A thought experiment for Libertarians

[Muldur]

Libertarians believe that people can willingly enter into any kind of contract they see fit.

Honestly, I urge you to do that reading up before analyzing the OP. It was designed for people who already understand the non-aggression principle etc. and I'd rather not sidetrack into explaining what libertarianism believes. There are already plenty of threads for that.

The problem is and always has been the overy-narrow interpretation of "force" and "coercion" to mean only physical violence on the part of a "rights" holder. It ignores all other forms of force and coercion, even though their power is VERY real in real world terms.

Example:

There is an island. On this island is a stand of fruit trees, as well as a fresh water source and other needful materials for building shelter.

A shipwrecked man washes up on shore, finds the island empty, and settles in, claiming "ownership" of the island. He has to pick the fruit to eat them of course. If he wants shelter, he must build it himself as well.

Another man washes up on shore. He wishes to build a shelter, gather water, and pick fruit for himself. The first man says "No, you may not. It's MY island, and MY fruit trees/water/shelter materials. If you want any of it, you must do as I say." The Libertarian would find no fault in this as the island is the first man's "property".

Now the 2nd man is hurt, weak, and hungry, and thirsty from being shipwrecked. He doesn't want to die, so he asks for terms. The first man says "You will do anything and everything I say to do. You will make all the repairs on the shelters, gather all the water, pick all the fruit. In exchange, I will allow you just enough fruit and water to live, and just enough shelter material to block MOST of the elements. You will be hungry, thirsty, and constantly weakened by exposure, but you will live."

Having no REAL choice, (he's tired/hurt/etc, and cannot fight the first man for access to the resources) the 2nd man agrees and becomes the first man's slave. Libertarians would say that this "choice" was freely made. After all, the 2nd man could elect to leave the island, or to starve if he REALLY didn't want to be the first man's slave, they will claim.

Now along comes a THIRD survivor. The first man gives him the same "It's MY island speech" and tells him if he wants to live, he must agree to accept even LESS fruit, water and shelter than the 2nd man. He too will be constantly weak and suffering (even moreso than the 2nd man, but he does not want to die either, so he "agrees" to this treatment.

Now the first man turns to the 2nd man and tells him about the deal and says "If you want to CONTINUE to receive fruit/water/etc, you will accept even LESS than what I just agreed with the third man, or you will do even MORE work. Take it or else."

Again, the Libertarian will nod in approval at the whole sordrid affair, as it IS the first man's island by their reasoning, and the other two men "freely agreed" to accept what is plainly immoral treatment on the part of the first man.

The first man realizes that, weak or not, he is now outnumbered, so when yet another man washes up, the first man goes to him and says (after his "my island" speech), "I will treat you better than the first two men, if you will help me by keeping them from stealing fruit water and materials. You will also keep them from attacking me. They will suffer, but we will not. This newcomer, seeing that he will get more fruit, etc for less effort if he aids the first man in exploiting the two weak men agrees.

Again, all perfectly kosher in Libertarianland, as all parties "freely agree".

The two weak men decide they have had enough of doing all the work and getting ony a pitiful amoung of the resources, and decide to TAKE the things they need. They go to the resources and start loading up on resources.

NOW the Libertarian has a problem. The two weak men have "no right" to more resources than that which they "agreed" to take originally, so it is within the first and fourth man's rights to use violence against them to "protect their property".

And it's ALL built on the illusion that the first man had any "right" at all to more than what he needed to survive, and that he had the best "claim" on the island and it's resources based merely on the point that he got there first.

 

[Muldur]

Too much action, especially economically, is getting regulated to oblivion because people think that, because they can briefly garner 51% of the vote, they can dictate 100% of activity 100% of the time.

If that were true, we'd HAVE living wages in this country, and exploitative corporations like Wal Mart would be broken up by law.

In reality, we have ever DECLINING real wages and living standards for everyone but the rich minority, and corporations all around the country (and the world) prosper by pitting poor Americans against even poorer Mexicans, Chinese, Indians, etc.

In a free country, "everything" isn't up for dictatorial grabs to 51% of the population and the bloviating politicians leading the charge.

Not it's up for the grabs of the elites that pay off the politicians with campaign funds to talk one talk but walk another.

 

[Muldur]

Quote from 'theprestige": ETA: I mean, I'm sure there's some jackass out there who fetishizes "contract" to the point of social dysfunction and cognitive breakdown.

Without government, the concept of "contract" falls apart. The idea of a contract is "I'll do this for you and you do this for me." But what if you don't do this for me?? I have four basic recourses: 1) suck it up, 2) suck it up and try to tell people about it, 3) fight you with force to get what you said you would do, 4) appeal to legitimate government to get what you said you would do. In the anarchic libertarian world of no government, this becomes a question of might vs. right. Government is the ideal of enforcing right vs. right through a collective might. I'd like to be a (civil) libertarian, but they sound like anarchists. Ron Paul, for example, says that the FDA exists just to slow the deployment of drugs to market. What, like Thalidomide? I don't mind the fact that Thalidomide was not approved for use in the US. I guess Ron Paul would differ on that.

Ron Paul would say "If thalidomide hurts someone, they can sue for damages, and the makers will lose money and be punished. It's up to individuals to do the work themselves of studying the possible dangers of thalidomide, they have no right to act preemptively to keep people from possibly being harmed by thalidomide by demanding the maker prove it is safe.

Which is cookoo-land thinking, but there you have it.

 

[Muldur]

Sure. The landlord could also stipulate in a contract that you must build a shrine in your apartment and worship him every night. If you are silly enough to agree to such terms then you have no right to complain that you don't like the way the landlord does things.

It doesn't change the fundamental difference that the landlord is essentially someone you do business with while the government (believes it) is your ruler. The government can not only unilaterally change the terms of a contract it has with you, it can do so retrospectively. It doesn't matter that they can't change the past, they just appoint a judge who says, "yes they can".

Except that in a properly functioning government, the elected do as they promised the voters to do and if they don't the voters vote them out in favor of people who WILL. So ultimately the "landlord" is not an owner/tyrant, but an agent of the collective will of the tenants.

