A thought experiment for Libertarians

[clown]

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..

No, they were not. Serfs were allowed to keep a big chunk of what they produced although big chunk was also taken by landlord. They could buy their freedom and as much land as they had money for but the problem was defending it once you've gained it.* The same problem your libertarian utopia would have if it would ever be forced to defend against real nations.


*Solution was forming of free cities, in which escaped serfs lived and earned a living. They still had to pay their taxes, since free cities paid annual ransom for their freedom to respective kings and their money came from taxes, usually coming from trade and those same escaped serfs.

 

[GreyArea]

If the State did not own me....

Can you imagine a human status that involves neither owning other people nor being owned?

Negotiating is what politicians do on a daily basis.
...
What negotiations do you propose take place?

Can you imagine negotiations between peers? (And I'm not referring to people with hereditary titles.)

...the State...The State...The State...

No, there is only the State or no State.

Can you imagine a distinction between a State and a government?

When people are faced with tyranny they have one of three choices:
1. submit
2. fight
3. flee

Twiler added "negotiate". A fifth option is "join", which plenty of people have chosen throughout history.

A private owner can never suddenly become a State.

So it would instead be a gradual process?

The State has raised the top bracket of income taxes to 100% in the past....

I'm curious about this example. Where has this been done, and when?

 

[michaelsuede]

If you assume to control my actions and my property, then clearly you advocate that you or someone else by proxy has a higher claim on myself than I do.

If you take from me against my consent, it is theft.

If you tell someone else to take from me against my consent, it is still theft.

If an entire nation of people agree that my property should be taken from me against my consent, it is still theft.

Theft is theft - it involves coercion to take the property of another.

I try to use the State as much as possible to clearly define that which is good from that which is bad. Government, if you want to call it that, can exist without a coercively funded State. I have demonstrated this on numerous occasions by posting numerous articles and videos by economics professors who explain how such a system could exist.

Coercively funded States are an unjustifiable tyranny that the people should not have to put up with.

Private citizens could only gradually become a State if others in society empowered them to loot on their behalf. This could be prevented by a system of private property security enforcement and adjudication.

Sorry, I was wrong. It was only 90 percent with a proposal to take it to 99.5.
http://www.mackinac.org/4035

As pointed out earlier in this essay, Herbert Hoover's own version of a "New Deal" had hiked the top marginal income tax rate from 24 to 63 percent in 1932. But he was a piker compared to his tax-happy successor. Under Roosevelt, the top rate was raised at first to 79 percent and then later to 90 percent. Economic historian Burton Folsom notes that in 1941 Roosevelt even proposed a whopping 99.5-percent marginal rate on all incomes over $100,000. "Why not?" he said when an advisor questioned the idea.[40]

 

[clown]

If you assume to control my actions and my property, then clearly you advocate that you or someone else by proxy has a higher claim on myself than I do.

If you take from me against my consent, it is theft.

If you tell someone else to take from me against my consent, it is still theft.

If an entire nation of people agree that my property should be taken from me against my consent, it is still theft.

Theft is theft - it involves coercion to take the property of another.

I try to use the State as much as possible to clearly define that which is good from that which is bad. Government, if you want to call it that, can exist without a coercively funded State. I have demonstrated this on numerous occasions by posting numerous articles and videos by economics professors who explain how such a system could exist.

Coercively funded States are an unjustifiable tyranny that the people should not have to put up with.

Private citizens could only gradually become a State if others in society empowered them to loot on their behalf. This could be prevented by a system of private property security enforcement and adjudication.

Sorry, I was wrong. It was only 90 percent with a proposal to take it to 99.5.
http://www.mackinac.org/4035

Link.

 

[lomiller]

Serfs were prevented from owning land.

Only in that they were no longer serfs if they somehow managed to own land. Since they had no disposable income to buy land and no one was selling it anyway there was no real hope of them ever owning land but there was never anyone sitting there saying “you are not allowed to”

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.

How very communal...

As noted though they didn’t actually have any resources, they had already traded the entire product of their efforts to their landlord for food and a place to live. 100X nothing is still nothing. You see similar things occurring in the US in the form of company towns, at least until the government put a stop to it.

