But to pretend that you dislike the current brand of capitalism in this country, being so marked by coersion and force, when all your really dislike is the position you hold within it and when all you really desire is to apply that same coersion and force on your own chosen targets, is to be contradictory and, in my opinion, no better than those you call your enemy.
I know I'm a few days behind in this discussion, but I've read up to this point and this statement got me thinking. Do you assume that there would not be any 'coercion and force' within a libertarian society by libertarians? So, we return to a completely free market society.......................folks involved in a free market must then accept the rules of its operation, correct? By 'rules' I mean the rules that forbid infringements on others, like using another's property without their consent, trespass, and fraud, etc. This means that the free market has to include mechanisms for deterring crimes, and mechanisms for compensation and punishment should such crimes be committed, no? In other words, policing, arbitration and legislating mechanisms are required to ensure its operation. Sounds suspiciously like a social institution to me.
It seems to me that Libertarians legitimize coercion in certain circumstances, ie when it comes to individual rights. The amount of coercion required to enforce these rights would depend on folks willingness to respect them, no? So a free market society would not be free from coercion unless everyone voluntarily respects these rights and abides by the law.
So couldn't your statement 'when all you really desire is to apply that same coersion and force on your own chosen targets, is to be contradictory and, in my opinion, no better than those you call your enemy' be used against you as well?
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
I know I'm a few days behind in this discussion, but I've read up to this point and this statement got me thinking. Do you assume that there would not be any 'coercion and force' within a libertarian society by libertarians?
I do not assume that.
So, we return to a completely free market society.......................folks involved in a free market must then accept the rules of its operation, correct? By 'rules' I mean the rules that forbid infringements on others, like using another's property without their consent, trespass, and fraud, etc. This means that the free market has to include mechanisms for deterring crimes, and mechanisms for compensation and punishment should such crimes be committed, no? In other words, policing, arbitration and legislating mechanisms are required to ensure its operation. Sounds suspiciously like a social institution to me.
It seems to me that Libertarians legitimize coercion in certain circumstances, ie when it comes to individual rights. The amount of coercion required to enforce these rights would depend on folks willingness to respect them, no? So a free market society would not be free from coercion unless everyone voluntarily respects these rights and abides by the law.
No society is "free from coersion". I don't expect such a society. What I do hope for is a society where coersion is not treated as virtuous.
So couldn't your statement 'when all you really desire is to apply that same coersion and force on your own chosen targets, is to be contradictory and, in my opinion, no better than those you call your enemy' be used against you as well?
If that were true, I would have picked up a gun a long time ago, or at least would be advocating for their use, as do many Libertarians and anarchists.
If that were true, I would have picked up a gun a long time ago, or at least would be advocating for their use, as do many Libertarians and anarchists.
By your admission above, the fact that a libertarian society would have to use coercion as well, you show how hypocritical and silly your statement was.
Most Libertarians are unanimous in viewing coercion as a violation of liberty, so, for example, if you are 'forced' to give money to the government to provide welfare, then you are being coerced and your liberties violated. According to you, then, the only legitimate use of coercion is in enforcing people's rights. So you legitimize coercion in these circumstances. Do you deem this type of coercion 'virtuous'?
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
By your admission above, the fact that a libertarian society would have to use coercion as well, you show how hypocritical and silly your statement was.
I never said that a Libertarian society would have to invoke sanctioned coercion. It wouldn't. However, certainly individuals within that society would likely still be coercive. There would be murders. There would be theft. There would be violence. However, there would not be those things on the state level.
Most Libertarians are unanimous in viewing coercion as a violation of liberty, so, for example, if you are 'forced' to give money to the government to provide welfare, then you are being coerced and your liberties violated.
Absolutely correct.
According to you, then, the only legitimate use of coercion is in enforcing people's rights.
One does not "enforce" a right. One protects rights.
So you legitimize coercion in these circumstances. Do you deem this type of coercion 'virtuous'?
Coercion cannot be virtuous. That's a contradiction.
A truly free society operates on the basis of consent. Free societies protect people from violating each others rights by enforcing contracts between its members. There is no coercion in enforcing a contract, as long as the actions taken against violators are explicitly defined in a contract they consent to.