 

[Muldur]

Excuse me, what?! Taken to its logical conclusion, that would mean that we're essentially serfs working the land at the government's pleasure. It's a small step up from being personal property ourselves, but not much of one.

Again, as the government, functioning properly, is the agent of the will of the people, then there is no problem.

Of course, that presumes the idea that ANYONE "owns" land. It was here before us, and will be here after us. It is our COMMON birthright and source of sustenance.

 

[stevea]

... thought experiment.
...
2) It is reasonable for that business to use force to enforce those rules.

NO WAY - you generally have no right to use force as a citizen unless there is a felony involved. All you have described is a breech of contract - civil law, no crime, no felony. In some jurisdictions you can use "reasonable force" to eject people from your property, but you are also likely to get sued. Best to call the police to eject them.

Still with me? I can't imagine a free market in which this does not hold true, so I'd be surprised if you had an issue at this juncture.

You describe a situation where anyone is allowed to use force to enforce contracts and you DON'T see a problem ?!?!

4) Such rules can extend to the way you pay the business, and so long as they make the rules clear, they have every right to enforce them. For instance, a restaurant can have a policy that every time you fill up your soda at the self serve station, $1 will be added to your bill.

No - one party can't impose new contract terms on the other arbitrarily. These have to be mutually agreed to and clearly stated up front. That's central to a free-market exchange, and tort law for almost 500yrs. Also - as above - a civil court can enforce contract terms - YOU CANNOT ! The shop can bill you for every refill, but if you refuse to pay all they can do is sue. They can't enforce anything.

To advance my premise a bit, how about another example of the last rule?

My business is a trade show. I rent out a huge convention center, and vendors can set up tables to sell whatever they want. My rules are as follows.
A) You have to pay $5 to set up a table.
B) At the end of the day, you owe me 5% of your sales in addition.

Fine - this describes the terms you offer for your venue.

Now these rules are posted clearly, everyone in the convention center can see them. SO if someone tries to sneak into my property and set up their table without paying, I do have a moral right to throw him out, right? The same would go for someone who refused to pay the 5% at the end.

No - you can have the police, or maybe security in some jurisdictions eject the sneakers. You can sue the 5% cheaters.

Are you still with me? Good.
Now I happen to own the whole building with the convention center, and it just so happens that there's a huge apartment building above the main hall. I mean massive. It even has a hospital, a mall, everything. So people could live their whole lives without ever leaving.

In fact, a good number of people are born in my building, grow up, and when they're ready to start earning a living, they rent a table at the trade show downstairs. We've established that I can make the rules for people who live and work in my building, they've entered into a contract with me. If they don't like my rules, they can leave. If they insist on breaking their contract with me, while on my property, I may use reasonable force to protect my contract.

No no no. If you own the whole build and IF you have a contract with each occupant - then that contract applies. You absolutely don't have any contract with the infants born there. You can't force anyone to use your building/venue/tables - that violates the fundamental idea of a free market exchange. If you have control of the only venue and people cannot reasonable leave the building - they you have a monopoly and your business should be broken up. Libertarian free-market thinking generally abhors monopolies. Now if your venue is one of several fairly competing venues & buildings - that's fine. Still you do not have the power to change contracts unilaterally. If it's half-way through the trade-show and you think you'd like $10/table then tough luck for you. You (and the table renters) must follow the original agreement or else mutually agree to a change. Again - NO FORCE - get that idea out of your head. Force is only for criminal activity (e.g. felonies and trespass) not civil.

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.

Your analogy breaks on many levels. "the government" that owns the venue - is the people, the legitimate citizens. It's a false dichotomy to think of government as a truly separate entity from the trade-show renters.

A very very quick sketch of contract is this:
The contract must voluntarily entered into by both parties.
There must be a "meeting of the minds" - both parties must have similar understanding of the terms and conditions.
A quid-pro-quo (exchange of value) is required.
The contract is completed when both parties perform their side of the exchange. If either or both fail to execute their obligation then the contract can be adjudicated by a civil court.
This is essentially identical to a free-market exchange.

Not paying your table rent is a civil contract matter. You can sue me for not paying, but I can sue you if the table is wobbly, or if the trade-show attendance is not as you described. A civil judge can hear the case and create some fair way to terminate the contract.

Not paying your taxes is a criminal matter and there is no obligation from the government. It doesn't matter that government defaulted and didn't send you a check. If doesn't matter that you were promise social security and paid into it for 40 years. You still owe the tax despite the fact that they won't be able to pay. You pay the full amount of taxes or potentially go to prison (unless you are Geithner or Rangel or ...). The government can't be required to act fairly; It's therefore a very dangerous entity to do business with. An unrestrained bully at worst.

 

[stevea]

Just a recurring thought related to the above.

Why can't we have more a la carte government ? Say you want social security and snow removal and I prefer no SocSec and trash pickup bi-weekly. Obviously some parts (like most of the constitutional power bits) like roads and defense can't be reasonably be optional (hmm - well maybe offense like Iraq and Libya could be optional). Then we can create use-tax rates and we can let people choose.

 

[clown]

Just a recurring thought related to the above.

Why can't we have more a la carte government ? Say you want social security and snow removal and I prefer no SocSec and trash pickup bi-weekly. Obviously some parts (like most of the constitutional power bits) like roads and defense can't be reasonably be optional (hmm - well maybe offense like Iraq and Libya could be optional). Then we can create use-tax rates and we can let people choose.

Ok, I'll buy. Take fireman service as an example. In this age of electricity, bricks and concrete, fires are rare occurences. What happens if most people in some area choose not to pay fireman tax?

 

[Muldur]

Just a recurring thought related to the above.

Why can't we have more a la carte government ? Say you want social security and snow removal and I prefer no SocSec and trash pickup bi-weekly. Obviously some parts (like most of the constitutional power bits) like roads and defense can't be reasonably be optional (hmm - well maybe offense like Iraq and Libya could be optional). Then we can create use-tax rates and we can let people choose.