 

[lomiller]

BTW since were are discussing land, there is at least one flavour of libertarianism (geolibertarianism) that holds that land can’t be privately owned because it isn’t the products of anyone’s efforts. Instead of land being privately owned they say it’s community property for which the titleholder pays for right to use exclusively.

http://geolib.com/essays/sullivan.dan/royallib.html

 

[IchabodPlain]

Kind of but not quite.

An anarcho-capitalist would argue that dispute resolution should be dealt with in private arbitration courts.

I've already posted this, but...

The wha??

You're suing someone, yet you think that isn't governance? And if I disagree with your charges, yet the case rules in your favor? Aren't you, by proxy, stealing from me that which I believe is rightfully mine? Courts render themselves meaningless unless their rulings can be enforced. What if two different courts disagree? Higher courts? Enforced by whom, exactly? Doesn't that initiate violence when court orders are enforced against an unwilling individual who believes no abuse of rights has occurred?

By creating an institution which guides the scope of natural rights, you've set up the moral underpinning for justified violence. You've also created a magnificent opportunity for corruption, so congratulations on that. Maybe competition cures all ills - but courts aren't free. I'd need to pony up to defend my case, then for higher courts on appeals (assuming I can). And even in the odd case of a respected judge and company - their power provides an ever-present economic incentive to do wrong.



Oh? And if I'm accused of murder, but plead innocent then what? I'm hung as a murderer by a mob? The mob clashes which my private security force which I pay to protect my rights (assuming I can)? Is it The Battle of Orlando every time I'm accused of stealing a Snickers?



Well, no. It's law and order because it has an enforcement mechanism. You do see the "law" in "law and order" correct? Laws are some jumble of words written on a bit of stone or paper without enforcement. That enforcement isn't free. Further, 1,000's of security members aren't going to die over you or anyone else every time the town thinks you're accused of a serious crime which you plead innocent.

Any response?

 

[IchabodPlain]

If you assume to control my actions and my property, then clearly you advocate that you or someone else by proxy has a higher claim on myself than I do.

So do you - You think "private arbitration courts" hold the ultimate authority, and thus, a higher claim than you.

If you take from me against my consent, it is theft.

Unless the private arbitration courts disagree.

If you tell someone else to take from me against my consent, it is still theft.

Unless the private arbitration courts disagree.

If an entire nation of people agree that my property should be taken from me against my consent, it is still theft.

Unless the private arbitration courts disagree.

I have demonstrated this on numerous occasions by posting numerous articles and videos by economics professors who explain how such a system could exist.

Spamming a YouTube link instead of using your own words to make a case strikes me as a failure to think for yourself, and a borderline appeal to authority.

 

[psionl0]

You think "private arbitration courts" hold the ultimate authority, and thus, a higher claim than you.

Private arbitration is applicable only when both sides to a dispute agree to allow the arbiter to make a ruling on their case.

Decisions made by a jury are considered to have a higher moral standing than decisions made by an individual. If one side to a dispute refuses all attempts at mediation then this would be the forum to make your case.

 

[IchabodPlain]

Private arbitration is applicable only when both sides to a dispute agree to allow the arbiter to make a ruling on their case.

And if they don't? If both sides do agree (give mutual consent) to a court case, then they are in fact giving courts a higher claim. Why would I want to do that?

Decisions made by a jury are considered to have a higher moral standing than decisions made by an individual. If one side to a dispute refuses all attempts at mediation then this would be the forum to make your case.

If I don't believe I've done anything wrong, why should I risk an arbiter or jury deciding against me?

 

[psionl0]

If I don't believe I've done anything wrong, why should I risk an arbiter or jury deciding against me?

If you are a threat to the community then the community will do what ever it takes to protect itself from you. You don't have to participate in any process the community uses to deal with you but one way or another they are going to decide what it is you have done and what punishment would be appropriate.

If you believe you have done nothing wrong then it is probably better for you to participate in any process the community has set up to deal with you. In the case of a purely financial matter, the cheapest solution is probably to put your case to an arbiter - especially if the arbiter is known to make good faith decisions. If the arbiter rules in your favour then you have the comfort of knowing that the community will be behind you.

 

[IchabodPlain]

If you are a threat to the community then the community will do what ever it takes to protect itself from you.

