Does Libertarianism Allow For Jerks?

[shanek]

Sounds like a load of hogwash to me. Any mayor, no matter what his political affiliation, could have insrtigated this (obvious) measure.

Then why haven't they? Why does it take a Libertarian?

The problem, shanek, is that Libertarian philosophy isn't geared for pro-active action. It is always about "punishing the wrong-doers". Which is simply a non-viable method of government.

I've just given an example whick completely falsifies this, and yet here you come again making the same claim. Bogus.

 

[shanek]

Suppose you have a huge area of unclaimed land. Person A arrives there first. Is this how we determine ownership? Finders-keepers?

Now how much of that land can he claim ownership of? All of it? Part of it?

If 50 more people show up, are they just screwed because the first person decides to be a jerk and say "All Mine, go away!" even though he can't possibly USE all of it?

One of the threads I referenced you covers this exact question. Please go read it.

 

[shanek]

In application - the LP takes it to far and forgets the FFs never advocated laissez-faire capitalism. The did know there must be some regulation of commerce. I think the LP plays lip-service to some regulation, but in essence they seem to advocate no regulation of commerce at all. I disagree with that.

Be careful not to lump the FFs all into one group. Remember that there was the primary division between the Federalists and the Jeffersonians. The Federalists were the ones who wanted a strong central government with tight control over commerce; the Jeffersonians wanted none at all. About the only thing stopping the Jeffersonians from advocating laissez-faire was that the concept really didn't exist at the time.

I thought I did with my explanation. "Pro-active" tends to restrict the rights of all, in order to hopefully stop a few from preventing a crime. "Prevention" tries to stop the problem, without restricting anyone.

By that definition, I guess my example above would be preventative rather than pro-active.

 

[shanek]

Perhaps to be ultimately and totally free, yes, you would have to accept that. I'm willing to give up a little of my freedom to allow some modest mitigation of those bad things.

It is your perfect right to make that decision. But justification is there for forcing that decision on others?

 

[Diezel]

I've tried to come up with a simple analogy to show my point how you cannot apply libertarianism to the island scenario and I've failed, but I did come up with thisL

Say we were arguing about golf swings. I say a high club head speed with lots of rotational action is the best swing and you say that is false, a slower club head speed with a steady upper body and more wrist action is the best golf swing.

To prove your point, you tell me to go back to the beginning of the game and ask me if I would use my swing. I have to admit I wouldn't, because with wooden shafts and feather balls, I would break the equipment. I would have to use your swing.

Would that prove that I was wrong? Would that prove anything? No, of course not. With the given situation as it is today, I am right. But this situation only evolved recently, so of course I couldn't apply it to a situation that happened before my theory evolved.

Taken even a step further, if I find myself on a desert island today with nothing to make golf clubs out of but rocks and wooden shafts, my swing would still be wrong. But that doesn't prove anything about my golf swing being wrong in the situation I am applying it to.

Yea, I know, not the clearest, but I hope you see my point. You can't try apply theories to situations they were never meant to be applied to.

 

[shanek]

Which was my point. The scenerio as crafted actually raised some issues as to whether I really had a right to "own" the island. If I do, the conclusion you suggest is the proper one under libertarian principles, harsh or no.

Unfortunately, we went off on a huge tangent as shanek couldn't just say what you just said.

The tangent was based on where the ownership of the island came from in the first place, something you refused to address.

 

[shanek]

If people are selfish, why do we (as in "Danes", "Swedes", "Norwegians", etc) have welfare states?

If people aren't selfish, why would you need welfare states?

 

[shanek]

Institute police patrols of the area.

Nothing anti-Libertarian about that idea, so long as the police do not violate the rights of others in doing so.

Installation of obvious security cameras of particularly troublesome areas.

Same here, with the same caveat.

Investigate root causes of the graffiti, it might be because of bored kids, gangs, who knows? But investigation could lead to implementation of policies to help curb the behaviour that leads to the proliferation of graffiti.