Because that destroys the ability to use common funds for a common good. The whole idea behind government services is to do those things for people as a whole that they cannot do efficiently or effectively for themselves. You CAN in theory build a road infrastructure based on a patchwork quilt of public and toll roads, but it isn't efficient. Too much time is wasted trying to figure out who is going to build what road where, and for how much. It makes no sense, and it also means that certain parts of the system (the profitable ones) will be better than the unprofitable ones. It is also more expensive, as private owners seek profit from all comers on their "patch" of road.

It is simpler, cheaper, and fairer to just have the government build roads paid for by taxes that ALL contribute to and all have equal use of.

Your "cafeteria plan" approach also has a serious free rider problem. Ok, you hate military spending (for whatever reason). Yet there is no way for you NOT to benefit from the peace and freedom the military helps provide. So it is only right that you NOT be allowed to "opt out" of paying taxes for the military.

Just a couple of examples off the top of my head.

 

[Cavemonster]

Stevea, you make a lot of thoughtful points that all deserve a response, let me just start with a few.

No - one party can't impose new contract terms on the other arbitrarily. These have to be mutually agreed to and clearly stated up front. That's central to a free-market exchange, and tort law for almost 500yrs. Also - as above - a civil court can enforce contract terms - YOU CANNOT ! The shop can bill you for every refill, but if you refuse to pay all they can do is sue. They can't enforce anything.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, MANY MANY contracts in our free market allow one party to change the terms. If both parties agree when they accept the contract at the beginning to a process by which terms can be changed then those changes are valid. If you have a problem with that, you have a problem with the way contract works, and you don't give participants the freedom to willingly engage in a dynamic system.

For instance, I'm a caterer. My contract with a particular client could indicate a particular price for a certain amount of salmon, but also have a clause that if for market reasons, salmon is more expensive, I can pass the extra cost onto the client. I can have a clause that says if salmon is expensive I can substitute another fish.

As for the rights of individuals to enforce contracts. In the libertarian system I'm addressing, courts are private. There's nothing that says that a single holding company can't control both an apartment complex, and the court and security systems that keep the peace there.

 

[Cavemonster]

Your analogy breaks on many levels. "the government" that owns the venue - is the people, the legitimate citizens. It's a false dichotomy to think of government as a truly separate entity from the trade-show renters.

You're describing a democracy, not every government is a democracy.

I could have gone the extra step in my example and made the building a co-op, but I felt it muddied the central issue. I had no desire to make the building seem fair or desirable in the general sense, I wanted to explore that the powers of government can be thought of as the terms of use for living and working on property the government owns. I wanted to address the strict dichotomy between freedom and coercion presented by some libertarians.

 

[stevea]

Ok, I'll buy. Take fireman service as an example. In this age of electricity, bricks and concrete, fires are rare occurences. What happens if most people in some area choose not to pay fireman tax?

Because that destroys the ability to use common funds for a common good. The whole idea behind government services is to do those things for people as a whole that they cannot do efficiently or effectively for themselves.

These are both shallow objections. I never said, nor did I mean that ALL of government could be optional or a-la-carte. If that was the case then we would have no need for government - just voluntary associations on particular issues.

Government has some well established (by tradition) functions that are for the "common good". If we as a society agree to have a military, then we all have advantage(hmmph?) from it's use - and we all must pay a tax. If we collectively decide that anyone found unconscious or incoherent is to be evaluated and treated in an ER - then we must all bear the cost of that service as tax. If we agree that a police force is necessary to enforce criminal law, or regulators are needed for free market transactions - then we must all pay for those. Everyone - even people who don't travel, gain advantage from the existence of roads - tho' the way we create a tax can be more or less equitable.

Fire department - not only is it *likely* that most societies would consider emergency services for preservation of life to be a reasonable default for which we all should pay - but a fire in my structure is likely to spread - damaging others. Even an unoccupied privately owned structure on fire, is a common risk and putting out the fire represents a common good. Still - I'd argue that what we need is a standard for fire control, and that anyone meeting that standard by private means (a private FD o advanced fire-suppression system) should be able to reduce their tax burden.

Muldar - I agree that ONE originalist idea behind government services is to do those things for people as a whole that they cannot do efficiently or effectively for themselves. But government does a LOT more than that now. It has expanded far into areas where an individuals are perfectly able to shift for themselves and also in areas were one person's choices to not impact the common good.

Why does the US government impose controls on what can be farmed ? The price of sugar ? Massive subsidies for fuel ethanol production or PV solar panels ? On the market prices of good ? Social Security began as exigency plan for the ancient, and disabled, but today its a common retirement plan. Now they are moving into he medical system and will certainly mandating extent and forms of care by decisions of what to pay for ?.

Why can't I opt out of the non-exigency part of SS ? Why can't I opt out of the non-emergency parts of medical care ? If I decide that I don't want to survive in a non-ambulatory, non conscious or other state - then why can't I opt out of payments for that sort of treatment ? If I believe that fuel ethanol subsidies area massive boondoggle of ADM crony capitalism - why can't I opt out ?

Or for example government has imposed very high taxes on tobacco for the purported purpose of covering the costs to society. I want to smoke (I hate tobacco atually but ...) and if I choose to reject treatment and other social costs - then why should I pay a tax for tobacco ?

You CAN in theory build a road infrastructure based on a patchwork quilt of public and toll roads, but it isn't efficient. Too much time is wasted trying to figure out who is going to build what road where, and for how much. It makes no sense, and it also means that certain parts of the system (the profitable ones) will be better than the unprofitable ones. It is also more expensive, as private owners seek profit from all comers on their "patch" of road.

It is simpler, cheaper, and fairer to just have the government build roads paid for by taxes that ALL contribute to and all have equal use of.

Chile is a strong-hold of free-market capitalism and has a very efficient and effective private highway system. There is something wrong with your claims that only the government can build and maintain roads effectively.

Your "cafeteria plan" approach also has a serious free rider problem. Ok, you hate military spending (for whatever reason). Yet there is no way for you NOT to benefit from the peace and freedom the military helps provide. So it is only right that you NOT be allowed to "opt out" of paying taxes for the military.

