatsoever. If there's nothing to sell, how can anyone buy it? Can you buy a perpetual-motion machine?

Can you explain how the people wanting to buy can affect anything if there is nothing to sell?

You are presumably aware of the fact that political corruption tends to vary directly with the amount of power a government possesses, and inversly with the amount and type of constraints on government power?

http://www.icgg.org/corruption.cpi_2005_graph.html

(The countries at the bottom are most corrupt)

http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=193&year=2005

(Freedom ratings from Freedom House)

You see, countries that are more free tend to be far less corrupt. Less free countries tend to be more corrupt.

Exactly why you think taking power away from the government, and returning it to the people will lead to more corruption is beyond current medical science.

The so-called evidence to which you referred cannot be objectively evaluated. It is nothing more than speculation.There are limits in the ability of evaluating the crime stats due to what I referred to. Unless, of course, you're implying that all crimes are reported.

You stated that it was my land.

Er, no.

Fair enough, but what if you claim a piece of land with peach trees on one end of it. You build a house, but do nothing with the peach trees, except pick one for yourself occasionally. Why should you be allowed to keep me from picking peaches from the trees?

As you can see, I referred to the claim on the land.

My claim's acceptability is determined solely by the amount of land I can legitimately claim as a result of mixing my labour with some, and how much labour. Yes, but why can you claim more than what you've mixed your labor with?


You gave no specific information in your little scenario (which is a habit for you, you in fact started this thread in this manner) including the size of the house, the height of it, or the amount of land surrounding it claimed. I gave as much information as was necessary to answer the questions. I'm not going to connect the dots for you, because that would mean that I would have to assume something that might not coincide with your view of libertarianism (for the original scenario) or of a house that you'd vuild (for the scenario in question). If I had stated that the house had 1000 sq. meters of space in it, you might say that the house was too big or too small for you and then consider the question to be irrelevent. The amount of land surrounding it is irrelevant if you don't mix your labor with the land, unless you have some other justification for why it is relevant.

As to the exact size of the legitimate claim established, it is as I said a continuum question that takes several different factors into account including scarcity of useful land, and the population density.Why should it take those factors into account? Either a claim is valid or it isn't.

You ought to get out more.There isn't anyone here who pays more than half of their income in taxes.

Nor is it necessary to prove that. To simply state that people would give more without taxes is true, but it is also underwhelming without knowing how much more they would give.

Also, you must consider that government welfare programs spend money into the trillions, and produce no real improvements, no great reduction in poverty, the dependency and lack of incentives to self-improvement created by government welfare have typically led to such odious phenomena as teenage pregnancies, drug dependency, and high crime.The lack of incentives to improve are there because of the lack of opportunities to improve. As far as the welfare credits given for children, the states with the lowest credits have the highest rates of teenage pregnancy. If welfare led to teen pregancy, it would be the other way around.
As far as the opportunities go, the lack of them is caused by capitalism, not welfare. I stated that the welfare system should be reformed, one of the reforms would be to provide job training to people on welfare. This would improve the opportunities, and therefore the incentive to improve.

Private charities have acheived much more with much less, as you have acknowledged.I stated that they would achieve much more with an equivalent amount of funding, the government as a whole has accomplished more than charities as a whole, due to the amount of funding that the government has. If there was a way to ensure that private charities would receive equal funding, it would be a good idea to switch to privtate charities, but people won't voluntarily donate at the rate that they are taxed.

Governments are typically constrained by not only legislation, but constitutions, divisions of power, separation of power, courts of law, and houses of review. These have been fairly effective.Many libertarians here have stated that the Constitution as it was originally written was fairly ideal to their views, and yet we have strayed far away from that. We have all of those things here.

One can devise all sorts and manner of ways to do this, and this is beyond the scope of the thread.

People can only ever buy something if someone is able to sell it. If no one can sell something, how can someone buy it?The government as a whole is able to sell it.

That makes no sense whatsoever. If there's nothing to sell, how can anyone buy it? Can you buy a perpetual-motion machine?Perpetual-motion machines can't exist, government corruption can.

Can you explain how the people wanting to buy can affect anything if there is nothing to sell?There is something to sell.

You are presumably aware of the fact that political corruption tends to vary directly with the amount of power a government possesses, and inversly with the amount and type of constraints on government power? Yes, but I'm concerned with all corruption, political corruption is no better or worse than other types.

You see, countries that are more free tend to be far less corrupt. Less free countries tend to be more corrupt.

Exactly why you think taking power away from the government, and returning it to the people will lead to more corruption is beyond current medical science.Your system returns power to the people, but not to all of the people. Since there are imbalances of power, you could end up with a small group of individuals with huge amounts of power - even more power than the government has. Also, it isn't necessary to get the government to pass laws in your favor, you could also pay the government to not "notice" that you've been breaking the law.

