Does Libertarianism Allow For Jerks?

[shanek]

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

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).

But as I understand his hypothetical, she cannot choose to sell the tickets to whomever she pleases. Therefore, she cannot really be said to own them.

 

[shanek]

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.

It's not quite the same. Slavery, at least as it was practiced in the US and Britain before it, was a government institution. The government set up the rules of slavery and regulated it very tightly. For evidence, just look at all of the legal problems Washington and Jefferson had in trying to free their slaves. If slaves really were property as Libertarians use the word (not that Libertarians accept that people can ever be considered property), then there should have been no barrier towards freeing them.

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

Are you familiar with the concept of "homesteading"?

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?

But that argument makes exactly as much sense as slavery reparations. Show me someone alive today who took land from someone else by force and then we can make them give it back.

 

[Diezel]

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

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

It's not mob rule, but I can see where you might mistake that. We all live under a mirade of social contracts - I won't sneeze in your face, you won't hit me, I live in the society, I agree to abide by the rules.

If you honestly feel you have't agreed to a social contract, then you must also deny the government has any right to arrest you for criminal behaviour. Are you saying that also?

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

No, maybe not a direct number. But I'm sure (and I'm not a real estate lawyer), there is language in there that states that by purchasing your land, you are agreeing to live up to the terms of the community you are living in, be that city, county, state and national.

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

Of course they would, but that wasn't the point.

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: re initiation of force and initial pr

It's not mob rule, but I can see where you might mistake that. We all live under a mirade of social contracts - I won't sneeze in your face, you won't hit me, I live in the society, I agree to abide by the rules.

Who makes the rules? Who enforces them?

If you honestly feel you have't agreed to a social contract, then you must also deny the government has any right to arrest you for criminal behaviour. Are you saying that also?

I submit there's a difference between a social contract and the rule of law. According to the rule of law, you are guilty of assault if you hit me even if I did sneeze in your face beforehand. So you must be referring to something other than the rule of law, therefore your conclusion that this would deny the ability of the government to arrest criminals is specious.

No, maybe not a direct number. But I'm sure (and I'm not a real estate lawyer), there is language in there that states that by purchasing your land, you are agreeing to live up to the terms of the community you are living in, be that city, county, state and national.

I agree to submit to the rule of law, true. But that doesn't justify tyranny. Remember, the contract goes the other way, too. The Constitution is supposed to restrict the government and stop them from doing things like siezing my land just because I won't submit to their protection racket. I'm supposed to be protected from unreasonable searches and siezures.

Of course they would, but that wasn't the point.

But it does illustrate that this "social contract" you speak of is different than the rule of law.

 

[Suddenly]

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

But as I understand his hypothetical, she cannot choose to sell the tickets to whomever she pleases. Therefore, she cannot really be said to own them.

I am talking about her having an ownership interest as defined by our property laws. That she has a future interest contingent upon the other people not using the tickets is clear. If they do not want them, they belong to her to do with as she pleases. In fact, there is nothing in the hypo that prevents her from selling or transferring this interest, employment issues notwithstanding.

 

[Diezel]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: re initiation of force and initial pr

But it does illustrate that this "social contract" you speak of is different than the rule of law.

I think you are missing the point - you submitting to the rule of law is you fulfilling your social contract! You agree that if you commit a crime, the government is justifed in action against you. That is the social contract I am talking about!

Yes, the contract goes both ways, I never said it didn't. But, like it or not, you agreed that you will live in this society, so you will play by the current rules. You also agreed that if you didn't like the rules, you have the right to change them, legally.

Where's my signed contract that says I agreed not to break the law? Why didn't you ask that?

By you leaving in society, you have agreed to [insert legal term meaning agreed to without express consent, or something like that] live by the rules of that society as they are set. Some of the rules have to do with not committing crime. Some of those rules have to do with paying taxes. You can't seperate one from the other and say you never agreed to it.

 

[Diezel]

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

I am talking about her having an ownership interest as defined by our property laws. That she has a future interest contingent upon the other people not using the tickets is clear. If they do not want them, they belong to her to do with as she pleases. In fact, there is nothing in the hypo that prevents her from selling or transferring this interest, employment issues notwithstanding.

Correct. When they became hers, they were hers to do with as she pleases.

She cannot sell them before she has exhausted all avenues to give them to a person with legal claim. But once they become hers, she can do as she pleases.

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: re initiation of force and initial proper

I am talking about her having an ownership interest as defined by our property laws. That she has a future interest contingent upon the other people not using the tickets is clear. If they do not want them, they belong to her to do with as she pleases. In fact, there is nothing in the hypo that prevents her from selling or transferring this interest, employment issues notwithstanding.

That wasn't how I read it; he did say "only 5 people can ever get them." But if what you say is true, then yes, I would consider it a form of ownership, albeit a conditional one.

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: re initiation of force and in

I think you are missing the point - you submitting to the rule of law is you fulfilling your social contract! You agree that if you commit a crime, the government is justifed in action against you. That is the social contract I am talking about!

No, because your sneezing example shows a contract that is contrary to the rule of law. In your social contract, I am in the wrong for sneezing in his face, and he is justified for hitting me. According to the rule of law, he is not justified for hitting me and is guilty of assault.

Yes, the contract goes both ways, I never said it didn't. But, like it or not, you agreed that you will live in this society, so you will play by the current rules. You also agreed that if you didn't like the rules, you have the right to change them, legally.

And that is what I'm trying to do. I'm also trying to get the government to live up to its side of the bargain. Besides, if the government has breached their side of the contract, am I really obligated to keep mine?

 

[shanek]

One more question for Diezel: How has a non-property owner signed the "social contract"?

 

[Diezel]

One more question for Diezel: How has a non-property owner signed the "social contract"?

Why is a signature so important to you? Do you understand that not all contracts require a signature? That is legal fact. There are many times you enter into contracts just be physically being in a certain place. By you entering that place, you have agreed to enter into a contract. If you do not wish to enter into that contract, you do not enter. It is that simple and it is legally binding in court. The lawyers could tell you the exact term for this.

To put it more simply, if I enter into Canada, I have agreed to abide by their rules. I can't try to claim I didn't sign anything to agree with their rules, just my entering their country was the binder on the contract.

So, just by being a US citizen, you have agreed to this contract. Sure, you were born here so it wasn't your choice. But it is your choice to leave. Or, a much better choice, to stay and try to change things. But you can't claim you never entered into, or are aware of, the contract.

 

[phildonnia]

That may be, but I will answer from the basis of my own thoughts.

These days, about the only real way an individual has rights to land is through a legal purchase.

But classically, ownership rights could be gotten by three means:

1) Purchase
2) Initial Claim (Discovery)
3) Use of Force

Since there isn't much land to discover anymore, #2 is out. And since #3 can only be done by governments, that is out too. And that is now being viewed as a crime by the international community. So, nowadays, you can only purchase land.

It may help to consider different theories of the origin of property in the context of other "non-real" property, in which case #2 is still very much alive.

Mainly, there is the so-called "intellectual property", which is the subject of much controversy today.

There's also stuff like EMF bands (which in the US are owned by the government and leased to private enterprises)

 

[Suddenly]

Why is a signature so important to you? Do you understand that not all contracts require a signature? That is legal fact. There are many times you enter into contracts just be physically being in a certain place. By you entering that place, you have agreed to enter into a contract. If you do not wish to enter into that contract, you do not enter. It is that simple and it is legally binding in court. The lawyers could tell you the exact term for this.

To put it more simply, if I enter into Canada, I have agreed to abide by their rules. I can't try to claim I didn't sign anything to agree with their rules, just my entering their country was the binder on the contract.

So, just by being a US citizen, you have agreed to this contract. Sure, you were born here so it wasn't your choice. But it is your choice to leave. Or, a much better choice, to stay and try to change things. But you can't claim you never entered into, or are aware of, the contract.

Any act indicating a desire to accept an offer operates to create a contract, unless the person making the offer can specify that a certain act, be it opening a box or jumping on one foot, will indicate acceptance. Of course, it must be shown that the act was not done for another purpose, as intent is important. I can't say "if you accept, breathe." It would be hard to claim that the intent behind your next breath is intent to enter into a contract, rather than the attempt not to suffocate. A writing is only required by something called "The Statute of Frauds," and only in specific situations.

Many times a contract is entered into by the opening of a box, or even making a hole-in-one on a particular golf hole or bowling a strike when the headpin is red.

Plus, there is the idea that where a person knowingly accepts the benefits of another's performance where he knows the another to believe a contract exists, he cannot use the lack of assent to the contract as a defense. Explicit assent is not always necessary.

 

[Diezel]

It may help to consider different theories of the origin of property in the context of other "non-real" property, in which case #2 is still very much alive.

Mainly, there is the so-called "intellectual property", which is the subject of much controversy today.