As already mentioned - I did NOT propose that all of government and taxation could be optional. There are certainly costs that cannot easily be reduced to a "user fee". Those that can - should be.

 

[clown]

These are both shallow objections. I never said, nor did I mean that ALL of government could be optional or a-la-carte. If that was the case then we would have no need for government - just voluntary associations on particular issues.

Government has some well established (by tradition) functions that are for the "common good". If we as a society agree to have a military, then we all have advantage(hmmph?) from it's use - and we all must pay a tax. If we collectively decide that anyone found unconscious or incoherent is to be evaluated and treated in an ER - then we must all bear the cost of that service as tax. If we agree that a police force is necessary to enforce criminal law, or regulators are needed for free market transactions - then we must all pay for those. Everyone - even people who don't travel, gain advantage from the existence of roads - tho' the way we create a tax can be more or less equitable.

Fire department - not only is it *likely* that most societies would consider emergency services for preservation of life to be a reasonable default for which we all should pay - but a fire in my structure is likely to spread - damaging others. Even an unoccupied privately owned structure on fire, is a common risk and putting out the fire represents a common good. Still - I'd argue that what we need is a standard for fire control, and that anyone meeting that standard by private means (a private FD o advanced fire-suppression system) should be able to reduce their tax burden.

You might think my objection to be shallow, but it is indicative of far greater issue: where does it end? You say minimal government... well, how much is that?

The reason I chose fireman service is simple: it already happened once. A man chose to opt out of protection (or simply forgot to pay 75$ for it that month), a fire started on a field near his house, he called firemen, firemen came... and done nothing! They had let the fire spread to his house and didn't do anything until it threatened to spread to paying neighbour's property. Now, what would have happened if EVERYBODY chose to opt out of protection?

Muldar - I agree that ONE originalist idea behind government services is to do those things for people as a whole that they cannot do efficiently or effectively for themselves. But government does a LOT more than that now. It has expanded far into areas where an individuals are perfectly able to shift for themselves and also in areas were one person's choices to not impact the common good.

Why does the US government impose controls on what can be farmed ? The price of sugar ? Massive subsidies for fuel ethanol production or PV solar panels ? On the market prices of good ? Social Security began as exigency plan for the ancient, and disabled, but today its a common retirement plan. Now they are moving into he medical system and will certainly mandating extent and forms of care by decisions of what to pay for ?.

Why can't I opt out of the non-exigency part of SS ? Why can't I opt out of the non-emergency parts of medical care ? If I decide that I don't want to survive in a non-ambulatory, non conscious or other state - then why can't I opt out of payments for that sort of treatment ? If I believe that fuel ethanol subsidies area massive boondoggle of ADM crony capitalism - why can't I opt out ?

Or for example government has imposed very high taxes on tobacco for the purported purpose of covering the costs to society. I want to smoke (I hate tobacco atually but ...) and if I choose to reject treatment and other social costs - then why should I pay a tax for tobacco ?




Chile is a strong-hold of free-market capitalism and has a very efficient and effective private highway system. There is something wrong with your claims that only the government can build and maintain roads effectively.




As already mentioned - I did NOT propose that all of government and taxation could be optional. There are certainly costs that cannot easily be reduced to a "user fee". Those that can - should be.

And what if someone chose to opt out of any medical care? What if someone is stupid or shallow or short-sighted? Should we let those people die when they have a need for it, even though they have a change of heart after the need is over?

What if someone doesn't have the same choice, due to circumstances beyond his control (say, poverty)?

Government control and scope is a tricky issue that can lead to a slippery slope. If you don't like the laws made by the ruling class, you can always pressure them to change those laws. If you can't do that, you can change ruling class. If none of that works, you can always change the country in which you are living, although that's the most expensive variant.

 

[Muldur]

Why does the US government impose controls on what can be farmed ? The price of sugar ?

Because price stability in those markets is good for everyone. Buy guaranteeing a minimum price, subsidies help keep farmers in the business which ensures continuing supplies to the people.

Massive subsidies for fuel ethanol production

This one you got me on...the cost/benefit analysis is the wrong way on ethanol.

Social Security began as exigency plan for the ancient, and disabled, but today its a common retirement plan.

Because it was found that the benefits outweighed the costs, resutlting in a net public good.

Now they are moving into he medical system and will certainly mandating extent and forms of care by decisions of what to pay for ?.

Because the private sector has demonstrated it's inability to restrain it's greed on this vital service.

Why can't I opt out of the non-exigency part of SS ? Why can't I opt out of the non-emergency parts of medical care ? If I decide that I don't want to survive in a non-ambulatory, non conscious or other state - then why can't I opt out of payments for that sort of treatment ? If I believe that fuel ethanol subsidies area massive boondoggle of ADM crony capitalism - why can't I opt out ?

Two reasons:

1) Economy of scale. If everyone is "opting in" and "opting out" here there and everywhere, there is no stable level of funding for these programs, and no ability to adjust supply to meet demand.

2) You presume that only things that directly and immediately help you personally are a "benefit". The passing stranger that saves your life may only be alive to do so because of the doctor that saved HIS life went to public school.

Or for example government has imposed very high taxes on tobacco for the purported purpose of covering the costs to society. I want to smoke (I hate tobacco atually but ...) and if I choose to reject treatment and other social costs - then why should I pay a tax for tobacco ?

For one thing, your smoke is inhaled by others, so you owe society not just for the costs of YOUR care (that you claim to want to opt out of), but theircare. They didn't chose to breathe your smoke, but they had to breathe it anyways.

As a general rule, the fewer "middle men" in a system the better, and certainly the fewer profit seeking middle men the better on top of that.

 

[stevea]

Stevea, you make a lot of thoughtful points that all deserve a response, let me just start with a few.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, MANY MANY contracts in our free market allow one party to change the terms. If both parties agree when they accept the contract at the beginning to a process by which terms can be changed then those changes are valid. If you have a problem with that, you have a problem with the way contract works, and you don't give participants the freedom to willingly engage in a dynamic system.

