Does Libertarianism Allow For Jerks?

[shanek]

Re: re initiation of force and initial property ownership

My understanding of libertarianism is that it'd be a land grab and the first squatter in gets it all.

Then you don't understand libertarianism.

The rest of your post is just incoherent rambling. You've juxtaposed the "men with guns" argument into an area where it is never used by Libertarians. The whole point of the "men with guns" argument is that, since government is force at the point of a gun, it should be used only when the force of a gun is justified. And the force of a gun is justified to protect one's property rights from the initiation of force or fraud by others, as would be the case if others tried to come in and grab the land from its rightful inheritors.

 

[Suddenly]

No, I'm saying that government policies are moot when there is no government.

Are all moral principles moot without government, or are you saying "do not initiate force" not a moral principle and merely a policy whose existence is contingent on government?

 

[Suddenly]

Re: Re: re initiation of force and initial property ownership

Then you don't understand libertarianism.

The rest of your post is just incoherent rambling. You've juxtaposed the "men with guns" argument into an area where it is never used by Libertarians. The whole point of the "men with guns" argument is that, since government is force at the point of a gun, it should be used only when the force of a gun is justified. And the force of a gun is justified to protect one's property rights from the initiation of force or fraud by others, as would be the case if others tried to come in and grab the land from its rightful inheritors.

Who decides who the "rightful inheritors" are when there is no will? That is the question asked, and your answer does not address it.

Is it a legitimate function of a libertarian government to determine succession when a person dies with no will?

If so, what if the person has no living relatives and no will. What happens to the property then?

 

[heath]

Re: Re: Re: Re: re initiation of force and initial property ownership

In your example isn't the govt auctioning off the estate accepting that the govt fundamentally owns the property? Who gets the proceeds? I get the impression libertarians don't believe the govt should. Then who? Charity? Which? Who decides?

I was meaning the even less clear cut case of living relatives but no will. Who gets to decide where assets go? Who gets the land, the car, the business and the old toe nail collection? As the owner can't decide (dead) and hasn't given anyone else the "right" to decide (no will) I think libertarians must say landgrab. Anything else doesn't fit with what I understand their principals to be.

I think we need to get the stance of somebody that is a libertarian or we'll be arguing things they don't say or don't believe.

[Ed.- Sorry heath, I hit edit instead of quote, so I accidentally edited your post when I thought I was quoting it. It is back to its original form ~ Diezel]

 

[shanek]

Are all moral principles moot without government,

Libertarian is a political philosophy. It doesn't say anything one way or the other about one's individual moral philosophy.

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: re initiation of force and initial property ownership

Who decides who the "rightful inheritors" are when there is no will?

The descendents of the deceased, duh. And yes, you will need a court to sort all of this out. So?

If so, what if the person has no living relatives and no will. What happens to the property then?

Same thing that happens now, really.

 

[Diezel]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: re initiation of force and initial property ownership

In your example isn't the govt auctioning off the estate accepting that the govt fundamentally owns the property? Who gets the proceeds? I get the impression libertarians don't believe the govt should. Then who? Charity? Which? Who decides?

I’m not sure what you mean by “fundamentally”. I take that to mean that the government really owns your land, only giving you rights to own it while you are alive, or have relatives to pass it to. That is not the case.

But, yes, at the point you die and have nobody to pass it to on to, the government then “owns” the property. When they sell it, they keep the money. I have no problem with this, as it offsets the costs of what the answer I will give to you for your next question.

I was meaning the even less clear cut case of living relatives but no will. Who gets to decide where assets go? Who gets the land, the car, the business and the old toe nail collection? As the owner can't decide (dead) and hasn't given anyone else the "right" to decide (no will) I think libertarians must say landgrab. Anything else doesn't fit with what I understand their principals to be.

You missed the main point of the mandate for government, which is to mediate any contract disputes. So it is perfectly within keeping with LP principles to let the government mediate an estate that has no will.

I think we need to get the stance of somebody that is a libertarian or we'll be arguing things they don't say or don't believe.

True. But I can point out major misconceptions you seem to have, such as above.

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: re initiation of force and initial property ownership

I’m not sure what you mean by “fundamentally”. I take that to mean that the government really owns your land, only giving you rights to own it while you are alive, or have relatives to pass it to. That is not the case.

If that's not the case, then how come the government can sieze my land if I refuse to pay their extortion money?

 

[Diezel]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: re initiation of force and initial property ownership

If that's not the case, then how come the government can sieze my land if I refuse to pay their extortion money?

Are we now talking about the current government, or a libertarian/my non-libertarian-but-close-to-it-idealized-government?

But either question is easy. They can take it for the same reason I could take it from you, if you failed to pay a debt to me (although, honestly, in todays government, it is much harder for me to get your property, even if you do owe me). You have failed to pay a legal debt and the government mandate to mediate contracts allows them to settle unpaid debts. You have a contract to pay taxes, you failed your part of the contract, therefore the government is allowed to collect the legal debt you owe them, so they take your property.

