• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

A thought experiment for Libertarians

AvalonXQ said:
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.
Click to expand...

Wonderfully put.
 
AvalonXQ said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, what he said is that private ownership stems from state ownership and that state has more power than you. You can always pick your table up and move to another building if you like.
 
AvalonXQ said:
In your scenario, nobody owns real property but you.
Click to expand...
Sure. And for the sake of argument, we'll say the government owns all the land in the USA.

AvalonXQ said:
If anybody else other than you owns some of the property, then your rules don't apply when they step off your property.
Click to expand...
Sure, just like US law doesn't apply once you cross the border to Canada

AvalonXQ said:
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.
Click to expand...
And one person owns the building in the example. How is that better than the State owning the country?

AvalonXQ said:
They like private ownership, not State ownership.
Click to expand...
Again, specifically, why is one okay and the other not?

AvalonXQ said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't see it that way at all. The point is why is it okay for a building owner to charge percentages of earnings in return for services but its not okay for a government to do so?
 
You know SumDood, there will eventually come a point where the rich and intelligent people do flee the country.

This has happened over and over again throughout history.

Then who will you tax? Who will you enslave?

Keep arguing that the people should leave, keep raising the level of tyranny we all live under and eventually you will get what you wish for.

400 people make up 10% of all capital gains taxes collected in this country. Obviously they are all rich and highly mobile. Who will you tax when they decide to take you up on your offer?

Billionaire Jim Rodgers has already fled the country - to China. More are sure to follow him.

The rest of us who don't have billions at our disposal or the time to learn foreign languages/customs will be left here to rot beside you.
 
Last edited:
michaelsuede said:
You know SumDood, there will eventually come a point where the rich and intelligent people do flee the country.

This has happened over and over again throughout history.

Then who will you tax? Who will you enslave?

Keep arguing that the people should leave, keep raising the level of tyranny we all live under and eventually you will get what you wish for.

400 people make up 10% of all capital gains taxes collected in this country. Obviously they are all rich and highly mobile. Who will you tax when they decide to take you up on your offer?

Billionaire Jim Rodgers has already fled the country - to China. More are sure to follow him.

The rest of us who don't have billions at our disposal or the time to learn foreign languages/customs will be left here to rot beside you.
Click to expand...

Evasion noted.

So rather than spend the effort to learn a new language, you would rather spend a lifetime of misery under a tyrannical government?
 
SumDood said:
Sure. And for the sake of argument, we'll say the government owns all the land in the USA.
Click to expand...

Ah, but that's where we disagree! The government doesn't own the land in the USA; citizens of the government do. And so I object to the government acting like it owns what, in fact, I own.
The purpose of the government is to protect private ownership, not to act as an owner itself. Private property; not public property -- capitalism, not communism.
Placing the government in the position of a private owner doesn't work to make it valid under libertarian principles, because in order for your analogy to work you also have to claim that the government owns everything -- a claim that libertarians certainly won't agree with.
In other words, moving the problems libertarians have with the current set-up from "the government is infringing the rights of private property owners" to "there's no such thing as private property; the government actually owns everything" doesn't suddenly make the situation acceptable; it just changes the remedy from "we need to stop the government from infringing our rights" to "we need to be allowed to own private property".
 
SumDood said:
Evasion noted.

So rather than spend the effort to learn a new language, you would rather spend a lifetime of misery under a tyrannical government?
Click to expand...

When people are faced with tyranny they have one of three choices:

1. submit

2. fight

3. flee

Tyranny comes from government, it is not prevented by government.
 
michaelsuede said:
I take GW Bush's stance.

"Terror must be stopped. No nation can negotiate with terrorists. For there is no way to make peace with those whose only goal is death." -Bush
Click to expand...

But you suggested 'Submit', and 'Run'. Isn't submitting worse than negotiating?
 
Cavemonster said:
I recognize there's huge variation in the people who label themselves libertarian. Perhaps I should have been more clear that I'm interested in those who hang a lot of weight on the black and white ideas of freedom, violence, and aggression. These are not fringe nutjobs who hold these views, that there is the market on one hand, and coercion on the other, these are fairly widely held views as far as the scale of libertarianism is concerned.

My point again is that you can arrive at something very similar to a government, (in my opinion with no difference but the title) within the realm of what these same people would consider noncoercive, nonaggressive and perfectly just if it were done by a business.



I thought the similarity between the apartment and a country was pretty self explanatory. It isn't begging the question to supply an analogy without exhaustively cataloging why it's appropriate.

I tried to include all the relevant facets and all the typical libertarian objections, working and living, being born there. If you see an element of the business I've described that's not analogous to a country in a meaningful way, please point it out.
Click to expand...