IANAL - but I do understand a good bit of contract law from business dealing. No - one party cannot unilaterally change contract terms. What you state is absolutely false - any change in contract TERMS must be explicitly agreed to by all parties to the contract.

Some terms may be variable or contingent - for example you may be required to pay 5% of what you collect regardless of the amount, or the terms may be that you owe the current federal funds rate plus 1% or whatever. Still there must be all-party agreement to all terms.

http://pubcit.typepad.com/clpblog/2007/07/courts-says-aol.html

For instance, I'm a caterer. My contract with a particular client could indicate a particular price for a certain amount of salmon, but also have a clause that if for market reasons, salmon is more expensive, I can pass the extra cost onto the client. I can have a clause that says if salmon is expensive I can substitute another fish.

That's not a change of terms, it's a contingent clause. The original contract TERM is that the customer owes X for salmon contingent on the market price. But if the price exceeds Y then they owe an additional amount. The contingent terms were agreed to by all parties.

As for the rights of individuals to enforce contracts. In the libertarian system I'm addressing, courts are private. There's nothing that says that a single holding company can't control both an apartment complex, and the court and security systems that keep the peace there.

So it's a dictatorship - the person who owns the courts can beat anyone and impose any rule. In ancient Rome Crassus - a member of the first triumvirate (downfall of their democracy) had a private fire department. They would find, and perhaps set fires, and then buy the upscale villas for pennies before putting out the fire.

You began the thread asking about Libertarian reaction - but then you describe what you apparently meant to be a dictatorship of sorts. So I ask you - what is the difference between a libertarian, socialist and communist "reaction" if each is locked in a straight-jacket, muzzled and kept in a cell ? Nothing I think.

Libertarianism is fundamentally about individuals freed of excessive regulation, free markets and lack of government charters, limited government and rejection of monopolies. If you want to know how a libertarian would react to dictatorship - then it's probably quite similar as anyone else who prefers personal freedom and justice.

You're describing a democracy, not every government is a democracy.

Your original post is confusing. You talk about concepts such as agreements and rights to enforce agreements. You allude to owning "the whole building" which I assumed was meant to represent some nation/state entity. Now you claim that you (the building owner, trade-show owner) also own the courts and are therefore a dictator.

I could have gone the extra step in my example and made the building a co-op, but I felt it muddied the central issue. I had no desire to make the building seem fair or desirable in the general sense,

Then why bother with talk of contracts and rights if you own the courts (and the means of enforcement) ... they are meaningless. The group that owns the courts is effectively the government

I wanted to explore that the powers of government can be thought of as the terms of use for living and working on property the government owns. I wanted to address the strict dichotomy between freedom and coercion presented by some libertarians.

I still find your position quite confusing. You describe an indivual property owner using force (unlawfully) to enforce contracts, then you conflate this with a government using force to collect taxes. But this ignores the nature of civil law vs criminal law. Civil law is based on contract, is always voluntarily engaged in, and cannot be enforce by either party. Criminal law is not a matter of voluntary agreement - we are typically born into a nation with criminal laws and no voluntary agreement. We may agree that prohibition of murder and regulation of road traffic is a good idea, but forcible taking my money to create social services or to subsidize ADM to make ethanol is a lot more dubious. How do you feel about the fact that the two major US political parties have created laws that advantage these parties to the detriment of others (and yes this costs tax money) ?

The concept of "social contract" is weak but important. We generally accede that people subjected to unfair unjust government treatment (whether criminal or not) have a right to revolt.

 

[stevea]

You might think my objection to be shallow, but it is indicative of far greater issue: where does it end? You say minimal government... well, how much is that?

That's a huge question but off-topic for this thread.

The reason I chose fireman service is simple: it already happened once. A man chose to opt out of protection (or simply forgot to pay 75$ for it that month), a fire started on a field near his house, he called firemen, firemen came... and done nothing! They had let the fire spread to his house and didn't do anything until it threatened to spread to paying neighbour's property. Now, what would have happened if EVERYBODY chose to opt out of protection?

Yes - I'm aware of the case and have already addressed it - please re-read my post. The sorts of services that I see as potentially optional are those that only impact YOU the payer and not the rest of society. A building fire may involve harm 3rd parties in the building and may spread so it presents a common risk, deserving of an enforced tax or at least regulation to require proper risk mitigation to others. Society at large has an interest in preventing a fire from spreading. They don't have an interest in YOUR house burning down.

And what if someone chose to opt out of any medical care? What if someone is stupid or shallow or short-sighted? Should we let those people die when they have a need for it, even though they have a change of heart after the need is over?

Let me guess that you are a social liberal, and I am not trying to be demeaning. I constantly hear this argument "but we must protect the stupid, short-sighted people" from social liberals; something of a mantra. If someone is truly incompetent, then we have a legal process to have them declared incompetent by a court and then we can arrange for social services to manage their affairs.

What we should not do is take away peoples freedoms by trying to design a society with safety-rails helmets, shoulder-pads and knee-pads required for all. Treating the average person as stupid and incompetent to make decisions is a form of enslavement. You are making choices for people and dictating that they conform with your standards - that's fascist.

Creating a "safety-rails" social systems permits people to act with less personal responsibility, and even makes this an advantage. It creates the very problem (people acting with profligacy) you want to protect against. Ultimately you can't prevent people from acting as they will - but we don't need to publicly subsidize anyone's personal choices.

What if someone doesn't have the same choice, due to circumstances beyond his control (say, poverty)?

You are changing the topic. I suggested that the tax should be optional for non-emergency medical services. Driving this thread into the topic of how we tax based on ability to pay is far afield. Let me suggest though that the job of government is not wealth transfer. To the extent a person's treatment is a "public good" (to prevent spread of disease for example) then it's a legitimate purpose of government. To the extent it's a personal benefit then it is not. Let's not confuse government with a public charity.

Government control and scope is a tricky issue that can lead to a slippery slope. If you don't like the laws made by the ruling class, you can always pressure them to change those laws. If you can't do that, you can change ruling class. If none of that works, you can always change the country in which you are living, although that's the most expensive variant.