And I'm not going to argue if those taxes are legal or not, I'm just answering your question. It has nothing to do with them fundamentally owning your land.

 

[Suddenly]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: re initiation of force and initial property ownership

I’m not sure what you mean by “fundamentally”. I take that to mean that the government really owns your land, only giving you rights to own it while you are alive, or have relatives to pass it to. That is not the case.

Actually, a close examination of our property laws seems to indicate otherwise, as I suggested in the initial post of this thread.

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: re initiation of force and initial property ownership

Are we now talking about the current government, or a libertarian/my non-libertarian-but-close-to-it-idealized-government?

The current government...unless your close-to-libertarian government would require me to pay protection money, too, in which case I guess I'm talking about both.

But either question is easy. They can take it for the same reason I could take it from you, if you failed to pay a debt to me (although, honestly, in todays government, it is much harder for me to get your property, even if you do owe me). You have failed to pay a legal debt and the government mandate to mediate contracts allows them to settle unpaid debts.

And how am I indebted to the government simply because I own a piece of property?

You have a contract to pay taxes,

Really? I'm sure you can show me the paper with my signature, right?

 

[Diezel]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: re initiation of force and initial property ownership

Actually, a close examination of our property laws seems to indicate otherwise, as I suggested in the initial post of this thread.

I understand your reasoning, but I have to disagree. I don't see them as having fundamental ownership, but just see them as mediators of contracts that happen to obtain property when nobody else wants/has claim to it.

Think of it in this terms:

Your company has a set of season tickets to the hockey game. The secretary is in charge of distributing these tickets to each game. She goes to the President and he doesn't want them, either does the VP, or any of the workers.

Sure, there may be others that may want those tickets, but let's say the rule is only 5 people can ever get them and if they don't want them, she keeps them. Now they have legal claim. By mandate, it is stated that if nobody else (who have a claim in the matter) wants them, she can keep them.

Would you say she has fundamental ownership of those tickets? I sure wouldn't.

 

[Diezel]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: re initiation of force and initial property ownership

The current government...unless your close-to-libertarian government would require me to pay protection money, too, in which case I guess I'm talking about both.

And this is where I stray far from the LP, because of views like this.

And how am I indebted to the government simply because I own a piece of property?

Because your piece of property is contained within an artificial boundary that a group of property owners created in order to group together and create a society. It is a social contract you agreed to.

Really? I'm sure you can show me the paper with my signature, right?

Sure, just look at the title to your property.

But the main contract I am talking about is the social contract you have made by agreeing to live within a certain society. You have accepted to live by their rules. If you do not like those rules, you are free to leave that society.

And if you think social contracts aren't real, go sneeze right in someone's face. He may break his social contract that says he won't use violence against you.

 

[Suddenly]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: re initiation of force and initial property ownership

I understand your reasoning, but I have to disagree. I don't see them as having fundamental ownership, but just see them as mediators of contracts that happen to obtain property when nobody else wants/has claim to it.

Think of it in this terms:

Your company has a set of season tickets to the hockey game. The secretary is in charge of distributing these tickets to each game. She goes to the President and he doesn't want them, either does the VP, or any of the workers.

Sure, there may be others that may want those tickets, but let's say the rule is only 5 people can ever get them and if they don't want them, she keeps them. Now they have legal claim. By mandate, it is stated that if nobody else (who have a claim in the matter) wants them, she can keep them.

Would you say she has fundamental ownership of those tickets? I sure wouldn't.

There is no concept in our property law called "fundamental ownership." Many people can have an ownership interest in a piece of property, while only one (or class of joint owners) can enjoy the use of the land (possession, etc.) at the present. If we consider all rights in the hypo you propose as property rights, the secretary does own an interest in the property. That interest is contingent upon the other people not taking possession, but it is what the law would consider a property interest (employment issues notwithstanding).

The time-sensitive value of the tickets (usually worthless after the game) makes the problem unusual, but there is an identifyable interest belonging to the secretary.

There is no problem with more than one person having an ownership interest in a thing. All I suggest is that the government retains a very small future interest that only matures into full possession once the "fee simple" fails, that is a person dies with no will or legal heir. This doesn't make them the "fundamental owner" as the interest may never mature and does not provide them with any rights in the present.

Also, there are small differences between real and personal property in some situations, and I am using a few legal terms less than precisely, but I'm trying to keep it simple.

 

[Valmorian]

Again, the hypothetical is not valid, because Libertarianism is a philosophy that was developed after initation of force to gain land was already obsolete.

Nonsense. You might as well have said slavery is ok because the ownership of the slaves was claimed BEFORE laws that forbid it were enacted.

You are trying to apply a concept to a situation Libertarianism was never meant to deal with.

Libertarianism seems to place a high value on property rights without deciding what constitutes a valid claim on property.

Again, it seems all quite laughable to me.