I never said that a Libertarian society would have to invoke sanctioned coercion. It wouldn't. However, certainly individuals within that society would likely still be coercive. There would be murders. There would be theft. There would be violence. However, there would not be those things on the state level.
So there would be no means in a free market society or libertarian society to enforce life,liberty, and property rights? Would there be no mechanisms for deterring crimes no penalties, no punishments? How do you plan to enforce them? The amount of coercion required to enforce these rights depends on how willing people are to respect them. Hence, it cannot be the case that a libertarian society is free from coercion, unless everyone voluntarily respects these rights and abides by the law. And from what you stated above, you do not think everybody will just automatically respect these rights.
Coercion cannot be virtuous. That's a contradiction.
A truly free society operates on the basis of consent. Free societies protect people from violating each others rights by enforcing contracts between its members. There is no coercion in enforcing a contract, as long as the actions taken against violators are explicitly defined in a contract they consent to.
Like a social contract? I'm not sure you are getting my point. What determines the amount of coercion required in a society is the extent to which people are willing to accept the rules imposed on them, and this is as true of a libertarian, society as it is of any other. So, it is debatable that a libertarian society would have less coercion in it than a non-libertarian one. The libertarian can argue that at least the use of coercion is legitimized only in explicit circumstances where rights have been violated, but then a non-libertarian could argue the same for their proposed model of society too. So, what I'm trying to say is that libertarians can not claim they will not or do not need to use coercion in their model of society. To do so is either intellectually dishonest or a flaw in logic.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
So there would be no means in a free market society or libertarian society to enforce life,liberty, and property rights? Would there be no mechanisms for deterring crimes no penalties, no punishments?
Deterring crime is not the business of the state. Mediating disputes defined as crimes that have happened is the business of the state. And crimes themselves as the antithesis to rights, are defined in contracts.
How do you plan to enforce them?
I don't plan to enforce anything. I wish to give people the rights to define their rights and to enter into contracts defining those rights and the punishments for violating those rights.
The amount of coercion required to enforce these rights depends on how willing people are to respect them. Hence, it cannot be the case that a libertarian society is free from coercion, unless everyone voluntarily respects these rights and abides by the law.
Hehe...absolutely correct. You should try thinking more about this statement.
And from what you stated above, you do not think everybody will just automatically respect these rights.
I don't expect everyone to do this, no.
How does one 'protect' these rights without 'rules' or 'laws'?
By entering into contracts that describe the costs for violating those rights.
Like a social contract?
Very much like it yes. The only difference would be that it would actually be a contract.
I'm not sure you are getting my point. What determines the amount of coercion required in a society is the extent to which people are willing to accept the rules imposed on them, and this is as true of a libertarian, society as it is of any other. So, it is debatable that a libertarian society would have less coercion in it than a non-libertarian one. The libertarian can argue that at least the use of coercion is legitimized only in explicit circumstances where rights have been violated, but then a non-libertarian could argue the same for their proposed model of society too. So, what I'm trying to say is that libertarians can not claim they will not or do not need to use coercion in their model of society. To do so is either intellectually dishonest or a flaw in logic.
Baraka, you're not really thinking about the meaning of the term coercion. If, for example, I willingly submit myself to a contract stating that a theif goes to prison and I then steal, am I being coerced when I am taken to jail?
Deterring crime is not the business of the state. Mediating disputes defined as crimes that have happened is the business of the state. And crimes themselves as the antithesis to rights, are defined in contracts.
But is has to be the business of someone, does it not? Who enforces the laws or 'rules' then? Individuals? And if all the individuals fail to agree what thoae 'rules' or laws should be? And what is this contract to which you refer? A social contract? And if not a social contract, what about those who refuse to sign such a contract, to those that refuse to respect personal property rights, or feel stealing is OK, etc? Are they exempt from abiding by such 'rules' or laws? Or would coercion be OK here?
I don't plan to enforce anything. I wish to give people the rights to define their rights and to enter into contracts defining those rights and the punishments for violating those rights.
And if everyone has a different definition of what those 'rights' should be?
Hehe...absolutely correct. You should try thinking more about this statement.