Who is this "ruling class" ? If you can pressure them - then they aren't ruling. If you can join or change them them - then it's not a class. It's a distortion of language.

Every tax dollar is taken from individuals and businesses backed by a threat of force, jail. Every person who is a net tax payer rationally sees this as a disadvantage, and every person who is a net tax recipient rationally sees this as an advantage. Some people have abstract or ideological ideas about what is the legitimate role of government that may mitigate their calculation of the advantage/disadvantage, but it's not without practical limit.

Still when 51% of US households pay no tax, and certainly some larger fraction are net tax recipients then we have a problem. Pure democracy is well understood to be a terrible thing - tyranny of the majority, mob rule. That's why we have a republic form of government - the constitution limits the powers of the democratic process. Sadly the commerce clause and the spending clause has been interpreted into a radical set of permissions for government to democratically control commerce and tax for nearly any end. There is no effective protection of wealth or assets. The direction is pretty clear. Political demagogues pound on business and the wealthy to the delight of the net-recipients, and yes - people, capital and jobs will emigrate.

 

[clown]

That's a huge question but off-topic for this thread.



Yes - I'm aware of the case and have already addressed it - please re-read my post. The sorts of services that I see as potentially optional are those that only impact YOU the payer and not the rest of society. A building fire may involve harm 3rd parties in the building and may spread so it presents a common risk, deserving of an enforced tax or at least regulation to require proper risk mitigation to others. Society at large has an interest in preventing a fire from spreading. They don't have an interest in YOUR house burning down.

Which is exactly the problem if people decide it is too low a risk to pay for insuring against it. Which still leaves my question open: how big does government has to be to be on minimum?

Let me guess that you are a social liberal, and I am not trying to be demeaning. I constantly hear this argument "but we must protect the stupid, short-sighted people" from social liberals; something of a mantra. If someone is truly incompetent, then we have a legal process to have them declared incompetent by a court and then we can arrange for social services to manage their affairs.

What we should not do is take away peoples freedoms by trying to design a society with safety-rails helmets, shoulder-pads and knee-pads required for all. Treating the average person as stupid and incompetent to make decisions is a form of enslavement. You are making choices for people and dictating that they conform with your standards - that's fascist.

What if I'm actually trying to protect responsible from irresponsible people? If you as a responsible person choose to pay for health service and 50 other irresponsible ones choose not to, do we really have a health service? But, if saving such irresponsible people changes their minds and they find it useful, they'll start paying for it.

As for hilited part... we require those of someone else irresponsible when driving a bike do we? *cough* children *cough*

Creating a "safety-rails" social systems permits people to act with less personal responsibility, and even makes this an advantage. It creates the very problem (people acting with profligacy) you want to protect against. Ultimately you can't prevent people from acting as they will - but we don't need to publicly subsidize anyone's personal choices.

We want to subsidise making right choices, such as those increasing overall energy efficiency, overall safety, overall industrial development...

You are changing the topic. I suggested that the tax should be optional for non-emergency medical services. Driving this thread into the topic of how we tax based on ability to pay is far afield. Let me suggest though that the job of government is not wealth transfer. To the extent a person's treatment is a "public good" (to prevent spread of disease for example) then it's a legitimate purpose of government. To the extent it's a personal benefit then it is not. Let's not confuse government with a public charity.

Wrong! It is one of governments jobs, else you'd have 18th and 19th century England.

Who is this "ruling class" ? If you can pressure them - then they aren't ruling. If you can join or change them them - then it's not a class. It's a distortion of language.

Then how would you call them? What is the other name for government officials? For politicians currently in power? I think that ruling class fits them fairly well, but I'm open for your suggestions.

Every tax dollar is taken from individuals and businesses backed by a threat of force, jail. Every person who is a net tax payer rationally sees this as a disadvantage, and every person who is a net tax recipient rationally sees this as an advantage. Some people have abstract or ideological ideas about what is the legitimate role of government that may mitigate their calculation of the advantage/disadvantage, but it's not without practical limit.

Still when 51% of US households pay no tax, and certainly some larger fraction are net tax recipients then we have a problem. Pure democracy is well understood to be a terrible thing - tyranny of the majority, mob rule. That's why we have a republic form of government - the constitution limits the powers of the democratic process. Sadly the commerce clause and the spending clause has been interpreted into a radical set of permissions for government to democratically control commerce and tax for nearly any end. There is no effective protection of wealth or assets. The direction is pretty clear. Political demagogues pound on business and the wealthy to the delight of the net-recipients, and yes - people, capital and jobs will emigrate.

So? How do you propose to change that? Should we stop taking any and all taxes from businesses? Should we replace and delete all the health and safety laws that regulate merchandise? All ecological laws? Is your answer to all the problems to stop taxing those that have money, while at the same time stop giving money to the poor?

Very sound economic strategy (if you still tax megacorporations that is), but very poor social one that is.

 

[Muldur]

^As far as people like stevea are concerned, society can "go to h*ll" so long as the Fortunate Few keep their fortunes. Libertarians are by default Social Darwinists: those who have survive, why do they have? Because they are better/stronger/fitter than those who have not. Therefore those who have deserve to survive, and those who have not do not.

 

[stevea]

Which is exactly the problem if people decide it is too low a risk to pay for insuring against it. Which still leaves my question open: how big does government has to be to be on minimum?

I've already answered this. If YOU don't want to pay for fire control services of a FD to protect YOUR property then you don't get such services for your property. IF you do want services once the fire is underway - they you should pay the full costs and even have the property siezed to pay the cost. IF you don' insure your computer from theft - then you don't get a payment when it's stolen. As I said that are thorny issues in the details, but this is off topic.

What if I'm actually trying to protect responsible from irresponsible people? If you as a responsible person choose to pay for health service and 50 other irresponsible ones choose not to, do we really have a health service?

Yes - we really do.

If some people choose to smoke cigarettes or fly over the snake river on a rocket powered motorcycle do we really have health care ? If Christian Scientists of Faith healers eschew conventional do we really have health care ? If you answer NO then you are well on the road to fascism. If you answer is to prohibit these things - then you are a fascist.