Can we agree this scenario is never going to play out in today's world? Can we agree that it is just as ludicrous to try to apply an ideology to a situation that would have never happened at the time the ideology was developed, let alone any time after that?

Which scenario exactly, "first come first serve?".

Presuming we eventually do get to the point where space is colonized, wouldn't it apply then? Hm?

If the ideology fails to take into account the origin of legitimate ownership, then claims to assign rights based upon that ownership, I'd have to say it's working of an arbitrary premise.

Do you not see it laughable that a system which invalidates land ownership through initiation of force simply ignores that this is exactly how much of the land on this planet was gained?

It just doesn't work.

I'll agree with you here, though not in the way you intended it.

 

[Valmorian]

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

Some would say the betterment of society. *shrug* If the majority of people in the area want to have a social contract that dictates a percentage of your income goes to help the needy, then I have no problem with that.

If they don't, well, they can always vote in a government that doesn't want it, like, say, a Libertarian one.

 

[Diezel]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: re initiation of force and initial property ownership

There is no concept in our property law called "fundamental ownership." Many people can have an ownership interest in a piece of property, while only one (or class of joint owners) can enjoy the use of the land (possession, etc.) at the present. If we consider all rights in the hypo you propose as property rights, the secretary does own an interest in the property. That interest is contingent upon the other people not taking possession, but it is what the law would consider a property interest (employment issues notwithstanding).

The time-sensitive value of the tickets (usually worthless after the game) makes the problem unusual, but there is an identifyable interest belonging to the secretary.

There is no problem with more than one person having an ownership interest in a thing. All I suggest is that the government retains a very small future interest that only matures into full possession once the "fee simple" fails, that is a person dies with no will or legal heir. This doesn't make them the "fundamental owner" as the interest may never mature and does not provide them with any rights in the present.

Also, there are small differences between real and personal property in some situations, and I am using a few legal terms less than precisely, but I'm trying to keep it simple.

I agree with everything you said. I was the one that was saying there was no "fundamental ownership".

Yes, I agree, that in the situation we have set up, the government does have an interest in the property. But that is a far cry from the government owning all the property and our "ownership" of property is just a temporary grant from the state - which is what I take "fundamental ownership" to mean.

 

[Diezel]

Nonsense. You might as well have said slavery is ok because the ownership of the slaves was claimed BEFORE laws that forbid it were enacted.

False analogy. Your are trying to equate a moral truth with a political ideology. Apples to oranges.

Libertarianism seems to place a high value on property rights without deciding what constitutes a valid claim on property.

No, I’m pretty sure they have defined what a legal property claim is. I don’t know what that is, but I’m sure they define it as “legal claim”. And I’m sure they define what a “legal claim” is. And my guess will be that their definition of a legal claim will not include a situation as discussed.

Again, it seems all quite laughable to me.

I’m not sure why you find it laughable. The thought of someone thinking there is some type of universal truth when it comes to politics is laughable to me. Actually, the intermingling of politics and morals, as if they should somehow be one, is laughable also.

Which scenario exactly, "first come first serve?".

Presuming we eventually do get to the point where space is colonized, wouldn't it apply then? Hm?

If the ideology fails to take into account the origin of legitimate ownership, then claims to assign rights based upon that ownership, I'd have to say it's working of an arbitrary premise.

Do you not see it laughable that a system which invalidates land ownership through initiation of force simply ignores that this is exactly how much of the land on this planet was gained?

Not at all. Do you find the game of soccer laughable, when it has a strict rule against using your hands, even though the game evolved from a game where using your hands was an integral part of the game?

I think I have gone in great length about the dynamic nature of government and how it evolves, yet you still want to misapply a latter theory to an earlier premise. I really don’t know how much more I can do to explain why that doesn’t work.

 

[Diezel]

Here, I finally did a quick Google search for the information that everyone wants. This is from the Canadian LP party, but it was the first that popped up:

Unclaimed Territory We oppose the recognition of fiat claims, advanced by nations or international boundaries, to currently unclaimed territory such as the ocean floor of extraterrestrial bodies. We support the development of objective standards for recognizing a claim of sovereignty over such territory.

Let me look farther, because I haven't found what those "objective standards" are.

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: re initiation of force and initial property o

Because your piece of property is contained within an artificial boundary that a group of property owners created in order to group together and create a society. It is a social contract you agreed to.

I've just got a real problem with this whole "social contract" thing. It smacks to me of mob rule.

Sure, just look at the title to your property.

I did, and I don't see an amount for a debt anywhere.

You have accepted to live by their rules. If you do not like those rules, you are free to leave that society.

And if you live in an area controlled by the mafia, you have accepted to live by their rules. If you do not like those rules, you are free to leave that area.

Do you really not see the problem with that?

And if you think social contracts aren't real, go sneeze right in someone's face. He may break his social contract that says he won't use violence against you.

The courts would almost certainly rule in my favor if I decided to sue him for assault.