Again, this is an approach a Libertarian would gladly take. Unfortunately, Diezel's example of a curfew is more typical of big government solutions.

 

[shanek]

If I am not representing the LP incorrectly, even the Libertarians allow giving up some freedom for enforcement. The LP does, for example, allow for the government's use of force to punish a criminal's intiation of force.

What it boils down to is a matter of degree.

Please, let me know if I am mischaracterizing the LP here.

Just to clarify this point here. There are three ways that freedom can be inhibited: waiver, forfeit, and oppression.

Waiver is the voluntary suspension of one's rights. If someone wants to defend himself, or confess to the police, he voluntarily waives his right to an attorney. A person who signs a contract voluntarily waives his right to decide later not to abide by its terms (without buying out the contract or paying a court's penalty).

Forfeit is the suspension of one's rights which result from forceful acts against another. When someone commits a forceful act, he gives up some but not all of his rights. He still has the right, for example, to not be tortured. But in a civil matter he has forfeited the right not to have an appropriate amount of money siezed, or in criminal matters his right not to be put in jail. But all of this must be done through due process with respect for his rights at every step of the way.

Oppression is what results from the initiation of force, whether it's done by a government or by a criminal. Oppression is the only way of losing rights that is unjustifiable.

I've posted that before, in other threads. I hope this clears it up for people who haven't seen it yet.

I thought about it, and thought of things like national defense, then decided that my answer was "no."

Harry Browne wouldn't have gotten rid of national defense.

 

[Suddenly]

I thought I would post a little more about my last point.

Your point that "truth is not time sensitive" is a straw man. What we are discussing is governmental politics. This is not a static subject, but a dynamic one. So what worked at one time, in one set of circumstances, will not neccesarily work at another time with another set of circumstances.

Which is exactly my point. Did you miss the part where I said I'm not talking about what works? My point is, and has been that the "non-initiation of force" doctrine as a universal principle is hostile to property. That is it.

This is why I say your scenario is not valid, because you can't possibly try to apply libertarianism to a situtation it was never intended to deal with.

A universal principle can be applied to anything or it isn't universal

Say their are four people, two male and two female. They work things out and share everything. Now they have kids and they are all still in harmony. The kids have kids, they need privacy, so they start sectioning off their little pieces of island, so they can be private when they feel like it (it is human nature to want privacy at times.) Now they have just started a rudimentary "ownership" over different pieces of land. As this develops and the population grows, so too will the desire of the people to have their own little piece of land.

Once the population gets large enough, you need a way to deal with the people's desire to own their own little piece of land. At this point, libertarianism may start to apply, but not before.

OK, just say "Non-initiation of force is a nice principle under certain circumstances, but not universal." Then I'll nod my head in agreement.

To repeat myself, this is a dynamic subject and I don't think you can prove anything by trying to see what something that was meant to work further down the evolution does when thrown to the beginning of the evolution, where it was never intended to be.

Does 2+2=4 become obsolete? No? Does "do not initiate force" break down under certain circumstances? Yes? Then it isn't a universal principle.

 

[Suddenly]

Force: anything that stops someone from acting freely. Initiation: that act absent of which would have meant that there was no force at all.



I can answer them, and I have. And I'm really sick and tired of you and a small handful of others in this forum making me spend most of my time here repeating myself.

You said before that a DUI is an initiation of force. Explain how that follows from the above. Explain how a DUI keeps someone else from acting freely.

 

[Suddenly]

I've tried to come up with a simple analogy to show my point how you cannot apply libertarianism to the island scenario and I've failed, but I did come up with thisL

Say we were arguing about golf swings. I say a high club head speed with lots of rotational action is the best swing and you say that is false, a slower club head speed with a steady upper body and more wrist action is the best golf swing.

To prove your point, you tell me to go back to the beginning of the game and ask me if I would use my swing. I have to admit I wouldn't, because with wooden shafts and feather balls, I would break the equipment. I would have to use your swing.