Oh, but I have. Let me restate it: The amount of coercion required to enforce these rights depends on how willing people are to respect them. Hence, it cannot be the case that a libertarian society is free from coercion, unless everyone voluntarily respects these rights and abides by the law.
Baraka, you're not really thinking about the meaning of the term coercion. If, for example, I willingly submit myself to a contract stating that a theif goes to prison and I then steal, am I being coerced when I am taken to jail?
Are you arguing that you are being coerced if you are taken to jail in our current society for murder, but if you sign a contract agreeing to the punishment, then you are NOT being coerced? Are you not being coerced into a contract? Again, if you refuse to sign contract are you exempt from penalty?
You see, I do not regard the operation of free market as being 'natural', like you and other libertarians do. Indeed it requires some sort of social rules to be respected. Therefore, I believe the free market is just as much a construction of human society as the state is.
I also would argue that libertarianism itself is an order imposed on a society. It has rules which if broken will lead to punishment of offenders. Therefore, the criticism of other beliefs on this basis is a red herring.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
But is has to be the business of someone, does it not?
It is the business of everyone.
Who enforces the laws or 'rules' then?
Individuals or their chosen agents.
And if all the individuals fail to agree what thoae 'rules' or laws should be?
Then they likely choose to belong to different societies.
And what is this contract to which you refer? A social contract?
No, a real contract. You know, a piece of paper outlining concepts and expectations and obligations. A paper you sign or choose not to sign.
And if not a social contract, what about those who refuse to sign such a contract, to those that refuse to respect personal property rights, or feel stealing is OK, etc?
What about them? They certainly have a right to hold those opinions and live by them (and of course be subject to them), if they choose.
Are they exempt from abiding by such 'rules' or laws?
Of course. Or benefitting from them.
Or would coercion be OK here?
Coercion is never OK.
And if everyone has a different definition of what those 'rights' should be?
They likely will. And they'll have to hammer out compromises and make difficult choices regarding their associations.
Oh, but I have. Let me restate it: The amount of coercion required to enforce these rights depends on how willing people are to respect them.
Correct.
Hence, it cannot be the case that a libertarian society is free from coercion, unless everyone voluntarily respects these rights and abides by the law.
Absolutely! What does it say about your society?
Perhaps you can point out what I am missing.
What you're missing is that what I'm proposing allows people to operate on their own terms, without having to coerce them into operating on my terms or your terms or John Edwards' terms. You can certainly criticize a free society on the grounds that coercion will still exist. However, it sounds pretty funny while defending a system defined by coercion.
And if I refuse to sign? Am I free to violate those rights?
Absolutely. And you also won't receive them.
How so?
It won't be assumed upon you. Hence, it will actually be a contract.
Are you arguing that you are being coerced if you are taken to jail in our current society for murder, but if you sign a contract agreeing to the punishment, then you are NOT being coerced?
Correct.
Are you not being coerced into a contract?
Depends on if you agreed to the contract or not.
Again, if you refuse to sign contract are you exempt from penalty?
You're exempt from the terms of the contract, yes.
You see, I do not regard the operation of free market as being 'natural', like you and other libertarians do. Indeed it requires some sort of social rules to be respected. Therefore, I believe the free market is just as much a construction of human society as the state is.
A market is definitely a construction. No human construction is "unnatural", including the state.
I also would argue that libertarianism itself is an order imposed on a society. It has rules which if broken will lead to punishment of offenders. Therefore, the criticism of other beliefs on this basis is a red herring.
Libertarianism is not an order imposed on society as long as you are free to refuse its precepts. In my opinion, you may refuse everyone of them if you wish.
It is the business of everyone. Individuals or their chosen agents.
Chosen agents? Like the State or a government? A police force? You are not giving me a lot to go on. Individuals? How do they enforce it? Wild west-style? I'm not following you. Again, a system of rules would be needed in your society. Those rules would need to be enforced. It is their observance and enforcement that make them effective. A society which does not wish to observe or enforce some law may as well not have any.
Then they likely choose to belong to different societies.
Different societies? Different societies within this country? or another country? Is this the love it or leave it argument of which you are so fond? You are going to have to describe what your vision is for me, because I am not following you.
No, a real contract. You know, a piece of paper outlining concepts and expectations and obligations. A paper you sign or choose not to sign.
Just for the record (and we have debated this before) a social contract is a real contract and it is a fairly common form. Many other contracts have this form, for example, some leases, most utility services, etc.
And yours, as I pointed out in several posts above. This is what I argued (and I quote myself ) 'it is debatable that a libertarian society would have less coercion in it than a non-libertarian one. The libertarian can argue that at least the use of coercion is legitimized only in explicit circumstances where rights have been violated, but then a non-libertarian could argue the same for their proposed model of society too.'
Your argument is it would not be coercion because contracts would be signed by all and it would simply be an enforcement of the contract. And regards to those who refuse to accept and sign the contract, well, they would not be granted rights and likewise would not be held accountable for anything they do against of others. Am I understanding you correctly?
What you're missing is that what I'm proposing allows people to operate on their own terms, without having to coerce them into operating on my terms or your terms or John Edwards' terms. You can certainly criticize a free society on the grounds that coercion will still exist. However, it sounds pretty funny while defending a system defined by coercion.
But it doesn't really. It is your opinion that libertarianism can provide a framework in which people can create their own private utopias organized along their own principles, and that it does not force beliefs on others (a common criticism of non-libertarians, made by libertarians is that they would enforce some sort of order onto everyone whether they held the
beliefs of that order or not). But this is not entirely true. For example, if in your society, I had beliefs requiring the sacrifice of unwilling non-believing people to my God, you would outlaw such murderous acts. So, I stand by my point that that libertarianism itself is an order imposed on a society.
Libertarianism is not an order imposed on society as long as you are free to refuse its precepts. In my opinion, you may refuse everyone of them if you wish.
See my above response
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
No. A service provider. States are not "chosen agents". States are assumed agents.
A police force? You are not giving me a lot to go on. Individuals? How do they enforce it? Wild west-style? I'm not following you. Again, a system of rules would be needed in your society. Those rules would need to be enforced. It is their observance and enforcement that make them effective. A society which does not wish to observe or enforce some law may as well not have any.
Different societies? Different societies within this country? or another country? Is this the love it or leave it argument of which you are so fond? You are going to have to describe what your vision is for me, because I am not following you.
Try using your imagination a bit, Tracy. How does you family get along wihout being part of everyone's family? How do you and your friends get along without being friends with everyone?
Just for the record (and we have debated this before) a social contract is a real contract and it is a fairly common form. Many other contracts have this form, for example, some leases, most utility services, etc.
Leases and utility services are not assumed upon you.
And yours, as I pointed out in several posts above. This is what I argued (and I quote myself ) 'it is debatable that a libertarian society would have less coercion in it than a non-libertarian one. The libertarian can argue that at least the use of coercion is legitimized only in explicit circumstances where rights have been violated, but then a non-libertarian could argue the same for their proposed model of society too.'
Your argument is it would not be coercion because contracts would be signed by all and it would simply be an enforcement of the contract. And regards to those who refuse to accept and sign the contract, well, they would not be granted rights and likewise would not be held accountable for anything they do against of others. Am I understanding you correctly?
Yes.
But it doesn't really. It is your opinion that libertarianism can provide a framework in which people can create their own private utopias organized along their own principles, and that it does not force beliefs on others (a common criticism of non-libertarians, made by libertarians is that they would enforce some sort of order onto everyone whether they held the
beliefs of that order or not). But this is not entirely true. For example, if in your society, I had beliefs requiring the sacrifice of unwilling non-believing people to my God, you would outlaw such murderous acts. So, I stand by my point that that libertarianism itself is an order imposed on a society.
Ok, except your example is false. I wouldn't "outlaw such murderous acts". I'd simply expect you to live by them.
Great! Since I don't recognize your private property laws, I plan on taking your property from you with my gang of marauders and make it public land
Hehe...I know you are. The funny part is that you and your marauders are going to then complain when someone stronger does it to you.
At it again are we?
I'll just say I disagree with ffg in several fundamental ways and leave it at that. We've been over it before.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Try using your imagination a bit, Tracy. How does you family get along wihout being part of everyone's family? How do you and your friends get along without being friends with everyone?
Well, here's the deal, I'm not very imaginative, quite dense actually, so you are going to have to explain your model of society to me. Try to convince me with a coherent and reasonable argument.
Ok, except your example is false. I wouldn't "outlaw such murderous acts". I'd simply expect you to live by them.
Again, it is observance and enforcement of laws that make them effective. A society which does not wish to observe or enforce some law may as well not have any.
Also, For you to claim that a libertarian society is totally free from coercion, and justify it by saying that you expect everyone to respect property rights, etc, is on a par with a socialist claiming that a socialist society is free from coercion, because they expect everyone to be willing to accept the socialist's laws.
Hehe...I know you are. The funny part is that you and your marauders are going to then complain when someone stronger does it to you.
Oh, that won't happen. You see, in your model of society, guaranteed freedom is determined by the amount of property you have. In other words a distribution of property is a distribution of freedom and I own the whole damn town.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Elected by whom, Tracy? If a lynch mob shows up at your door, would you ask whether or not their leader was elected?
Well, here's the deal, I'm not very imaginative, quite dense actually, so you are going to have to explain your model of society to me. Try to convince me with a coherent and reasonable argument.
I'm just curious if, at your last family reunion, you consulted with every other family in the country regarding what to serve for dinner?
My point is that multiple societies can exist and operate near each other. This happens everyday in many contexts.
You are quite imaginative and not dense at all. You're just not thinking about what I'm saying, which is why you keep asking me these prescriptive questions about things I'm telling you I have no interest in prescribing.
Again, it is observance and enforcement of laws that make them effective. A society which does not wish to observe or enforce some law may as well not have any.
Very true.
Also, For you to claim that a libertarian society is totally free from coercion, and justify it by saying that you expect everyone to respect property rights, etc, is on a par with a socialist claiming that a socialist society is free from coercion, because they expect everyone to be willing to accept the socialist's laws.
I don't expect everyone to respect those rights. I've said this numerous times. I simply expect the person who does not believe in property rights not to demand property.
Oh, that won't happen. You see, in your model of society, guaranteed freedom is determined by the amount of property you have. In other words a distribution of property is a distribution of freedom and I own the whole damn town.
Hehe...it happens everyday Tracy. Just go through all the threads here and listen to people's complaints about this being "hijacked" or that being "stolen", and then look at the solutions proposed.
I'm just curious if, at your last family reunion, you consulted with every other family in the country regarding what to serve for dinner?
My point is that multiple societies can exist and operate near each other. This happens everyday in many contexts.
You are quite imaginative and not dense at all. You're just not thinking about what I'm saying, which is why you keep asking me these prescriptive questions about things I'm telling you I have no interest in prescribing.
I'm asking you to make your case and describe how your model of society would work, all these societies, each with their own contract. As you know, libertarians have a wide spectrum of beliefs. Your 'multiple societies with individual contracts' model is one I have not read about, so I ask you to explain and make a case for it. You haven't given me a whole lot to 'think about.' Perhaps a link might be easier?
I don't expect everyone to respect those rights. I've said this numerous times. I simply expect the person who does not believe in property rights not to demand property.
Why would you expect that? I stand by my statement (I will just reword it for what you just said here): For you to claim that a libertarian society is totally free from coercion, and justify it by saying that you expect 'the person who does not believe in property rights not to demand property' is silly. What I have been telling you is your society is not coercion-free. If you somehow punish me and my gang of marauders (prevent me from demanding property) you are limiting my freedom (and rightly so!) In order to do this, there has to be a mechanism in place to enforce such rules or laws. Without this you have anarchy.
Hehe...it happens everyday Tracy. Just go through all the threads here and listen to people's complaints about this being "hijacked" or that being "stolen", and then look at the solutions proposed.
'Stolen'? You mean theft? Yeah, you are right. I've heard some pretty crazy arguments. Like dissolving public services and abolishing all taxes.
Here's the thing, everyone's life is not (even with the presence of negative rights) free from the interference of others. The very presence of others imposes duties on each of us & it limits everyone's freedom. In fact, these restrictions are frequently extensive. Take my gang of marauders example. I could take what I wanted, when I wanted. To say that such actions are morally or legally impermissible significantly limits my freedom, and my 'happiness,' without my consent. Is this a good thing..............I think so. So, in my opinion, you fail to show or prove that a libertarian society would insure that individual freedoms would not be limited without consent anymore than it is in an non-libertarian society. Your own moral constraints limit each person's freedom without consent.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
What does a lynch mob have to do with state officials elected by the people?
A lynch mob is a collection of individuals seeking to achieve their given ends through force. State officials are are collection of individuals acting as agents for a larger collection of individuals seeking to achieve their given ends through means of force.
I'm asking you to make your case and describe how your model of society would work, all these societies, each with their own contract. As you know, libertarians have a wide spectrum of beliefs. Your 'multiple societies with individual contracts' model is one I have not read about, so I ask you to explain and make a case for it. You haven't given me a whole lot to 'think about.' Perhaps a link might be easier?
I'm curious what you're having difficulty understanding. You have numerous family groups in your town, yes? Numerous business operating across a diverse set of markets? Numerous churches and civic organizations? All with intersecting members? All also with ideological and operational walls that separate them?
Individuals who have a given set of beliefs about human rights, human obligations, property, commerce and the general basic functions of society would come together to form, if they choose, social structures that define their similarities and demarcate and accomodate for their differences as well as prescribing, for them, how they deal with other similar groups.
Why would you expect that?
Because contradictions cannot stand.
I stand by my statement (I will just reword it for what you just said here): For you to claim that a libertarian society is totally free from coercion, and justify it by saying that you expect 'the person who does not believe in property rights not to demand property' is silly.
It's not silly at all. If, for example, a person damns property while demanding it, they will get exactly what their contradiction requires: the ownership of nothing.
What I have been telling you is your society is not coercion-free.
I believe I stated from the beginning that my society would not be coercion free. What it will not do is claim coercion as a virtue, nor would it monopolize or centralize coercion at a state level while imposing it upon everyone. Why do you keep throwing this claim at me?
If you somehow punish me and my gang of marauders (prevent me from demanding property) you are limiting my freedom (and rightly so!) In order to do this, there has to be a mechanism in place to enforce such rules or laws. Without this you have anarchy.
I'm not going to "punish" you and your gang of marauders. I'm going to give you precisely what you're requesting: a fight for resources instead of a compromise for resources.
'Stolen'? You mean theft? Yeah, you are right. I've heard some pretty crazy arguments. Like dissolving public services and abolishing all taxes.
Here's the thing, everyone's life is not (even with the presence of negative rights) free from the interference of others. The very presence of others imposes duties on each of us & it limits everyone's freedom.
The presence of others imposes no duty on me, nor does it limit my freedom any more than the does presence of a tree.
In fact, these restrictions are frequently extensive. Take my gang of marauders example. I could take what I wanted, when I wanted. To say that such actions are morally or legally impermissible significantly limits my freedom, and my 'happiness,' without my consent.
To say that your actions are morally or legally impermissible does not limit your freedom at all, but I'm not even saying your actions are impermissible. Your actions are completely permissible! If you wish to rape and pillage, knock yourself out. But do not expect any better than you wish to give, because you will likely not get it.
Is this a good thing..............I think so. So, in my opinion, you fail to show or prove that a libertarian society would insure that individual freedoms would not be limited without consent anymore than it is in an non-libertarian society. Your own moral constraints limit each person's freedom without consent.
What "moral constraints"? Please name me a single moral constraint that I'm putting on anyone.
ffg, I've already gone over all of this already. Let me try again and I'm just stating what I did earlier. The people involved in a free market/libertarian society must accept the rules of its operation, namely the rules that forbid attacks on others, using another's property without their consent, trespass, fraud, etc. This means that the free market has to include the mechanisms for deterring crimes, and mechanisms for compensation and punishment should such crimes be committed. The amount of coercion required to prevent such crimes, depends on the level of acquiescence of the population to the free market/libertarian rules. In other words, the market is in fact the exchanges that go on as mentioned above, plus the policing, arbitration and legislating mechanisms required to ensure its operation. So, like the state, the market is a social institution, and the distributions of goods that result from its operation are therefore the distributions sanctioned by a libertarian society.