But, if saving such irresponsible people changes their minds and they find it useful, they'll start paying for it.

That's the deal - no ? If you make a decision you must take personal responsibility. "Change your mind" is equivalent to "want the benefits w/o paying the cost" in this context. Note that it's unthinkable that some charity won't help out the imprudent BUT it's not a social responsibility. If I act prudently and you don't - that does not give you some moral right to my goods.

Paying for everyone leads directly to irresponsibility. Examine the 'illegitimate' birth rates in Sweden or in the lowest US income quintile. The subsidy for bad behavior encourages bad behavior. The lack of a subsidy encourages personal prudence. ccc

As for hilited part... we require those of someone else irresponsible when driving a bike do we? *cough* children *cough*

I don't know what "cough cough" means as a comment. Maybe you should try to be clear and on topic.

In some parts of the US we require for example motorcycle riders to wear helmets. To this extent that this is meant to interfere with the individuals rights to take risks it's obnoxious. To the extent it's meant to reduce legitimate social costs then it's reasonable. For example if I agree that I don't want any emergency treatment or disability payments for head injuries resulting from riding w/o a helmet - then I should have a right to do as I please. Society doesn't own my *ss and in any case can't prevent fools from finding ways to act foolishly. This is how some "social good" inevitably turns into an unhealthy interest in the activities of individuals, and eventually fascism.

We want to subsidise making right choices, such as those increasing overall energy efficiency, overall safety, overall industrial development...

Complete rubbish. "right choices" is nothing but conformity to overbearing government dictates and loss of freedom. You are truly encouraging a fascist agenda.

Look at the stupid government attempts at managing energy my lightbulbs ((so I have to wait 5 seconds to use stairs, dangerous, foolish)) or corn-ethanol where crony capitalism causes us to pollute more than using petrol and destroy food/exports. Or the curent Admin's ideological disdain for nat.gas which could reduce but not eliminate CO2 pollution.

Even beyond the stupidity of one-size-fits-all government force, there is a matter of freedom. Maybe I like the using really inefficient class A audio amps of a 1960 muscle car (I don't but...). If I am paying the full tab for the energy - why is it any of your business ? Overall safely isn't a social good unless you insist that everyone want to live in an environment of optimal safety. There is excellent evidence that this is not the case. People take necessary risks on purpose. It's an important part of life for many people. Why do you think people sky-dive, bungee jump, cliff-dive, go white-water rafting, smoke, drink, eat wild mushrooms, have unprotecte ex, use drugs, climb mountains ? Your utopia would take that all away.

Wrong! It is one of governments jobs, else you'd have 18th and 19th century England.

Bulloney - you assert proof by Dickensian fiction. Please show the NECESSARY relationship between lack of government wealth transfer and poverty. Please include a description of how the 3rd world Muslim nations with enforced wealth transfer by religion are persistently the poorest. Wealth transfer can't cure poverty except in the instantaneous case. In the longer run you are impoverishing Peter to pay for Paul - and Peter will quite rationally act to avoid being the target of state sponsored theft. This is completely different from paying taxes for the common good - building a road or supporting common defense. As Thatcher reportedly commented - the problem of socialism is that you quickly run out of other people's money. Libs seem amazingly resistant to the idea that people act in their own interests and that the well-off have a lot of flexibility to do so.

Then how would you call them? What is the other name for government officials? For politicians currently in power? I think that ruling class fits them fairly well, but I'm open for your suggestions.

They are not a "class" in any sense. Yes IMO we have too much incumbent advantage, but politicians are bounced in & out regularly. The Federal Gov according to our constitution was not means to "rule" in any sense. There were supposed to legislate enforce and manage only the enumerated powers and everything else was up to the states and individuals. It has become highly distorted over the past couple centuries and yes the FedGov has accreted a LOT of power far beyond that permitted in the constitution. It will be interesting to see if the health-care mandate i ruled constitutional. It's takes a legal contortionist to claim that

[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;

allows Congress to force individuals to buy insurance - but that's where we are heading.

I'm often appalled at how most Americans view he president as some sort of emperor - responsible for all aspects of the economy, and perhaps for the weather and sunshine too. It was intended to be a relatively weak office.

So when politicians exert too much power we still react by voting the buggers out, but sadly we have two parties of rather comparable buggers to choose from. The two-party system is the problem I believe, but this is getting too far off topic.

So? How do you propose to change that? Should we stop taking any and all taxes from businesses? Should we replace and delete all the health and safety laws that regulate merchandise? All ecological laws? Is your answer to all the problems to stop taxing those that have money, while at the same time stop giving money to the poor?

Individuals eventually pay all corporate taxes in the form of price increases - so taxing corporation is just a way that government hides the pain of taxes from individuals. So yes I advocate zero corporate taxes rates and replacement w/ sales tax. I advocate pulling the entire SS & Medicare payroll tax on the individual payroll and W2. This is revenue neutral and has no impact on receipts or costs EXCEPT that we avoid having politicians play "hide the damage" games with voters.

NO - I NEVER suggested no taxes - that's nonsense.

In tort law we have the concept of "meeting of the minds" where both parties have a common understanding of the contract. So for example things like nutrtional labelling laws are completely consistent with libertarian ideals. The FDA uses a GRAS (generally recognized as safe) concept in food content - and this nicely encompases our imperfect understanding of hazards. I think this concept should be extended to common work conditions - when you are working with a deep-fat fryer or a carpel-tunnel causing keyboard you should be apprised of any risks beyond those a reasonable person would assess. So no one needs to tell anyone that a 350F oil can burn but you might need to state that adding water or ice to a fryer can cause an explosion of burning oil. So we need very little in the way of "safety law" but we do need to inform people of the actual hazards beyond what might be expected.

