A thought experiment for Libertarians

[michaelsuede]

What is legal today could suddenly become illegal tomorrow (or yesterday) at the whim of the government. They don't even have to say "agree or leave". They can just say "obey or we will throw you in the clink"!

A landlord simply doesn't have that power.

That's right.

The most they could do is throw you off the property.

And if you signed a rental agreement, they couldn't change it on the fly without your personal consent.

 

[Cavemonster]

No, you're missing the point.

The State (you) exert control over a region or you do not.

If you play the role of the State in your analogy, then you own everything and no one can be free from your control.

The best they can do is change apartment managers, they can never be free from you totally.

Further, if someone wants to change buildings in your analogy, they have to learn an entirely different language, change all the customs they are accustom to, and leave all of their extended family behind. Clearly this is ridiculous.

Let's take a step back then.
If I have an apartment building the size of the a city block, and the whole rest of the world is free open land, is my apartment "the state"?

If my apartment building is the size of the US and the rest of the world is open land, is my building "the state"?

If I have a building the size of the US, and there's another one the size of Canada right next door, but the rest of the world is open land, are both apartment buildings "The State" even if they have comepletely different rules and are run by people who never speak with each other.

At what point does this transition happen?

 

[michaelsuede]

Let's take a step back then.
If I have an apartment building the size of the a city block, and the whole rest of the world is free open land, is my apartment "the state"?

If my apartment building is the size of the US and the rest of the world is open land, is my building "the state"?

If I have a building the size of the US, and there's another one the size of Canada right next door, but the rest of the world is open land, are both apartment buildings "The State" even if they have comepletely different rules and are run by people who never speak with each other.

At what point does this transition happen?

There is no transition point.

The property is privately owned or it is not.

You are confused because your analogy does not accurately depict reality.

If you owned an entire city block, great. You set the rules on your property. However, as was pointed out, private owners can't do what the State can do.

 

[Cavemonster]

What is legal today could suddenly become illegal tomorrow (or yesterday) at the whim of the government. They don't even have to say "agree or leave". They can just say "obey or we will throw you in the clink"!

A landlord simply doesn't have that power.

Suppose that in some of the apartments there is drinking/drug taking/gambling/prostitution going on and the other tenants object. What can the landlord do? The answer is nothing if the contract does not mention these activities - until the lease is up for renewal. Even then, if the tenant is a good payer who otherwise causes no problems, the landlord may be reluctant to include terms in a contract that the tenant won't agree to - especially if he is not certain to get another tenant in a timely fashion.

Many in the CT brigade have tried to argue that the government has no authority over you unless it has a contract. They even go further and argue that the government can only deal with your "strawman" and if you can break the nexus between you and your strawman then you are free of all government regulations and charges.

None of it is true. A country is not an apartment complex and the government is not a landlord. You are comparing apples with oranges.

I absolutely agree that governments exercise power in ways that don't fit this model. If analogies matched the thing they portrayed in every facet, they wouldn't be analogies. We use them to zero in on a few key points.

In this case, they key points are the general notions of taxation, and law. Some libertarians put all taxes into the category of violence, but in my model, by doing business in the marketplace the building provides, you agree to a fee, and again it's not outside the realm of market contracts that fees can change, as long as both parties agree to the process by which they change.

My working contract for instance, has a term, but it clarifies that the board of directors may shorten that term at any time. This is standard in At-will employment states, a contract with terms that can be changed by one party.

Now you may think the specific application of those changes in law are poorly done, and I'm happy to discuss that. in fact this whole analogy is an attempt to get to that. I'm frustrated by the view that all taxes and all law enforcement is wrong by a central principle and want to bring these people to the table to discuss just what levels of government are appropriate. You can't do that when your debate partner insists that all taxation is de facto stealing.

 

[Cavemonster]

There is no transition point.

The property is privately owned or it is not.

You are confused because your analogy does not accurately depict reality.

If you owned an entire city block, great. You set the rules on your property. However, as was pointed out, private owners can't do what the State can do.

Yes, analogies are heavily simplified reality, that's what they do.

Let's try this again.
When does privately owned become a government in your eyes?
If I owned, privately, an apartment building the size of the US, am I suddenly a state?

 

[michaelsuede]

Let us list some of the things the State can do that private owners can not do:

1. Enslavement through conscription to fight foreign wars of aggression (drafts)

2. Kidnapping and false imprisonment for failure to pay rents (tax laws)

3. Kidnapping, false imprisonment, and torture for holding private property you disapprove of (drug laws, gun laws and solitary confinement)

4. Kidnapping and false imprisonment for disobeying orders (police "lawful" orders, impeding a police investigation, disorderly conduct, etc.. etc.. )

5. Theft, kidnapping, and false imprisonment for selling private property (property confiscation for selling drugs, eminent domain, property confiscation for property taxes)

6. Theft and counterfeiting (fiat currency, inflation, central banking)


the list is nearly endless.

 

[michaelsuede]

Yes, analogies are heavily simplified reality, that's what they do.

Let's try this again.
When does privately owned become a government in your eyes?
If I owned, privately, an apartment building the size of the US, am I suddenly a state?

There is nothing wrong with an analogy that simplifies reality. As I pointed out though, yours does not accurately depict reality.

If I make up a hypothetical world where people walk on the ceiling, this hypothetical world fails as a model since it inherently goes against reality.

A private owner can never suddenly become a State.

 

[Cavemonster]

There is nothing wrong with an analogy that simplifies reality. As I pointed out though, yours does not accurately depict reality.

If I make up a hypothetical world where people walk on the ceiling, this hypothetical world fails as a model since it inherently goes against reality.

A private owner can never suddenly become a State.

What is the line between a private owner who has people working, living, and paying a percentage of their earnings (as per contract) on his property and a state.

You are still refusing to actually define what makes my model different than a state. Your list of crimes by the state are not definitional, I assume you still recognize as a state, entities which do not have a draft, and if you agree with the with most libertarians I've talked to, private security forces must maintain some power to detain, for instance thieves who refuse to cooperate or pay damages.

the fact that the next landmass over is also a state is a quality of the neighbors, not of the system.

So please, clearly tell me what differentiates my model from a bare bones state, not from any particular example of a state, but from one in principle.

 

[michaelsuede]

What is the line between a private owner who has people working, living, and paying a percentage of their earnings (as per contract) on his property and a state.

You are still refusing to actually define what makes my model different than a state. Your list of crimes by the state are not definitional, I assume you still recognize as a state, entities which do not have a draft, and if you agree with the with most libertarians I've talked to, private security forces must maintain some power to detain, for instance thieves who refuse to cooperate or pay damages.

the fact that the next landmass over is also a state is a quality of the neighbors, not of the system.

So please, clearly tell me what differentiates my model from a bare bones state, not from any particular example of a state, but from one in principle.

I'm not sure how I can be any more explicit.

I gave you a clear list of things States do that private citizens can not do.

Microsoft owns their corporate headquarters. They can regulate who they allow on to that property, the rules that apply for people to remain on that property, and what people can do to their property.

However, Microsoft can not take the property of their employees by force. Microsoft can not dictate fiat currency laws. Microsoft can not imprison visitors for violating arbitrary rules. Microsoft can not use force to compel their employees to do their bidding or order them into battle against their will.

The most Microsoft can do is take any property back that rightfully belongs to them and kick out trespassers with the least amount of force necessary to accomplish either of those objectives.

That is not a State. A State is the final arbitrator of all disputes and claims ownership (actual ownership) of the people that reside within their arbitrary geographical boundaries. Microsoft does not claim ownership of their employees nor do they claim to be the final arbitrator of all disputes within their property.

 

[Twiler]

I'm not sure how I can be any more explicit.

I gave you a clear list of things States do that private citizens can not do.

Microsoft owns their corporate headquarters. They can regulate who they allow on to that property, the rules that apply for people to remain on that property, and what people can do to their property.

However, Microsoft can not take the property of their employees by force. Microsoft can not dictate fiat currency laws. Microsoft can not imprison visitors for violating arbitrary rules. Microsoft can not use force to compel their employees to do their bidding or order them into battle against their will.