So, collectively, the community has a higher claim to my property than I do? I mean, if they feel threatened, they are justified in taking from me that which I believe it rightfully mine, correct? Is this not a violation of my individual rights and the initiation of violence?

You don't have to participate in any process the community uses to deal with you but one way or another they are going to decide what it is you have done and what punishment would be appropriate.

How very antithetical to the idea of individualism and Libertarianism. So the community will coerce me to do their bidding if I don't comply? They will steal from me? Initiate violence against me? It's mob rule where the community makes the decisions on my behalf. That any An-Capper can't see that you've not only created government, but that it's a government by mob rule who effectively owns a higher claim to my property than me is beyond my comprehension.

If you believe you have done nothing wrong then it is probably better for you to participate in any process the community has set up to deal with you.

Hey, you've got nothing to hide, so pee in the cup. The doublespeak in this post is amazing!

In the case of a purely financial matter, the cheapest solution is probably to put your case to an arbiter - especially if the arbiter is known to make good faith decisions.

Two things:

1) The cheapest solution is to say damn your corruptible courts, not comply, and keep paying my private security force to keep the mob off my property.

2) Any arbiter has an ever-present financial incentive to use his power to make prejudiced rulings. No matter how respected. This is because the arbiter is the supreme law of the land for all cases brought before him/her.

If the arbiter rules in your favour then you have the comfort of knowing that the community will be behind you.

Unless they think I bribed the arbiter, then we're back to the community "[deciding] what it is have done and what punishment would be appropriate."

 

[michaelsuede]

For those of you who are interested, here is how a voluntarily funded government would work:

http://www.fascistsoup.com/2011/05/12/the-state-or-a-private-law-society-hans-hoppe/

 

[SumDood]

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".

Fair enough. And since this thread as died down a little, lets modify the original scenario:

Say the building is a collection of privately owned condos and each owner has to pay a $100 a year fee to the 'management' of the building for maintenance of common areas, paying the doorman, etc. How is that different from the government collecting taxes and providing services?

 

[Pup]

Originally Posted by Pup
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.

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.

I don't think you could, with a classic monarchy, so maybe one couldn't even call it a monarchy. But something similar would be electing a ruler for life with no restrictions, other than being subject to recall. If 30 years down the road, the people decided to recall the leader and restructure things, they legally could.

Of course, the risk is that any leader with self-interest would use his power in the meantime to make recall too dangerous, which is why people seem to be less and less willing to live under monarchies or dictatorships.

What complicates everything is the nebulous concept of law and its relationship to power. The American revolution is a good example. Theoretically, we were living under a monarchy in 1775. We "illegally" rebelled against it and set up our own government, which is now generally recognized as "legal," and even if someone doesn't recognize it as legal, those supporting the current form of government have enough power to pretty much keep it in force.

So in practice, what's considered "legal" is more about power than law, and any form of government will only last as long as the people support it and other nations respect it, or it has the power to stand on its own without that support and respect (which historically hasn't lasted very long).

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.

Well, that does bring up the problem of monopolies. People don't tend to stay equal; some rise to the top and gain more wealth and therefore power than others.

 

[clown]

Well, that does bring up the problem of monopolies. People don't tend to stay equal; some rise to the top and gain more wealth and therefore power than others.

I've written about it in this thread. No one chose to reply. I'm starting to worry I'm some sort of thread killer.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7134940#post7134940

 

[psionl0]

So, collectively, the community has a higher claim to my property than I do? . . . etc . . . etc . . . etc

This has nothing to do with moral authority. It is simply how the real world works.

Anybody who is guilty of a common law crime like murder is extremely unlikely to volunteer to be punished. Even if someone "breaches a contract", he is unlikely to admit this and offer restitution. He in all probability would believe that he has complied with the contract.

So what do you do if someone causes you harm but does not consent to be dealt with by the community's legal process in any way? If you sic your "private security force" on to him then you are effectively declaring that you have a "higher claim" to his property than he does.

 

[IchabodPlain]

This has nothing to do with moral authority. It is simply how the real world works.

How ironic.

Anybody who is guilty of a common law crime like murder is extremely unlikely to volunteer to be punished.