A system of direct democracy with equality of income would return power to the people, and do so equally.

There are limits in the ability of evaluating the crime stats due to what I referred to. Unless, of course, you're implying that all crimes are reported.

No, but the actual crime stats can be evaluated objectively. The so-called stats of unreported crimes are speculation.

Yes, but why can you claim more than what you've mixed your labor with?

I've mixed my labour with the land. What you're proposing sounds OK on the face of it, but when subjected to a little thought, falls apart. Take planting crops in soil that isn't that fertile, one would have to put a significant space between them. You are effectively saying that that space is not land with which I've mixed my labour, and therefore is open to you.

I gave as much information as was necessary to anseer the questions.

No, you didn't.

There isn't anyone here who pays more than half of their income in taxes.

What of hidden taxes, and sales taxes?

The lack of incentives to improve are there because of the lack of opportunities to improve

What an observation, giving people something for nothing gives a lack of incentive to improve.

As far as the opportunities go, the lack of them is caused by capitalism, not welfare. I stated that the welfare system should be reformed, one of the reforms would be to provide job training to people on welfare. This would improve the opportunities, and therefore the incentive to improve.

Your first point is nonsense. Your "solution" has been tried, it failed.

Many libertarians here have stated that the Constitution as it was originally written was fairly ideal to their views, and yet we have strayed far away from that. We have all of those things here.

Strawman.

The government as a whole is able to sell it.

A government which is limited to doing nothing more than providing security, and courts can sell political favours? Not at all.

Your system returns power to the people, but not to all of the people. Since there are imbalances of power, you could end up with a small group of individuals with huge amounts of power - even more power than the government has. Also, it isn't necessary to get the government to pass laws in your favor, you could also pay the government to not "notice" that you've been breaking the law.

Money is not power, it is an inducement. The only real power that has ever existed is force.

A system of direct democracy with equality of income would return power to the people, and do so equally.

No, it wouldn't it would devolve into mob rule.

No, but the actual crime stats can be evaluated objectively. The so-called stats of unreported crimes are speculation.They can only be evaluated against each other, they don't in and of themselves explain why crime increases or decreases.

I've mixed my labour with the land. What you're proposing sounds OK on the face of it, but when subjected to a little thought, falls apart. Take planting crops in soil that isn't that fertile, one would have to put a significant space between them. You are effectively saying that that space is not land with which I've mixed my labour, and therefore is open to you.I can see where your objection is coming from but I think that spacing the crops by a few inches is necessary for any crop planting, and would be taken into account when measuring the use of the land. This is within reason, of course, you shouldn't be allowed to plant the crops a mile apart and claim that you're using all of that land.

What of hidden taxes, and sales taxes?I don't know of any hidden taxes, on my paycheck it lists all of the taxes and how much they're taking out. Sales taxes are somewhere from 5-10%, depending on the state, except possibly on certain goods, like cigarettes, which have consumption taxes. I suppose you could argue that someone buys enough cigarettes that the extra tax on them combined with all of the other taxes makes up more than half of their income, but I don't know anyone like that.

What an observation, giving people something for nothing gives a lack of incentive to improve.A lack of opportunities to improve provides the greatest lack of incentives.

Your first point is nonsense. Your "solution" has been tried, it failed.I don't know of anywhere it's been tried. As far as the point goes, a person growing up in a poor family has little chance of making something of themselves, and most of the chances that they have are only there as a result of income redistribution.

Strawman.How is giving an example that shows your argument is wrong a strawman?

A government which is limited to doing nothing more than providing security, and courts can sell political favours? Not at all.The only thing that greatly limits the government's power is other sectors of the government. You could argue that the people do so, but only if they're alert, aware, and involved, and there's no guarantee of that.

Money is not power, it is an inducement. The only real power that has ever existed is force.Force is no less of an inducement than money is, it just stipulates that you will be affected negatively for doing something/not doing something as opposed to positively, the way money does.

No, it wouldn't it would devolve into mob rule.Even if that is the case, it's still better than rule by a few individuals.

A monopoly cannot survive in a free market. The reason it can't survive is that in a free market, there are no barriers to entry.
What about if a company strikes up a deal with a supplier to but in bulk for much less per unit, and can sell below the cost that a smaller company, (who hasn't the recources to buy in bulk, as they have just entered the market) pays per unit?

There isn't a powerful force outside of human capacity in this case, all there is are humanmade laws and institutions, which can be changed according to the dictates of humans.

This is true of any system of government. Libertarianism, at least, trys to set up barriers to this.

This is true of any system of government. Libertarianism, at least, trys to set up barriers to this.Most systems of government try to set up barriers to this. Libertarianism is better at this than most, but I see no reason why they wouldn't fail in the end. This is why it's necessary to abolish government and go to a system of direct democracy with income equality - there's no government to influence and no way to bribe enough people to pass a law you want.