The most Microsoft can do is take any property back that rightfully belongs to them and kick out trespassers with the least amount of force necessary to accomplish either of those objectives.

That is not a State. A State is the final arbitrator of all disputes and claims ownership (actual ownership) of the people that reside within their arbitrary geographical boundaries. Microsoft does not claim ownership of their employees nor do they claim to be the final arbitrator of all disputes within their property.

Isn't that because they're trumped by the state? Isn't that exactly the situation that would arise if the state didn't exist?

 

[michaelsuede]

Isn't that because they're trumped by the state? Isn't that exactly the situation that would arise if the state didn't exist?

Kind of but not quite.

An anarcho-capitalist would argue that dispute resolution should be dealt with in private arbitration courts. Disputes should be settled by contract law and common law property rights.

The ideal system would have several "arbitrators of disputes" operating in the same geographical region and all of them would be voluntarily funded.

Think of many governments all controlling the same region simultaneously while being in competition with each other.

Economist Hans Hoppe lays out a scenario for how this might go down in a free society:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzglDS88u50

 

[psionl0]

So please, clearly tell me what differentiates my model from a bare bones state, not from any particular example of a state, but from one in principle.

The chief distinction between your apartment complex example and the real world is that within the apartment complex, the only body of law that exists is commercial law. If it is not in a contract then there is no law about it. A landlord has no authority to deal with common law crimes such as theft, assault or rape outside of a contract. Even then, in commerce, the only crime is "breach of contract" and any lien or claim can be settled by paying money (ie if you are rich enough you can legally commit murder).

Governments on the other hand, assume the authority (they have the guns) to deal in all aspects of law.

 

[Pup]

Originally Posted by Pup
But that's the catch. Agreed on by whom? How? Binding on whom?

Agreed by libertarians.

It was sort of a rhetorical question, the obvious answer being agreed on by the people who decided to reside within the monarchy.

If libertarians believe that people can enter into any kind of contract they see fit (which is what I thought they believed, and which is the part I agree with), then I see no problem whatsoever with a group of people agreeing they should live under a monarchy, as long as they don't bind other unborn people irrevocably.

It seems trivially obvious, especially as illustrated by your example, which is where I think libertarianism fails.

People don't live as individuals unconnected to others and never have, so sometimes group consensus needs reached about what the group should do. Honestly, I think a democratic republic is as close to ideal as one can get, though far from actually being ideal, but what libertarianism seems to fail to do, is even recognize that the problem of group decisions exist, let alone propose a solution for it.

They just complain about the government as if it was an amorphous monster, and not an emergent property of groups, created by and under the power of the residents as a group. One can see it in this thread, so I don't think it's necessary to cite examples to prove it.

From another post:

Government with laws and taxes == Apartment building with fees and rules

Libertarians often claim one is violence and one is freedom, I think the distinction is false

I agree, as long as the tenants are only binding themselves to the contract, or own it as a co-op.

 

[Pup]

The chief distinction between your apartment complex example and the real world is that within the apartment complex, the only body of law that exists is commercial law. If it is not in a contract then there is no law about it. A landlord has no authority to deal with common law crimes such as theft, assault or rape outside of a contract. Even then, in commerce, the only crime is "breach of contract" and any lien or claim can be settled by paying money (ie if you are rich enough you can legally commit murder).

Governments on the other hand, assume the authority (they have the guns) to deal in all aspects of law.

But Cavemonster's analogy expands up into that at the end. Just as malls hire private security firms and bars have bouncers, his huge, life-long apartment/business complex would surely wind up having armed guards if necessary. Maybe renters are starting to leave for the apartment next door because they're too scared to stay in this one, so the owner needs to increase safety to prevent an exodus of refugees across the border, or customers choosing to do business elsewhere.

So the owner would come up with rules for how to deal with crimes that occur within the complex and part of the rules could include the punishment of being confined to an 8x12 room within the complex for a certain length of time, if you committed a crime, enforced by armed guards.

Because the residents entered into a contract that the owner could make all the rules (agreed to a monarchy), the owner would have a right to institute punishment for crimes as he saw fit. If the residents owned the complex as a co-op (lived in a democracy or democratic republic), they themselves could vote in new rules, or vote in a board of directors who could make new rules.

 

[michaelsuede]

Libertarianism doesn't 'fail' at anything.

Your ignorance of theory does not mean an answer does not exist.

You apparently did not watch the video I just posted.

 

[Cavemonster]

A State is the final arbitrator of all disputes and claims ownership (actual ownership) of the people that reside within their arbitrary geographical boundaries. Microsoft does not claim ownership of their employees nor do they claim to be the final arbitrator of all disputes within their property.

Thank you, now we're getting somewhere.

But I'm not sure your definition holds true in the real world.
Where in the founding or governing documents of, for example, the US, does it say that all citizens are the property of the state. I can't think of a document that says that.

I'm free to leave the country at any time and become a citizen wherever I want, but my property is not free to leave my house without my permission,

 

[michaelsuede]

Thank you, now we're getting somewhere.

But I'm not sure your definition holds true in the real world.
Where in the founding or governing documents of, for example, the US, does it say that all citizens are the property of the state. I can't think of a document that says that.

I'm free to leave the country at any time and become a citizen wherever I want, but my property is not free to leave my house without my permission,

If the State did not own me, it would have no right to take what I produce without my permission.

If the State did not own me, it would have no right to tell me what I can and can not consume.

If the State did not own me, it would have no right to regulate the substances that I put into my body.

It is implicit that the State owns my person and the things that I produce. The State can take as much of my property as it chooses whenever it wishes. The State has raised the top bracket of income taxes to 100% in the past, and it can do so again for everyone's income whenever it feels like it.

 

[Cavemonster]

The chief distinction between your apartment complex example and the real world is that within the apartment complex, the only body of law that exists is commercial law. If it is not in a contract then there is no law about it. A landlord has no authority to deal with common law crimes such as theft, assault or rape outside of a contract. Even then, in commerce, the only crime is "breach of contract" and any lien or claim can be settled by paying money (ie if you are rich enough you can legally commit murder).

Governments on the other hand, assume the authority (they have the guns) to deal in all aspects of law.

The tenant agreement is the system of criminal law in this analogy. The police are a private security force that happens to be a branch of the same business that owns the building.

So the system absolutely mirrors a real state in function, the question is whether we can arrive at such a tenants agreement while sticking to libertarian principles.

It depends where on the spectrum of libertarian thought you begin.
If you start on the side that defines my freedom as the freedom to enter into any contact, even to the extent of selling myself into slavery, then all law and penalty is contained within the terms of the tenants contract.

If you take the other libertarian extreme that freedom means no one can be held to any future obligation except when property has changed hands, then I don't think my model can be derived from such a system. Problems with such a system where there is no legal recourse for any contract that comprises a future promise are their own issue, and could take up more than their own thread.

 

[psionl0]

You are still missing the point. There is more to law than just contracts.

There is also common law (or rather, court made law) and government made law. In democratic societies governments are set up by popular vote while undemocratic countries use the gun. Either way, governments assume (and enforce) certain rights over ALL individuals (including your mythical all-powerful landlord).

In the case of the apartment complex (where there is no other law), a law enforcement body will most likely arise among the tenants (hopefully by democratic means) that could resolve disputes among themselves and codify standards of behaviour. This body would probably exist independently of the landlord unless he has contracts with all of the tenants prohibiting such a body.

I must say, if all of the tenants in that apartment complex were willing to sign contracts that made them chattel property of the landlord then that must be one terrific apartment complex! As for me, I think I would rather move in the apartment across the street.

 

[AvalonXQ]

At this point, in my mind either at some point we've crossed a line where this property owner can't use force to protect his property, or the government can use force to levy taxes and protect their citizens. if there's a meaningful difference, please point it out to me.

In your scenario, nobody owns real property but you. If anybody else other than you owns some of the property, then your rules don't apply when they step off your property.
I think libertarians would agree with you that if a state can levy taxes and use coercive force, then nobody but the State really owns anything -- which is their point. They like private ownership, not State ownership.
In other words, what you've just walked through isn't a refutation of libertarian philosophy but an illustration of how modern coercive government is a violation of the concept of private ownership.