A thought experiment for Libertarians

[Tommy Jeppesen]

I'm not sure that I understand the question. Since there is no "normal anarcho-capitalistic contract system", I guess everything falls outside of it.

Fair enough, can you for the totality of all human interaction come up with at least one example where the concept of an fair, even and so trade doesn't apply. I.e. where all of "good cards" are in one hand in a figurative sense.

I will give you a hint and it has nothing to do with libertarians in particular, but you can also spot it in this thread.
-Start with these words - harm fairness ingroup authority purity - - google them, start reading and then apply this part of science on libertarian/anarcho capitalistic thought and try to find as many matches you can with the above words. Then do it on any other world-view than your own as a philosophical system, religion, ideology and so on including the scientific methodology if claimed that it can be used on everything in an universal manner. Then do it on your own world-view.
If you can do that and incorporate skepticism, critical thinking and so, you might learn something new if you didn't know it already.

So all people ought to learn to think, feel and act with the ability of applying reason, logic, rationality, evidence and the list goes on. The problem is that this is not how reality works and someone can have a life and be within how biological evolution works without being a "true" scientific skeptic.
So I don't do ought/should or rather I try to avoid that when "playing" everything on the Internet as Real Life is different.
Rather I apply in short this fact - if you can reason, think and feel differently than me, it is a fact in both case regardless of all of the "bad" words like irrational, illogical and so on. In other words I try not to use special pleading

 

[psionl0]

That's supposed to be a clarification?

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

That's supposed to be a clarification?

Can we for any complex enough society avoid any form of de facto goverment?

If yes, how do you know that?
If no, how do you know that?

For any other answer, do you have any practical advice including learn to cope with it?

 

[Beelzebuddy]

The only reason for bringing it up is to demonstrate that even bad people have to follow some sort of code in their business. If they rip off all of their customers then the won't be in business for long (and you can't make money from a business if you don't have a business). This doesn't mean that they won't shaft individuals from time to time and there is no shortage of penny-ante fly-by-nighters who are content to run a quick scam instead of a business. Governments can't eliminate this entirely so the old caveat emptor principle still applies.

You can't really be this ignorant of how the drug trade works.

[ETA] Or can you? Do you actually think that it is the business reputation of the cartels that keeps them in check? That some addict somewhere is going to say, "Jeepers, darned if I'm going to buy from those Zeta guys anymore. They don't run an honest operation!"

That governments would allow this to happen is rather telling about where their loyalties lie.

You know that "private arbitration" is a pretty big Libertarian thing, right? This is your economic philosophy in action.

 

[psionl0]

Can we for any complex enough society avoid any form of de facto goverment?

I thought that I established in post #152 that some form of government is necessary/unavoidable. As for what appears to be the other main point of your "clarification", bargaining from positions of equal strength are not the norm.

 

[psionl0]

You can't really be this ignorant of how the drug trade works.

[ETA] Or can you? Do you actually think that it is the business reputation of the cartels that keeps them in check? That some addict somewhere is going to say, "Jeepers, darned if I'm going to buy from those Zeta guys anymore. They don't run an honest operation!"

Maybe your drug dealers keep stiffing you but there must be some that actually deliver drugs. Otherwise, how would you get drug addicts? Maybe as somebody who knows all about the drug trade, you can explain this apparent paradox.

You know that "private arbitration" is a pretty big Libertarian thing, right? This is your economic philosophy in action.

My economic philosophy? That's not even a strawman. It is just plain false.

You might be a total communist but that does not have any bearing on my views whatsoever. As I said above, "You are not going to trick me into maintaining an extremist position".

 

[Belz...]

Pure Libertarianism will not work for the same reason that Pure Socialism will not work:

Human Nature.
The idea that people can get along without a police force and laws is so incredibly stupid that, frankly, it is not even worth discussing.

Unless we're talking about a very small group, like a tribe or something.

 

[psionl0]

Unless we're talking about a very small group, like a tribe or something.

Don't tribes have a chief or something?

 

[Beelzebuddy]

My economic philosophy? That's not even a strawman. It is just plain false.

I thought you were arguing on the side of Libertarianism? If that's not true, I apologize. If you are, then what's the problem? Arbitration is how these things are supposed to be determined without government interference, right? I trust I don't need to linkdump to show that it's very commonly referred to as THE solution to solve them all.

Maybe your drug dealers keep stiffing you but there must be some that actually deliver drugs. Otherwise, how would you get drug addicts? Maybe as somebody who knows all about the drug trade, you can explain this apparent paradox.

Having thought more on the matter, and assuming you are talking Libertarianism, I would like to first probe your depth of knowledge on the issue. I regard the drug trafficking industry as a clear failure condition. As in, I feel I can point to its operation and say "this is why Libertarian ideals are not realistic." To make it clear, I'm referring about the large, organized cartels that operate outside of government jurisprudence mostly in Central America, not Stoner Bob who grows weed in his garage and sells it to his buddies.

I'd like to find out how much you know about how these industries work. For example, consider the current tide of child refugees coming across the southern US border. Do you know what they are fleeing from, and how it fits into the cartels' business model? If not, a simpler question: why is the first one always free?

 

[Howie Felterbush]

I'd like to find out how much you know about how these industries work. For example, consider the current tide of child refugees coming across the southern US border. Do you know what they are fleeing from, and how it fits into the cartels' business model? If not, a simpler question: why is the first one always free?

The first one being free has precisely zero to do with the 'cartels' in South/Central America. That's something a street level dealer does to get people to try his dope and (hopefully) come back for more. Street level guy is so far removed from the cartels as to be practically in a different business altogether. By the time street guy gets his dope to sell, cartel guy has been paid for a month. Cartel guy doesn't call the street dealer and say, "Make sure you get 'em hooked with a free one, OK?" Cartel guy doesn't care. Once the ton dealer has his hands on it, cartel guy is out of the picture.

Sorry for the derail, back to your regularly scheduled libertarian thread.

Also...Somalia!

 

[Shambler]

Most Libertarian views rely upon the moral argument that "tax is theft" or "tax is immoral", but there are very few Libertarians who advocate no government at all (it is ridiculously easy to show practical problems with that), and thus there are very few Libertarians who advocate no taxes (since you need taxes in order to have a government).

So, almost all Libertarian arguments are self-contradicting on these terms: They use a moral argument about tax, that they themselves hypocritically are in breach of, making the argument completely inconsistent.

If you force them to ditch the whole "tax is immoral" argument (by pointing out that they themselves are immoral on their own terms), then Libertarians are forced to argue government policies on their individual merits, and are no longer able to use "but they're taking/taxing my money" type arguments - because they've already conceded that taxes are necessary - and then once forced to argue based on policies individual merits, they pretty much lose every time, and start relying on studies from free-market propaganda think-tanks as 'evidence'.


It's piss easy for anyone to say "less taxation is better!" or "less regulations/laws is better!" as a slogan/mantra, but Libertarians try to use that as a hypocritical battering ram for all arguments, even though most of them agree "some taxation is good", and "some regulations/laws is better".

You will not find a single Libertarian who will try to describe, in specific terms and open to questions, a complete Libertarian economic/political system to you - because they know it will have holes poked in it more easily than wet toilet paper.

It's almost all theory, and none of it provably applicable to reality - they can't even come up with a single solid plan of how to enact it all, because as soon as they start compromising their views to try and fit reality, pretty soon all the practical compromises they make, causes Libertarianism to transform into something that looks a lot more like an even more extreme form of NeoLiberalism.

 

[Tippit]

Most Libertarian views rely upon the moral argument that "tax is theft" or "tax is immoral", but there are very few Libertarians who advocate no government at all (it is ridiculously easy to show practical problems with that), and thus there are very few Libertarians who advocate no taxes (since you need taxes in order to have a government).

So, almost all Libertarian arguments are self-contradicting on these terms: They use a moral argument about tax, that they themselves hypocritically are in breach of, making the argument completely inconsistent.

You're knocking down straw. The idea is that governments use force to collect taxes. Since that tends over time to make them less accountable and more corrupt the larger they grow, that the role of government should be strictly limited to securing basic liberties and enacting justice only. This means that the collection of taxes for other than those basic purposes is immoral, not the idea of collecting taxes itself.

You can disagree with the premises, but the hypocrisy argument doesn't hold water.

 

[Shambler]

You're knocking down straw. The idea is that governments use force to collect taxes. Since that tends over time to make them less accountable and more corrupt the larger they grow, that the role of government should be strictly limited to securing basic liberties and enacting justice only. This means that the collection of taxes for other than those basic purposes is immoral, not the idea of collecting taxes itself.

You can disagree with the premises, but the hypocrisy argument doesn't hold water.

So what if government use force to collect taxes? You've already agreed that is a moral thing to do.

After you agree to that, all your future moral arguments about using force to collect taxes, are hypocritical and void.

It basically amounts to "government taxing to fund anything I don't like is immoral, government taxing to fund anything I like is moral" - completely arbitrary and hypocritical.

 

[barehl]

Libertarianism doesn't 'fail' at anything.

I would be more than a little amazed if you could explain a Libertarian system that did not contain self-contradictions. To the best of my knowledge, this has never been done, even theoretically for a Libertarian model with more than one person in it.

 

[barehl]

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.

Yes, this is exactly the problem you will have as soon as there are two Libertarians on the same planet. Each will view his liberty as superseding any other and any other's liberty as theft of his own. This system cannot function.

 

[barehl]

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.

I would be curious to know who these people are. To the best of my knowledge the only people who are net tax recipients are those either on SSL or Social Security.

Still when 51% of US households pay no tax

Where does this magical place exist? I pay sales tax when I make a purchase, taxes when I pay my phone bill, taxes when I pay my utility bill, property taxes, and license plate taxes. There are taxes for gasoline, taxes for airline tickets, and taxes for hotel rooms. For any job that you work, you pay payroll taxes. Who isn't paying taxes?

Now, if your argument is so silly that you are only counting Federal Income Taxes then you would have to explain why the largest corporations in the US pay no taxes.

 

[ehcks]

I would be curious to know who these people are. To the best of my knowledge the only people who are net tax recipients are those either on SSL or Social Security.

Last year, my income was low enough that my federal income tax was 0, and my EITC was more than my FICA taxes. My total income tax for the year was slightly negative. I can only hope I'm in a very small group of people.

 

[EGarrett]

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.

You sign agreements with people beforehand about what circumstances can cause them to be removed. These agreements typically have "general purpose" clauses included, such as "the property owner can refuse service to you for any reason." Both of you can be legally held to this agreement.

A natural offshoot of your question seems to be "what if a businessman owns the whole country? You can read about the "Homestead Principle" on Wikipedia. Some very, very intelligent men pondered and solved these questions when these concepts were first being proposed.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

A natural offshoot of your question seems to be "what if a businessman owns the whole country? You can read about the "Homestead Principle" on Wikipedia.

Just for yuks, I did. It boils down to "I can take your stuff if I don't think you're using it." I suppose it's better than the standard anarchist line of "I can take your stuff if you can't stop me," but not by very much.

 

[stevea]

You phrase this as a general moral objection, but I'm curious to know where the heart of it lies.

I stated that no (meaning "almost no") libertarians think that a government mandated retirement system like Social Security or a health system like ACA is a valid function of government. The primary objection is that the action of government is definitionally force, and this force is applied in an act of aggression (to make you do things that you prefer not to do). That's generally objectionable.

I think many of the non-anarcho-cap libertarians would accept the notion of public criminal courts and perhaps police, and a defensive military, and taxing for these sorts of common good features is perhaps the upper bound intrusiveness that should be accepted. This relates to the US Constutional issue of "general welfare". The term means activities that benefit all similarly (not necessarily equally), as opposed to activities that benefit individuals or select groups. So draining the swamp to eliminate malaria mosquitos is a general good. Treating the group that has already contracted malaria is a specific benefit, not general. Improving roads benefit even those who never travel - a general good; subsidizing fuel ethanol production and not say clean coal or others is not a general good.

Is it that money is being taken from you and put toward something that does not directly benefit you?

It doesn't matter at all whether it benefits me or not. The government takes my money by taxation(force) and then uses the money for things that I don't choose. Who gives then the right ? Where does this government get the right to interfere with my property and my choices ? It's a violation of the social contract.

Consider social security taxes. The do-gooders BELEIVE that's in my best interest. But say I could use my own money to start/expand a business or further my education and therefore be more productive and not need this socialistic system ? Or say I use the money to buy jelly donuts and a bigger screen TV - and then I can act as a object lessor for others of how not to live. Or say I know that my family history or chronic diseases mean that I am unlikely to ever collect social security.

Applying a one-size-fits-all policy by force necessarily creates lower economic efficiency than 300million ppl making their own choices. I have no objection at all to someone creating a PRIVATE social-security type system, and I might even pay the dues to join myself, but it's truly obnoxious for others to dictate how I must live when I am not causing any harm. They aggress against me without cause.

Is it that the money is going to someone who did nothing to deserve it?

I'm in favor of personal charity which is a transfer of weath to those who didn't earn it.
But "deserve" is a weasel-word you'll need to define carefully before I'll address that.

Is it that you see it as a losing value proposition - society wasting money by "propping up" an aspect of itself that should be left to adapt or die?

Economically it IS provable inefficient (a losing value proposition); that's not even a serious question.

I'm not suggestion you are going there but a lot of Lib/Progressives who can't offer a serious economic counter-argument spew a form of denigration/ad-hom fallacy along the lines "anyone who doesn't agree with my redistributionist idea wants to kick the crutch out from Tiny Tim". No it's not "adapt or die", except within the limited domain of economic competition where we should all rationally want efficient markets and efficient use of resources.


The libertarian objection is that schemes like social security or ACA is an application of government FORCE as they expropriate personal property for ends that are not the preference of the individual (violates the non-aggression principle). The Constitutional objections are that these programs are not in the "general good" but designed toward the specific good; perhaps others.

The economic objections are manifold. / Any "central planning" program is necessarily inefficient for several reasons; the unified plan&policy can't apply well to the needs of a diverse population. Further the diverse population does not have a single unified "goal" wrt health or retirement. Few people are getting what they prefer; and few people prefer what they get. / For some reason that isn't exactly clear (probably relates to the size of the nation, the diverse population and therefore lack of altruism across groups), the US government programs generally have very high overhead and losses to fraud, abuse and waste. / Because the government is involved crony capitalism often results. We can easily see this in DoD companies, but it applies to insurers and health care & service providers as well. / Because this is US government there is little financial responsibility in the programs. Social Security pays out more than is actuarial sound. No private insurer - not even a charitable non-profit with donated overhead could run social security as it is currently run (the SS tax is too low), BUT no politician is willing to correct this massive flaw. IOW the fiscal decisions are based on politics and pandering to voters or donors - not rational consideration.

The impact of any redistribution program (and that includes SS & ACA) is to reduce the marginal advantage of working&producing. So on the edges some ppl are induced to retire or take disability rather than work, or to work less to qualify for ACA subsidies.

---

My moral objections are also manifold.

These plans are forced on me despite my will and preferences. It's slavery to take the product of my work for ends that I don't prefer.

These plans are an imposition on individual choice by creating terrible motivations to interfere in the lives of others. Let's say the government experts declare that saturated fats and excess salt in your diet are bad (as they did). The existence of a central health system should cause central planners to want to reduce systemic costs by imposing taxes (or other forms of force) against consumption saturate fats and salt. However recent finding (see the "Cochare Review" for details) show that saturated fats and salt aren't bad as previously thought. We are all forced into acceding to the decisions of a central planner - even if we disagree, even if we prefer otherwise, even if these decisions ultimately harm us. It's a massive inducement for totalitarian thinking and losses of personal liberty.

I suggest you examine the war on fatties that the Left is 'genning up. It's become an afterthought in news articles to include words about how much extra HC is needed by the obese. If people want to over-eat of be obese - it's their personal choice and business. At least it should be their personal business, except that we are forced into a public health scheme that we all pay for - thus creating a motive to tell others how to live (which I find obnoxious).

This sort of tyranny of the majority government now extends into the most intimate parts of life - where government has no valid business.