"Ecological code" isn't a clear concept. There are two issues - one is "the tragedy of the commons" (an economic concept) where individuals or groups use a commons to their own advantage and no one is encouraged to enhance the commons. So polluting air or streams is a good example. Note that if we strip away the liberal "blame business" nonsense we see that in an earlier age these things were considered public good - so vast they could not imagine their being substantially polluted. So we did not historically develop an economic means of including this in the costs. It's not that business is horrible - they just reflect consumers wants - it's that we are in the middle of developing a good means to address a new issue.

So I think we are well on the way to addressing freshwater pollution and certain classes of air pollutants in North America & Europe. Certain pollutants are disallowed or limited in quantity and fines are levied against violators. There are some huge outstanding air pollution issues and especially CO2. CO2 is primarily a consequence of fossil fuels and concrete(llime) production. so there is no simple way to quickly reduce the levels without also reducing use of power and concrete - which results in halting a lot of civilization. So there is no doubt that some use of the air-commons as a CO2 dump is called for for the foreseeable future, it's advantageous to limit the amount. IF we had a practical means of sequestering CO2 on a large scale from air - then we could assign a market price to CO2, and charge users for this use of the commons sa a dump. Lacking that then a revenue neutral carbon cap, similar to that in the EU & UK has some merit. The regulators can restrict the total amount carbon credits for sale to control and reduce the amount, and market forces will naturally eliminate the most readily replaced releases of CO2, and improve efficiencies in the most cost effective way without central planning. I think the regulators would want to adjust the amount of credits to a price target - to avoid making things impractically difficult. The classical liberal approach would be to convert the commons to private ownership - that's rather difficult for the atmosphere or the ocean, so public ownership is the least objectionable approach i can imagine.

Obviously the carbon cap approach can't work without international co-operation - so it's radically difficult to address this problem. Given the current state of international affairs - I have no doubt that every bit of fossil fuel will be burnt by someone almost as rapidly as they are discovered.

The USA carbon cap approach is not cost neutral, so it acts as a new hidden tax that politicians would certainly increased regularly.. A scheme that creates more central government power and only marginally addresses pollution isn't acceptable.

The second aspect of ecology involves taking away the rights of property owners. If the EPA wants someone to not drain a swamp or not cut down a forest, then they must take the property right in exchange for compensations - eminent domain. Simply taking property rights is no more just than any other theft.


On your last point - I NEVER suggested the wealthy should not pay, and I NEVER suggested that we don't need programs for the disabled and truly indigent. But the fact is the wealthy pay far beyond their actual use of government services, and many perfectly able people are net recipients of government funds. That's wrong. The social contract does not give the unsuccessful a right to the goods of the successful. We are currently seeing a clear case where "the people" have voted themselves a radically expensive and unsustainable medical retirement system in the form of medicare, and now they are trying to pay for it with "other people's money". It's theft - it's immoral and unjust and in addition it can't work (money is fungible and mobile). It's a complete joke that we can afford to pay for everyone retirement (SocSec )and healthcare (medicaid) when the life expectancy after retirement is ~22 year and rising. Social security and medicare should NEVER have become a general retirement/health scheme - they should have been/remained as safety net for the disabled and impoverished.

Perhaps there is justification for taking SS and Medicare payments from people who fail/refuse to save otherwise - tho' that's too dictatorial for me. We SHOULD have properly constructed insurance pools and annuities. For example one can't easily estimate individual lifespan, and so most people should rationally join a pool to ensure that IF they exceed their expected lifespan they still have income. I don't see government as the supplier or the guarantor - just the market regulator.

Very sound economic strategy (if you still tax megacorporations that is), but very poor social one that is.

What makes you think individuals or megacorps are acting on behalf of your social agenda ? The most supportable idea in all of economics is that all economic actors have self-interest. It's clear from the Soviet Union, it's clear from China, it's clear in the US and Argentina. So capital goes where it's treated well - and punishing capital is the surest way to prevent investment and growth. You intentions are good - but your methods (eat the rich) lead to exactly the worst result.

No - social design has to begin with a recognition that self-interest is innate, inherited, selected for, healthy. It's not a defect - it's natural, normal and unavoidable. Free market exchanges - voluntary exchanges of value between cognizant traders is a very effective way to harness self-interest. The only way A can become wealthy is by enriching B in trade. The only way Bill Gates can become a billionaire is by getting 10 million people to voluntarily exchange $100 for some software that each person considers more valuable that the $100. Everyone is enriched in the exchange. When taxes are applied to the profit this immediate changes the risk-reward calculation and makes more potential activities untenable.

So yes we all owe something substantial to the common good. I have no idea why any one person owes more than another on any basis except envy or use (as in use-tax).

^As far as people like stevea are concerned, society can "go to h*ll" so long as the Fortunate Few keep their fortunes. Libertarians are by default Social Darwinists: those who have survive, why do they have? Because they are better/stronger/fitter than those who have not. Therefore those who have deserve to survive, and those who have not do not.

A/ You apparently need a remedial reading course as I never said or implied any such things.
B/ Classical Libs and Libertarians are not generally Social Darwinists.
C/ Your post amounts to one tumltuous strawan/ad hominem fallacy.
D/ I don't take advice on morality from people advocating theft and fascist control of others.
E/ Congrats - you made my ignore list today.



==============================
==============================

Two clear liberal themes here,
1/ Prevent irresponsible people (according to right-thinkers) from acting irresponsibly, by taking away their freedom.
2/ Protect the poor-little-dummies from themselves by asserting state control.

Is this really what anyone sensible wants ? How will you feel when some overbearing state judges YOU too irresponsible or dumb to be permitted to act on your own behalf ?

 

[Muldur]

I was fully prepared to ignore stevea's Libertarian Talking Points Memo #214, but these little gems stood out:

The only way A can become wealthy is by enriching B in trade.

There have been lots of people who became obscenely wealthy by impoverishing others. They go by individual names like Boskey, Ichan, Sorros. They go by corporate names like Countrywide and Enron and Wal Mart.

They are the spiritual heirs to the abuses of the Colonial powers, the Robber Barons, and the Dickensian industrialists.

then there was this little parting shot:

E/ Congrats - you made my ignore list today.

Translation into English: "Muldur, I can't refute you, so I'm going to take my ball and go home..."