In the real world, you will not have perfect knowledge regarding guilt or innocence. Ironically, I did not say whether I am innocent or guilty - you've merely assumed guilt numerous times in this and prior posts of yours. That's mob rule for you. That you've chosen to gloss over this, presumed guilt and not acknowledged that you've created government in the "private justice system" enforced by mob rule strikes me as one who cares little for the real world.

So what do you do if someone causes you harm but does not consent to be dealt with by the community's legal process in any way? If you sic your "private security force" on to him then you are effectively declaring that you have a "higher claim" to his property than he does.

Not in the slightest. If someone initiates violence against me, I am well within my rights to use proportional retaliatory force against him/her to protect my welfare and property.

 

[Muldur]

That would be great to create an analogy to democracy. I don't want to go that far or get that complicated, because I don't feel I have to. I just want to get to the point of justification of any government having a right under the terms defined by libertarians, to have taxes and use force.

Imagine my government is akin to a monarchy.

There are levels of ownership. Just like it's your apartment on one level if you're renting, it is the owner's apartment on a higher level. In a monarchy, the crown owns all the land on the highest level, and individual ownership is a kind of lease beneath that.

Once that is agree on as a valid system, I don't think it's difficult to replace that monarchy with group ownership and retain the same "moral" values.

The problem is that with arch-Libertarians (like michaelsuede) there is no such thing as ANY right beyond individual rights, and no obligation on an individual other than one explicitly agreed to by that individual. They deny the existence of the Social Contract, and any obligation that arises therefrom. It is an antiquated, anarchic system that lost any relevance to societies and economies with the advent of the Industrial revolution, which allowed for the hyper-specialization of labor and removed vital social controls that checked the greed of moneyed interests. The base conditions that its assumptions rested on no longer exist.

A quick example:

There is a mill in a town (pre-IR). The miller serves the community interest by grinding grains the local farmers produce, packaging it, and selling the resulting flour. Every town had one, because there was a natural limit to how far it was practicable to move the grain and the flour.

Now the miller still had to live in that town, by which I mean he was dependent on the local stores for his other food goods, his clothes, etc. Furthermore, he was dependent on the local farmers for his grain to grind. Thus he had to treat fairly with the town in order for he himself to stay in business.

Along comes the IR. Now the miller can buy grain in towns all around the area, and can import them to his mills. He can also ship flour to all those areas and even further. He turns around and plays the farmers of one town off against the others to lower his grain price, and then turns around and plays them off against each other again to get the highest price possible for his flour. With his increased profits, he can also import all the food and other goods he wants or needs, so he no longer has to deal with the local stores. Thus the natural social check that existed (the ability of the town to, if needed, break the miller by refusing to do business with him) and the natural economic check (the need of the miller for both ingredients [grain], customers [local farmers] and other goods [local stores]) is gone as well.

Now, the farmers either can't or won't put up with it any more, so they get together democratically and decide to control the prices charged for flour and demand a fair price for grain. This restores the balance that industrialization destroyed, albeit somewhat artificially.

REASONABLE people understand both the need for and justice of doing so.

Libertarians, however, whine about the usurpation of their "rights" and demand that they be allowed to expliot the farmers and towns as they have come to do, citing "natural rights" to their "property". They want to pretend that the economy and society is the same pre-industrialization and post-industrialization, something which the experience of history clearly demonstrates is NOT the case.

 

[ftl]

People are also born into apartment buildings, and they also have the option to obey the rules or leave.

If governments institute use of force to keep people from leaving, then I would see your problem. As far as I'm aware, the US at least has no policy to forcibly stop a citizen from moving elsewhere, unless that citizen has already broken enough laws to be incarcerated.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

The difference is the cost of leaving.

True, the USA doesn't have any policy to forcibly stop a person from leaving.

But if I leave, I have to abandon every friend I ever had (because they're in the US), leave my family, go to a place where I have no job and have no idea how my academic credentials or work experience will be received, where I'm going to stick out like a sore thumb from not knowing the culture for god knows how many years.

That's not a cost IMPOSED by anyone in particular. But it's a cost that's there. And you can't avoid it - you're born in one particular place, you make a life there which you'd have to leave to move elsewhere.

An apartment building? Yeah, you can move across the street to a different one, with the cost of moving being taking a day or two to transfer stuff from one room to another. No major impact on your job, friends, life, etc.