A thought experiment for Libertarians

[Cavemonster]

Libertarianism is one of those philosophies that I disagree with, but am inclined to respect, in general principle.

However, something that came up in a recent thread made me wonder how libertarians, those of you who are most opposed to government use of force and taxes, would react to a certain thought experiment.

There would be a temptation to present this in a pseudo socratic style, asking questions and getting agreement at each step, but let me just post the whole thing, and you'll tell me where I'm wrong.

We're going to imagine a business, one with many different attributes, and I want you to tell me at what point that business crosses the line and uses uncalled for force.

1) When you step inside the store, you defacto agree to certain common sense rules. For instance, you can't break their stuff, or steal it.

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

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.

3) While you are on the premises of this business, they can institute other rules to protect the smooth operation of their business. For instance, if you started screaming in the middle of a fancy restaurant, they can reasonably escort you out. This can extend as far as the taste of the business. For instance, a fancy restaurant can require a tie, and likewise escort you out if you refuse to wear one but demand service anyway.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Pup]

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.

I'm not a libertarian, but I lean more that direction than otherwise.

Where the analogy runs into problems is in the definition of ownership.

In a democracy, the government doesn't own the property. In a democracy, the building would be operated as a co-op, with each person who lives there having a vote in how it's managed.

If the residents all voted that anyone who didn't pay for table space should get kicked out, that would be the law. If the residents voted that everyone should get free table space, that would be the law too, but when the property started losing money and couldn't fix the roof or patch the potholes in the parking lot, the residents would probably realize it was a bad decision and vote to start charging again or raise money another way.

 

[michaelsuede]

I do have a moral right to throw him out, right?

yes

Your property, you can set the rules.

However this is not as drastic as it sounds because the market will naturally limit you in several different ways.

Most notably imposing draconian rules will cause people to stop doing business with you. Since your business depends on people voluntarily engaging in transactions on your trade floor, they will take their business elsewhere if they don't think they are getting a fair deal.

This situation differs from government, which claims ownership of all land by imposing property taxes (meaning you must pay rent for the privilege of using the land). This is analogous to you not only charging rent for a person staying in your apartments, but also charging the competing apartment complex next door rent for the privilege of setting up shop across the street from you.

Since you don't own the property next door, you would obviously have no legitimate claim to take their money. Nor could you prevent your residents from leaving and moving over there instead.

Government claims ownership of not only all property in a given geographical region, but also all people, along with all the things that they produce. Property taxes and building permits mean the government assumes to own all land. Income taxes mean the government assumes ownership of your productive activities. Sales taxes assume government owns a portion of the property you are selling. This is a form of slavery.

In the case of government, people have no choice in moving next door, they have to leave the entire country if they wish to try and evade a tyranny.

One must also understand how libertarian property rights operate to understand why private ownership in your example differs from government control.

Libertarians hold that property can be acquired legitimately in one of two ways:

1. Either by voluntary exchange (buying it) with the current owner.
or
2. Homesteading property not currently in use.

Government does not give a person the option of homesteading land that is not used. It imposes total control over all land. In the case of your example, if some property near by your complex is not being used or if some guy wants to sell it to an investment group of your current residents, in a libertarian world nothing could stop them from purchasing that land a building a competing complex next door to you.

Competition is essential because market competition is a major mechanism that prevents private property owners from imposing ridiculous rules on their property.

We can clearly see the positive benefits small states and nearby geographical competition brings by looking at the situation the East German's faced.

The government of East Germany is like your example where people were forced into a socialist morass against their consent. But because East Germany is so small and it was surrounded by less intrusive States, so many people sought to leave East Germany that the government finally erected a wall to stop people from leaving.

In the Soviet Union we didn't see this same kind of behavior primarily because the country was so vast that the poor people had no where to run and didn't even know that better opportunities were available in other States.

In the case of East Germany, people could simply look out their windows and see the positive benefits of moving across the border.

 

[Cavemonster]

I'm not a libertarian, but I lean more that direction than otherwise.

Where the analogy runs into problems is in the definition of ownership.

In a democracy, the government doesn't own the property. In a democracy, the building would be operated as a co-op, with each person who lives there having a vote in how it's managed.

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.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm not a libertarian, but I lean more that direction than otherwise.

Where the analogy runs into problems is in the definition of ownership.