There's also stuff like EMF bands (which in the US are owned by the government and leased to private enterprises)

Very true. I should have clarified my statement to mean only real, physical, geographical property.

#2 is very much alive in other property claims, or there wouldn't be treasue hunters. IIRC, unless there is some outstanding circumstance, lost property can be claimed by the first person to find it. So treasure hunters usually have a legal claim to the things they find.

There was an interesting case a while back. A contractor hired to do some demolition on an old house found a couple hundred thousands dollars tucked away in a false wall. The house was owned by a guy that had just bought it from another guy.

The contractor, the current owner of the house and the former owner of the house all tried to claim ownership of the money. They found evidence the false wall was built well before any of them had been near the house, but the original owner (who they were pretty sure the money belonged to) was well dead and out of the picture..

The contractors claim was he was the first to find the money, so it should be his. The former owner claimed that when he sold the house, the contract didn’t include property left in the house. So since the contract didn’t include the money, the money should be his. The current owner, naturally, argued it should be his, since he owns the house.

Who do you think got the money? Actually, it was settled in arbitration I believe, but all the experts I read seemed to think the law was behind the contractor! I guess a component of ownership is that you have to be aware you owned it. Since neither the former owner, nor the current owner, knew the money was there, they can’t claim ownership. So the ownership would fall to discovery.

I will try to find a link to that case, because it was quite interesting. And I may have messed up some details.

 

[shanek]

Why is a signature so important to you?

Okay, then, how have they consented to the contract?

There are many times you enter into contracts just be physically being in a certain place. By you entering that place, you have agreed to enter into a contract. If you do not wish to enter into that contract, you do not enter.

How has someone born into a country consented since they haven't entered?

 

[EvilYeti]

You know that isn't the case with libertarianism, and you know perfectly well that isn't what Browne was talking about.

If police protection is totally privatized, what happens to individuals that can't afford it? How are their rights protected?

You've been shown before that the Supreme Court has ruled that the police have no duty to protect anyone; all they can do is mop up afterwards. You're not "free to murder," as you can be arrested and put in jail for it. But from the victim's point of view, it's much better for them to be able to have the means of defending themselves from that murderer.

I'm free to murder as long as I choose victims that have paid for inferior protection! Why would my protection company allow someone else to arrest and put me in jail?

If you are suggesting the judicial and punitive systems would be gummint regulated? How do you plan on paying for that without federal, state and property taxes?

 

[Diezel]

Okay, then, how have they consented to the contract?

By being a citizen.

How has someone born into a country consented since they haven't entered?

By staying there. You can always give up your citizenship and go someplace else.

I don't know what else I can do to make you see there is a simple, legal contract, that is given with consent. I posted examples of such contracts, and Suddenly gave great examples. To deny these contracts exist is to deny perfectly acceptable evidence.

 

[EvilYeti]

Yes, in theory you could murder a person who is incapable of enforcing their rights to non-interference... but private protection firms acting on market principles would not allow that to happen. They would have made the ne'er-do-wells slaves long before you had the opportunity.

Ahh, I see. I would have to pay off the firm before I could murder their property.

If you are displeased with firm A's services, then you can go right down the block to B. Or you can tell both of them to screw off, purchase a stockpile of weapons and save a load of money.

Yeah, but then A+B would probably just team up, kill me and divvy up my guns. Libertarianism really is the "Pro-Warlord" platform!

 

[Diezel]

I may have missed something, but where in the LP do they advocate private police? I just re-read their executive summary and they seem to be very for a swift and bold police force to arrest those that have committed crimes.

And national defense is one of the primary mandates they feel government should have. So who is advocating a privatized police force and/or military?

 

[EvilYeti]

I may have missed something, but where in the LP do they advocate private police? I just re-read their executive summary and they seem to be very for a swift and bold police force to arrest those that have committed crimes.

How do they plan on paying for it, with no federal or state income and property taxes?

And national defense is one of the primary mandates they feel government should have. So who is advocating a privatized police force and/or military?

How do they plan on paying for it, with no federal or state income and property taxes?

Harry Browne said the following in the linked article:

In a Libertarian America, government will be so small, there will be no need for an income tax. Thus you'll have the resources to acquire whatever you need to protect you from incompetence, double-dealing, or even violence. And if the assistance you hire doesn't work, you can turn to someone who does a better job -- unlike when politicians take your money, leave you helpless and force you to rely on them to do the right thing.

Is there any way to read that other than advocating private police protection?