Would that prove that I was wrong? Would that prove anything? No, of course not. With the given situation as it is today, I am right. But this situation only evolved recently, so of course I couldn't apply it to a situation that happened before my theory evolved.

Taken even a step further, if I find myself on a desert island today with nothing to make golf clubs out of but rocks and wooden shafts, my swing would still be wrong. But that doesn't prove anything about my golf swing being wrong in the situation I am applying it to.

Yea, I know, not the clearest, but I hope you see my point. You can't try apply theories to situations they were never meant to be applied to.

This just proves the principle is not universal. When it is pointed out that "initiation of force is never justified" that suggests there are never reasons when it should be. I'd argue that in initial acqusition scenerios it is justified for pragmatic reasons, that private ownership increases creation of wealth.

The golf example is a question of practical utility. There are situations where libertarian principles work just dandy and situations where they make a mess. That is pretty much it. I'm rebutting the proposition that "never initiate force" is a moral imperative, or universal moral principle.

Again, I'm not arguing against libertarianism as a practical philosophy, rather the Libertarian principle w/r/t initiation of force.

 

[Diezel]

Does 2+2=4 become obsolete? No? Does "do not initiate force" break down under certain circumstances? Yes? Then it isn't a universal principle.

Ok, I may have missed something here, but I never said "do not initiate force" was a universal principle. So you have no argument with me here.

But if Shane is arguing that, he could qualify it to say "Do not initiate force inside a Libertarian Nation" and you scenario would not disprove this, because there is no Libertarian Nation in your scenario.

 

[gnome]

And Shane has some good points when he points to independent trade groups certifying products - but we will never see this fully played out. But say we had no government regulations on safety; companies can do what they want. How do you know what a safe product is? Nobody would, but everybody would want to know. Now a industry group gets together and says "Look, we will do all the testing and tell you what is safe. We put our guarantee on it." Now, given the choice between a product that has been certified by the industry group and one that has not, which would you buy? Of course you are going to go with the certified product. Now, as a business owner, you are going to want customers. Since nobody would buy a product that wasn't certified by the industry group, you would not make money selling un-certified goods. So you make your products to pass their tests and get certified.

I do have one concern about this situation... though I consider it reasonable... what to do when a company decides it does better with Snardo's "Yep!" Certification for product safety as with a legitimate service? The customer won't know the difference, it's got a nice shiny sticker on it with an official-looking checkmark. And there doesn't even need to be any fraud involved... it really was checked... anyone that wants to can go down to their building in Alberquerque and have a look at their product safety methods--great outing for the family.

 

[Diezel]

This just proves the principle is not universal. When it is pointed out that "initiation of force is never justified" that suggests there are never reasons when it should be. I'd argue that in initial acqusition scenerios it is justified for pragmatic reasons, that private ownership increases creation of wealth.

The golf example is a question of practical utility. There are situations where libertarian principles work just dandy and situations where they make a mess. That is pretty much it. I'm rebutting the proposition that "never initiate force" is a moral imperative, or universal moral principle.

Again, I'm not arguing against libertarianism as a practical philosophy, rather the Libertarian principle w/r/t initiation of force.

Gotcha. I've never heard non-intiation of force was a universal principle. I have just heard it as one of the bases of law in a Libertarian Nation. If someone is arguing that it is universal, then I don't agree with that person.

 

[Suddenly]

The tangent was based on where the ownership of the island came from in the first place, something you refused to address.

Funny that you don't illustrate with my refusal. I've backed up my claims with excerpts from the thread. You have not. You have no evidence to back up your claim.

In fact, here was the initial hypothetical:

by Suddenly

How did that become "your" land absent some initiation of force? Ownership of land is claiming right of use exclusive and hostile to the claims of use of another. How is making "land" into "your land" not force?