Yes they are, most self described libertarians do not endorse anarchy. Libertarians are generally opposed to government attempts at social engineering. If you don't want to drink in a smoke filled bar, don't go to a bar that allows smoking. If you think that pornography is immoral, don't watch it. But don't try to tell the bar owner he cannot allow smoking or try to ban pornography. And so on. Few libertarians, and no intellectually serious ones, want to eliminate government and taxation entirely. While they typically oppose intervention, they still recognize that there needs to be a military for defense purposes and so on. Their objections to government power tend to be about stopping people from doing as they fit if it is not hurting others. Few, if any, libertarians would want me to be building nuclear reactors in my backyard, potentially poisoning every one around as I have no idea how to safely build one, but if I want to smoke pot and eat a bunch of fatty fried chicken in my backyard, well that is none of the government's business.
 
Twiler said:
But you suggested 'Submit', and 'Run'. Isn't submitting worse than negotiating?
Click to expand...

Negotiating is what politicians do on a daily basis.

They negotiate who they will take money from and who they will give it to.

What negotiations do you propose take place?

That I should argue the government should take from people other than myself and give it to me?
 
michaelsuede said:
Negotiating is what politicians do on a daily basis.

They negotiate who they will take money from and who they will give it to.

What negotiations do you propose take place?

That I should argue the government should take from people other than myself and give it to me?
Click to expand...

How about 'Stop being corrupt or we'll storm your citadel and cut your throats'?
 
Twiler said:
How about 'Stop being corrupt or we'll storm your citadel and cut your throats'?
Click to expand...

In order for them to stop being corrupt, they must stop looting people.

If they did that, then I would have my free society now wouldn't I?
 
michaelsuede said:
In order for them to stop being corrupt, they must stop looting people.

If they did that, then I would have my free society now wouldn't I?
Click to expand...

I don't define, 'doing what is, by definition, your job as members of the government' as being corrupt.

I call 'lying, taking bribes, and breaking your own laws', as being corrupt.
 
Twiler said:
I don't define, 'doing what is, by definition, your job as members of the government' as being corrupt.

I call 'lying, taking bribes, and breaking your own laws', as being corrupt.
Click to expand...

Theft is against the law.

Calling theft taxation does not make it into something other than theft.
 
Pup said:
Personally, I'd draw the line at a non-revocable agreement binding on future generations--a permanent monarchy. But if a group wanted to choose a monarchy for themselves, it wouldn't be much different than the group choosing any other weird rules. It would only be immoral if they forced their decision on future generations.
Click to expand...

But how do you prevent it from applying to future generations? The common situation in Feudal Europe was that the lord retained ownership of everything and the serf rented it with their labour. This included not only the land they worked but the shack they lived in, the tools they used and even the clothes they wore. Even if these were made by the serf themselves they were made using labour that the serf was trading to the landlord, so the landlord owned the result.

Under such a system how do you prevent it from applying to future generations? Certainly an infant couldn’t set out to live on their own and even if you ignore the fact they are already heavily in debt to the landlord by the time they can even begin producing anything they would still essentially be walking out naked with no tools or land to work.

IMO feudal systems basically are libertarian in nature, but when you discuss that with libertarians they handwave it away by saying it’s different because the landlord is “the state” and therefore shouldn’t be doing these things but the difference between such systems and the democracies we have today is that individuals are the state and vice versa.

Historically, feudal style systems seem to be the inevitable end result when there are no checks on individual power and our modern democracies have pretty much all arisen out of systems that place limits on how much power individuals can wield. Removing these types of restrictions altogether cannot end well IMO.
 
Serfs were prevented from owning land.

Thus, libertarianism and feudalism have absolutely nothing in common with each other.

In a libertarian world, a group of serfs could pool their resources and buy a farm on their own dime, and from that, expand their ownership of resources.

Feudalism has MUCH more in common with our current system, where people never truly own the land they work. They must pay rent to the State and get permission from the State before they do anything to their land.

building permits, farming permits, property taxes, irrigation permits, mining permits, etc.. etc.. etc..
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
See, here you're citing "typical libertarian objections". Do you have references for this? Can you give us examples of "libertarian objections" in the real world? Can you demonstrate that these examples are "typical"?
Click to expand...

Does that distinction make sense? If something is ok for a landlord would it not still be ok if that landlord owned everything in the country (or jurisdiction within the country)?

If the answer is yes you are effectively saying it’s morally ok to have an absolute dictator who controls everything and runs it for their own personal benefit but not a democracy that acts in the best interest of voters. If the answer is no, then how do we decide when the landlord is now a “state” and no longer free to do as they wish with their own property?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom