A thought experiment for Libertarians

[theprestige]

I'm not here to make a case about what libertarians believe.

Obviously.

I just wanted to make a case that government does not violate nonaggression in a way that I hoped would answer objections to such arguments I've heard in the past.

The idea of a straw man is kind of absurd with the amount of "Please correct me if I'm wrong's" I've been using.

You're wrong. This isn't a thought experiment for libertarians, it's a thought experiment for some kind of narrowly-defined pacifist of your own invention. There may or may not exist libertarians in the real world who adhere to the kind of non-aggression you seem to be testing for, but there's no reason to assume they exist without evidence.

Also, I'd be surprised if any libertarian agrees that being born into tenancy/indenture/servitude/slavery/etc. constitutes a freely-made contract between consenting adults. So probably all bets are off at that point, and even your Non-Aggression Libertarians might seriously consider a popular uprising without jeopardizing their moral principles.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

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

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

http://mises.org/daily/5270/State-or-PrivateLaw-Society

Now here is something from my part of the world:

...
Det er kongens og landets høvdingers opgave at overvåge domme og gøre ret og frelse dem, der tvinges med uret, såsom enker og værgeløse børn, pilgrimme og udlændinge og fattige - dem overgår der tiest uret - ...
http://danmarkshistorien.dk/leksikon-og-kilder/vis/materiale/jyske-lovs-fortale-1241/

Context - Part of Danish law 1241.

Translation: It is the king's and the chiefs' of the country task to monitor judgements and do right and save those, who are forced by wrong, such as widows and helpless children, pilgrims and foreigners and poor - those who most often are subject to wrongdoing -

Now the relevance is this - for those, who can't pay for their being on somebody else's property, don't have their own property and can't pay for insurance, how do Hans-Hermann Hoppe or you propose to deal with that?

With regards

 

[Swammerdami]

Once upon a time I thought of myself as a libertarian. I proposed market-based solutions like pollution rights trading before the idea caught on in Congress. But those calling themselves Libertarian today have "ideas" so different from mine I can no longer use the term. I call this new breed "Hyperlibertarians."

For example, ideas like cap-and-trade, once advocated by right-wing economists, are considered to be government intrusion by Hyperlibertarians and contrary to a free market. Libertarians solve the problems of commons or external costs, if at all, by positing private rent collectors on all externalities, as though William the Conqueror should have appointed a Duke of the Ocean and Duke of the Air along with the other property owners he created.

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

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

As pointed out upthread, once Robinson Crusoe has "put [the entire island] to use by means of his body, before any other person," a new castaway must become Crusoe's slave, if Crusoe so insists. I'd ask what michaelsuede and hans-hoppe think of this (but not if it means watching a 90-minute YouTube.).

Entering a restaurant in Libertopia, I guess I'd see a sign like "Disputes resolved by Acme Enforcement, Ltd." and I'd keep looking for a place to eat if I preferred "Earp & Brothers Enforcement, Ltd." Earp and Acme are presumably vertically integrated: arbiters, judges, gunmen all for one low price; what exactly happens when Earp and Acme have a dispute about whose gunmen are entitled to intervene in a given predicament? Belief in the foulness of human nature seems almost central to Hypertarian thought; one wonders why they assume these private problem resolution agencies will be well-behaved.

One needn't guess what the Michaelsuede-Hoppe Libertopia would be like. The experiment has been tried in places like anarchic Somalia. What's not to love? Somali citizens ally themselves with one warlord or another, just as Hoppe envisions. Citizens are bound to warlord's decisions by threat of bloodshed, but this must ultimately be the case in the Michaelsuede-Hoppe Libertopia as well.

There is a smidgen of validity in some Libertarian principles. The Hyperlibertarians carry their "idea" to humorous extremes, using the property-right hammer to solve all problems. What's sad is that many Americans like the sound of the word "liberty" (marijuana, porn, etc.) and ignore that in practice for today's "libertarian", the goal (whether the "libertarian" acknowledges or even understands it) is the oppression of people by corporate property owners.

 

[psionl0]

It is the king's and the chiefs' of the country task to monitor judgements and do right and save those, who are forced by wrong, such as widows and helpless children, pilgrims and foreigners and poor - those who most often are subject to wrongdoing -

Do the kings and chiefs of Denmark actually limit themselves like this?

 

[Mark6]

One needn't guess what the Michaelsuede-Hoppe Libertopia would be like. The experiment has been tried in places like anarchic Somalia. What's not to love? Somali citizens ally themselves with one warlord or another, just as Hoppe envisions. Citizens are bound to warlord's decisions by threat of bloodshed, but this must ultimately be the case in the Michaelsuede-Hoppe Libertopia as well.

And some Libertarians seriously admire Somalia: Stateless in Somalia, and Loving It

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Do the kings and chiefs of Denmark actually limit themselves like this?

Yes, no, whatever, since do imply present time and we don't have kings and chiefs in Denmark with any such power, I could also have answered 42

Did you mean: Did the kings and chiefs of Denmark actually limit themselves like this?
No! But so what?!! I am a skeptic and try to avoid the nirvana fallacy so I don't demand of any political system that it is perfect.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

And some Libertarians seriously admire Somalia: Stateless in Somalia, and Loving It

1. Every person is the private (exclusive) owner of his own physical body. Indeed, who else, if not Crusoe, should be the owner of Crusoe's body? Friday? Or Crusoe and Friday jointly? Yet that would not help avoid conflict. Rather, it would create conflict and make it permanent.
http://mises.org/daily/5270/State-or-PrivateLaw-Society

The extended family is the core of Somali society. Families descended from common great grandparent form a jilib, the basic independent jural unit, and a number of jilibs in turn form a clan.
http://mises.org/daily/2066

Note, that both are from mises.org Can any libertarian spot the difference?

 

[psionl0]

Yes, no, whatever, since do imply present time and we don't have kings and chiefs in Denmark with any such power, I could also have answered 42

It doesn't matter how you label them. All governing authorities lust for as much power as possible.

 

[theprestige]

Note, that both are from mises.org Can any libertarian spot the difference?

I'm not a libertarian, but I don't see why the difference should be very hard for anyone--libertarian or otherwise--to spot.

The first describes an idea of private ownership. In this case, the principle that one owns one's own body. Maybe you find the idea debatable, but the idea itself should be easy for anyone to understand.

The second describes a social organization, based on family ties to other members of one's society.

Notably, membership in a Somali jilib or clan does not seem to contradict the principle of private ownership of one's own body.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

It doesn't matter how you label them. All governing authorities lust for as much power as possible.

Okay, dodge noted. Now go back and you will find this question:

Now the relevance is this - for those, who can't pay for their being on somebody else's property, don't have their own property and can't pay for insurance, how do Hans-Hermann Hoppe or you propose to deal with that?

So here it is as an example: A young couple is driving along in a car with their young baby. The car crashes and ends up on my property. I investigate, find the parents dead, the baby alive, signs of heavy drinking and I check the relevant insurance state of the baby. BTW I have to since I don't want to pay for the baby. The baby was uninsured and since it seems probable based on the state of the car and the appearance of the dead parents, that there is no life insurance. Further there is no next of kind or anybody else connected to the parents as per their insurance. In short the parents had taken out a minimal insurance/police/law policy and it didn't cover the baby nor did it seems likely that there was any inheritance left for the baby.

So in short, the baby is without actual insurance, apparently with no next of kind and without property/money. As per Hans-Hermann Hoppe this baby is not covered by the law, because it hasn't paid for and it can't pay for law/police insurance. Further it is trespassing on my property.

So what next, psionl0?

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

I'm not a libertarian, but I don't see why the difference should be very hard for anyone--libertarian or otherwise--to spot.

The first describes an idea of private ownership. In this case, the principle that one owns one's own body. Maybe you find the idea debatable, but the idea itself should be easy for anyone to understand.

The second describes a social organization, based on family ties to other members of one's society.

Notably, membership in a Somali jilib or clan does not seem to contradict the principle of private ownership of one's own body.

Look above

 

[psionl0]

Okay, dodge noted.

What dodge? You are the one who brought up kings and dukes and even if systems of government have changed, I don't see you claiming that governments today are limiting the use of their powers any more than the kings and dukes did.

Now go back and you will find this question:

There is no need. This is a necro thread and all of this was discussed years ago.

The upshot is that no true libertarian state can exist for long since there will always be those who seek to dominate others. Even if it were possible, a world that existed on business contracts alone would only be for the lucky and the strong.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

What dodge? You are the one who brought up kings and dukes and even if systems of government have changed, I don't see you claiming that governments today are limiting the use of their powers any more than the kings and dukes did.

I didn't bring up kings and chiefs, because they were relevant. I did it because of what they were supposed to do - protect those, who can't protect themselves.

There is no need. This is a necro thread and all of this was discussed years ago.

The upshot is that no true libertarian state can exist for long since there will always be those who seek to dominate others. Even if it were possible, a world that existed on business contracts alone would only be for the lucky and the strong.

So we agree

 

[theprestige]

Look above

Looking above, I see that you cited two excerpts from different posts made on mises.org, and asked if any "any libertarian" could "spot the difference".

I spotted a difference, and then you told me to look above.

This doesn't seem to be a very productive exchange. Is there something I'm missing, that you would like to point out?

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Looking above, I see that you cited two excerpts from different posts made on mises.org, and asked if any "any libertarian" could "spot the difference".

I spotted a difference, and then you told me to look above.

This doesn't seem to be a very productive exchange. Is there something I'm missing, that you would like to point out?

In an extended family the children can really on the family, but when you reduce humans down to individuals as one person is his/her own property, you haven't answered the question of what to do with children without insurance, property and the means to pay for their existence.

 

[theprestige]

You seem to be concatenating a series of non-sequiturs to build an argument that makes no sense to me. I'll call out the essence of my confusion at each step:

In an extended family the children can really on the family,

What does this have to do with the idea that a person owns their body?

but when you reduce humans down to individuals as one person is his/her own property,

What does this have to do with social organizations based on extended families?

you haven't answered the question of what to do with children without insurance, property and the means to pay for their existence.

Why should the idea of ownership of one's body, or the idea of social organizations based on extended families, be expected to answer this question?

While we're here: Do you disagree with the idea that you--and no one else--own your body?

 

[psionl0]

So we agree

There is not much to disagree with unless it is how well we are served by governments. They tend to see themselves as rulers rather than servants.

It could be pointed out that the growth of mega-corporations that transcend national borders could herald the end result of libertarianism anyway. Some of the biggest economies around the world are corporations rather than countries and they are already able to demand special treatment from various governments.

It is likely that in the future, governments will exist only to serve the will of corporations. We may also see corporations take over functions that governments provide such as security services, courts and even welfare (good will is worth money). The need for governments to sell off national assets to pay for their profligacy pretty much ensures that this would happen.

If it ever got to the stage where contracts replaced laws, you can be sure that nobody could survive without signing them.

 

[Swammerdami]

What does this have to do with social organizations based on extended families?

Attempted real-world examples of libertarian societies, like anarchic Somalia or feudal Ireland, often have organisations that function as government: loyalty to family clans, churches, permanent homage contracts. I think the post you referred to intended to suggest that, when such government-like institutions are considered, the models of Libertopia aren't so close to Hyperlibertarian rhetoric after all.

While we're here: Do you disagree with the idea that you--and no one else--own your body?

A more relevant question for Hyperlibertarians is: Can a person sell himself into slavery? Be careful before a facile No answer; there's a slippery slope so where does the line get drawn? How about when one of your female serfs needs help giving birth; can she impose a debt on her child in return for your help?

 

[psionl0]

Can a person sell himself into slavery?

Yes - but currently, such contracts are not officially recognized by most governments.

How about when one of your female serfs needs help giving birth; can she impose a debt on her child in return for your help?

Based purely on the principles of contracts, I would say "no".
A contract can not be binding on a third person and a child who can not comprehend the nature of a contract could not be pressured into agreeing to anything (there must be a "meeting of the minds").

In practice however, children have often been regarded as the chattel property of their parents (especially by religious institutions) and could therefore be sold into slavery. It still happens today.

 

[Swammerdami]

Contract law

The sanctity of contracts is central to Libertarian thought. Can 9-year olds enter into contracts? How about adults with severe mental deficiencies? I can steer my senile relative to a store whose contracts are adjudicated by Earp & Brothers if that's the service I prefer, but what if she goes alone into a store whose contracts are adjudicated by Nasty, Grimy & Snide, Esquires? Merchants might take advantage of the mentally weak; to hear some Libertarians, that is a feature not a bug of their model.

In rational Western society contract law evolves under the direction of legislators and judges. If the people don't like it, they elect new legislators and judges. In the Libertarian model, if we don't like Nasty, Grimy & Snide, Esquires we go back to Earp & Brothers.

Libertarians seem to believe that democratically elected governments evolve to be evil or lazy, while private greed-motivated actors will evolve to be benevolent. This seems confused, even ignoring that short-term mischief often overrides long-term reputation in the real world.

I'm a Johnny-come-lately to the thread and my objections may have been addressed. If anyone wants to point me to appropriate answers please do so. But no 90-minute YouTubes from the Alabama School(*) of economics, please.

(Am I right that the intelligent Austrian economists would roll over in their graves at the tripe from Alabama's mises.org ?)