To simplify, if you and I somehow wind up on a desert island, and I regain conciousness before you do from the ordeal that put us there, and I start to "use" all the land on the island for legitimate survival purposes, do you have a moral duty to go for a rather long swim? I guess you were using the very small part of land on which you lay unconcious, and have a right to that litle piece of land. Otherwise, you are on "my" land, and I don't want to share with you because when you disagree with people you call them "Filthy Liars." Plus, while the land could possibly support us both the standard of living for me would be lower, and since it is "my" land I can do what I want.

What then? I used no force in making that land "mine" according to you did I?

Your initial response:

You'd be pretty stupid if you didn't realize that I couldn't make a contribution to the survival of us both and offer me concessions in exchange for my help. And if I end up being able to manage things better than you, those concessions would would increase and increase until I was more powerful than you.

You didn't answer the question. Plus, the hypothetical itself says were I propose the ownership came from.

If you are going to continue to lie, try to be a bit more clever.

 

[Diezel]

I do have one concern about this situation... though I consider it reasonable... what to do when a company decides it does better with Snardo's "Yep!" Certification for product safety as with a legitimate service? The customer won't know the difference, it's got a nice shiny sticker on it with an official-looking checkmark. And there doesn't even need to be any fraud involved... it really was checked... anyone that wants to can go down to their building in Alberquerque and have a look at their product safety methods--great outing for the family.

This is where personal responsibility comes in. A consumer MUST know what the criteria of the certification processes is. A consumer MUST be comfortable and trust the certification process and the industry group that is doing it.

So, in my perfect little world I created above, no consumer would buy something with Snardo's "Yep!" Certification, unless they understood what that meant and trusted the Snardo industry group.

It would take much more educated consumers than we have now, but grown up in that environment, it would become just as natural as trusting the FDA stamp on your food. If you saw no FDA stamp on some food, but saw a CDDA (Cool Dudes Department of Agriculture), would you buy it?

 

[Suddenly]

Gotcha. I've never heard non-intiation of force was a universal principle. I have just heard it as one of the bases of law in a Libertarian Nation. If someone is arguing that it is universal, then I don't agree with that person.

If they say it isn't universal, then this suggests the question "how does one decide when it does apply?"

I've been thinking lately that unless a person is a complete idealogue, then that person is on some level a pragmatist. If you ever reject a principle because "it doesn't work well," doesn't that mean that practical utility trumps that principle?

Just something that popped into my head. I need to find a hobby, like drinking or something.

 

[Diezel]

Actually Gnome, I take back what I said. I don't think it would take that much more educated consumer, they would just have to put their trust in a different entity. Some people may argue that these groups are unbiased and will try to benefit themselves also, but that will probably not be the case.

Clear cut case in point, one of the most trusted names in this field is Consumer Reports. They are so trusted, precisly because they are unbiased. They accept no advertising and purchase everything they review themselves. If Consumer Reports says something is good, you have a damn good chance of knowing it is good. If they say it is bad, I wouldn't buy it. There trust and reputation is based on being fair and unbiased and they would fail if they ever comprimised that trust.

Industry groups rely on that same type of trust.

 

[Diezel]

If they say it isn't universal, then this suggests the question "how does one decide when it does apply?"

I've been thinking lately that unless a person is a complete idealogue, then that person is on some level a pragmatist. If you ever reject a principle because "it doesn't work well," doesn't that mean that practical utility trumps that principle?

Just something that popped into my head. I need to find a hobby, like drinking or something.

It's a good question and one I don't have an answer to. But it seems you are trying to find some universal tool and we all know that doesn't exist. You need to find the tool that works for the job you are doing. The jobs change, the tools must change.

Political ideologies are just tools. To say that one will fit all jobs is patently false. Remember, we are talking about the formation of a populace into a functional society. Obviously when you have a populace of two, the best tool for the job isn't the same you would use on a populace of 200 million.

But for some reason, too many believe that politics is an absolute and only one tool is the best. Obviously that is not true. As Claus pointed out, the Scandanavian countries do quite well with their welfare states. That's fine, I'm glad it works there. There is a lot of good that comes from that. But to say that since it works there, it should work everywhere is false. You have differences of culture, geology, history, values, etc....