In a democracy, the government doesn't own the property. In a democracy, the building would be operated as a co-op, with each person who lives there having a vote in how it's managed.

If the residents all voted that anyone who didn't pay for table space should get kicked out, that would be the law. If the residents voted that everyone should get free table space, that would be the law too, but when the property started losing money and couldn't fix the roof or patch the potholes in the parking lot, the residents would probably realize it was a bad decision and vote to start charging again or raise money another way.

So as a coop, the majority rules. I think that is what Cavemonster is trying to get at.

 

[theprestige]

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.

You're forgetting a third, obvious option, practiced everywhere throughout history, and around the world today: the tenants can use force to evict the landlord, and make their own arrangements as to rent and whatnot.

 

[ftl]

One difference is in the clause "If they don't like my rules, they can leave."

This is not, practically, true in the case of a government. "Leaving" a government isn't just a matter of stepping outside - it's a matter of relocating your entire life. You're born into your government, you don't choose it.

 

[Cavemonster]

One difference is in the clause "If they don't like my rules, they can leave."

This is not, practically, true in the case of a government. "Leaving" a government isn't just a matter of stepping outside - it's a matter of relocating your entire life. You're born into your government, you don't choose it.

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.

 

[Cavemonster]

You're forgetting a third, obvious option, practiced everywhere throughout history, and around the world today: the tenants can use force to evict the landlord, and make their own arrangements as to rent and whatnot.

That would be contrary to Libertarian thought.
Their whole basis is respect for contract and no use of force outside of enforcing ownership and contracts. Taking a building that was owned by someone else would be a no-no.

 

[Cavemonster]

This situation differs from government, which claims ownership of all land by imposing property taxes (meaning you must pay rent for the privilege of using the land). This is analogous to you not only charging rent for a person staying in your apartments, but also charging the competing apartment complex next door rent for the privilege of setting up shop across the street from you.

Since you don't own the property next door, you would obviously have no legitimate claim to take their money. Nor could you prevent your residents from leaving and moving over there instead.

Michael,
I think you misunderstand the analogy.
The entire country is the apartment complex and the trade floor. As the owner, I'm only charging people who work on my trade floor or live in my apartments, they are perfectly free to live and work elsewhere, another country, and I don't in fact have any sway over them when they move to another country.

Does the US prevent residents from moving to other countries?

 

[Pup]

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.

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

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.

What I don't get about libertarianism is the idea that individual contracts are okay, but it's not okay for groups of people to make contracts among themselves. And I guess that's part of the point of the thought experiment.

It reminds me of the joke about there being more lawyers than people in Washington D.C. Substitute politicians for lawyers. There can't be more politicians than people. The government is the people. It has no power other than what the people grant it; it's an emergent behavior of groups, not an entity separate from them.

Guess I need to read up more on libertarianism, because I don't know if libertarians recognize partnerships or corporations or anything where group decisions on how to act are made by negotiations or votes. If they do, all you need to do is scale up three partners negotiating to make a joint decision about whether to sell their business, and you have a democracy or democratic republic.

 

[Cavemonster]

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

Agreed by libertarians. I'm not proposing a system of government and debating it's quality in the abstract. I'm deriving a model from the rules that libertarians espouse. The agreement I mentioned was their agreement that I haven't misrepresented their premises or committed a logical error in working from those premises.

 

[Cavemonster]

Guess I need to read up more on libertarianism, because I don't know if libertarians recognize partnerships or corporations or anything where group decisions on how to act are made by negotiations or votes. If they do, all you need to do is scale up three partners negotiating to make a joint decision about whether to sell their business, and you have a democracy or democratic republic.

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.

 

[theprestige]

I'm deriving a model from the rules that libertarians espouse. The agreement I mentioned was their agreement that I haven't misrepresented their premises or committed a logical error in working from those premises.

Cavemonster, before we go any further, are you able to provide references for these claims?

ETA: I mean, I'm sure there's some jackass out there who fetishizes "contract" to the point of social dysfunction and cognitive breakdown. If that's who you have in mind, please point him out to us so we can all agree that his ideas are stupid and wrong.

On the other hand, if you have in mind someone who's thinking and talking seriously about the proper roles and limits of government in a free society, then why bother with the analogy and the thought experiment? Why not simply cite their actual discussion of the thing itself in its own terms, and let us participate directly in that discussion.

On the third hand, if you're begging the question that government is properly analogous to a giant apartment building, for the purpose of refuting certain libertarian ideas, then please provide some references for the ideas, so that we can a) judge the propriety of the analogy, and b) discard the analogy and judge the ideas on their own merits.

 

[Cavemonster]

Cavemonster, before we go any further, are you able to provide references for these claims?

What claims specifically do you need a reference for?

I built a model that I believe adheres to the nonaggression principle. If any libertarians believe any of the following:

1) It misrepresents that principle.
2) It violates other important libertarian principles I'm unaware of
3) My logic in deriving the model from the principle contains a flaw.

I'm asking them to point it out.

 

[Beerina]

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.

You're wrong because you would lose control of your apartment building to tenants who decide to vote to take it away from you.


Then they vote in all kinds of asinine regulations.


The problem with America is people have forgotten there's a lot more to freedom than freedom of speech -- there's freedom of action.

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.

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



So, my friend, that is where you're wrong.



ETA: By the way, my building complex owner. Your tenants have borrowed about $15,000 in your name this year alone. $41 borrowed on your behalf just today.

 

[Finn McR]

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.

 

[psionl0]

Where this "apartment complex" scenario differs from government is in the use of contracts. A contract is only binding on the parties who enter into it. It is not binding on a third party nor can a third party compel the signatories on a contract to fulfill its terms - even if the third party stands to make a loss if the contract is not fulfilled.

Once the landlord/tenant contracts have been entered into, the landlord has no right to unilaterally change the terms. He can not arbitrarily change the rents, the rules of the apartments or the trade stands. If a landlord or tenant wants changes to an existing contract, they need to negotiate then sign off on the changes. If the negotiations are not successful then the existing contract stands. Children born in the complex have no obligation to the landlord - they are solely the responsibility of their parents. When a child reaches the age of majority the landlord would have to negotiate a separate set of contracts with that child if it is his hope that the child will remain in the complex.

Contrast this with government. Governments constantly make up new rules (laws) or change existing laws (if they weren't constantly fiddling with the laws then we wouldn't need so many politicians). Governments are constantly making up new taxes and changing existing taxes - all despite what the public thinks about it. If anybody doesn't like it then the politicians sneer and say, "so what are you going to do about it? Vote for the other mob?"

And if you think the government has no right to tell you how to raise your children, try doing something innocent like home-schooling them (that's right - you can only home school your children if the government lets you and then only if they approve of your curriculum). Government actually tend to believe that they own your children. If they don't like the way you are raising your children (or you are a thorn in their side in some other way) then they will take your children off you and put them in some institution that will do the job properly.

 

[Cavemonster]

I mean, I'm sure there's some jackass out there who fetishizes "contract" to the point of social dysfunction and cognitive breakdown. If that's who you have in mind, please point him out to us so we can all agree that his ideas are stupid and wrong.

On the other hand, if you have in mind someone who's thinking and talking seriously about the proper roles and limits of government in a free society, then why bother with the analogy and the thought experiment? Why not simply cite their actual discussion of the thing itself in its own terms, and let us participate directly in that discussion.

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.

On the third hand, if you're begging the question that government is properly analogous to a giant apartment building, for the purpose of refuting certain libertarian ideas, then please provide some references for the ideas, so that we can a) judge the propriety of the analogy, and b) discard the analogy and judge the ideas on their own merits.

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.

 

[IchabodPlain]

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.

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.

Could you please clarify the bolded?

Although I'm not a Libertarian, I don't see the problem. There are children who live their entire adolescent lives inside a single apartment home. That you've expanded it into some kind of arcology doesn't change the issue of ownership. Unless each individual/family living inside owns their own apartment (and/or trade table space), I would think the contractual obligations of renting would hold as if it were a normal apartment building.

If you rent space in a building/office/arcology I own, then no matter how long you've lived or worked there, how many children you've raised or your childrens' children have raised - it's still my building. Why wouldn't it be? Just because you and everyone else managed to successfully procreate for a couple generations, I lose ownership of my building?

The only thing I can see is that by age 18 (or some other agreed upon year), every child born into the building must sign a contract stating that they understand and will comply with the rules laid out in said contract or he/she must leave.