So the question of whether an individual is free in a libertarian society (more so than a non-libertarian society) has to be considered. You view coercion as a violation of liberty. You believe if you are forced to give money to the government to provide welfare, then you are being coerced and your liberty violated. But you then legitimize coercion when it comes to enforcing people's rights. You legitimize coercion in these circumstances (whether you want to admit it or tip-toe around it), and the amount of coercion required to enforce these rights depends on how willing people are to respect them. So it can't be the case that a free market is free from coercion, unless everyone voluntarily respects these rights and abides by the law.
As far as the moral constraints, to introduce right and wrong of any sort is to put moral limitations on individual freedom. To that extent, everyone's freedom is restricted. To introduce negative rights and duties, as you and libertarians do, is to admit that there are non-consensual limitations on freedom. And these limits can be significant and far-reaching. They arise without consent. Each person has them simply because he is a person. Now if one's freedom can be limited without consent by negative rights, then it is unreasonable to hold that these are the only limitations on freedom which can legitimately arise without consent.
So, this whole debate between you and I was sparked by this comment you made to another poster:
"But to pretend that you dislike the current brand of capitalism in this country, being so marked by coersion and force, when all your really dislike is the position you hold within it and when all you really desire is to apply that same coersion and force on your own chosen targets, is to be contradictory and, in my opinion, no better than those you call your enemy."
I suggest that you, as well, would 'apply coercion and force on your own targets.'
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
ffg, I've already gone over all of this already. Let me try again and I'm just stating what I did earlier. The people involved in a free market/libertarian society must accept the rules of its operation, namely the rules that forbid attacks on others, using another's property without their consent, trespass, fraud, etc.
Not necessarily, Tracy. I'm telling you right now that I have no interest in codifying with you the rules you keep telling me I have an interest in codifying with you.
Not necessarily, Tracy. I'm telling you right now that I have no interest in codifying with you the rules you keep telling me I have an interest in codifying with you.
Well, it would be in your best interest and the best interest of your philosophy to address such rules. The people involved in a free market must accept the rules of its operation in order for a free market to 'work'. Your society is based on a free market, no? That means the free market has to include the mechanisms for deterring crimes. And this is where your coercion-free argument falls apart. There is no way around this. The libertarian argument is flawed in this regard.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Well, it would be in your best interest and the best interest of your philosophy to address such rules.
Hehe...it would be in my best interest and the best interest of my philosophy to address such issues, Tracy. It is not in anyone's best interest to have rules they do not agree to imposed upon them from an authority they do not respect.
The people involved in a free market must accept the rules of its operation in order for a free market to 'work'. Your society is based on a free market, no?
My society, meaning myself and anyone who wishes to belong to the same group, would certainly be based on a free market. Your society, meaning yourself and anyone who wishes to belong to the same group, however, is none of my business.
That means the free market has to include the mechanisms for deterring crimes.
The free market has to include the mechanisms for dealing with crimes amongst its members. I have no interest in "deterring" crimes, nor do I have any interest in the formal application of free market rules on people who are not participants in that market.
And this is where your coercion-free argument falls apart. There is no way around this. The libertarian argument is flawed in this regard.
The libertarian argument is not flawed, so long as it adheres to consent, Tracy. Coercion does not exist where true consent exists. Certainly a Libertarian society that attempts to impose Libertarian ideals upon people that do not hold those ideals is no more coercion-free than what came before it. Yet who here is proposing such an imposition? Who is telling you that you cannot control your markets? Who is telling you that you cannot submit yourself to "the common good"? Who is telling you that you must adhere to freedom as a principle or markets as a mean or individualism as the foundation of rights? Who is telling you to respect property? Who it telling you to respect life? You may ignore each and every one of those principles, if you wish. I will not attempt to stop you, nor will I even be concerned with your existence until you attempt to impose your particular principles onto me.
Edwards is a goofy liberal who apparently thinks that government should be running businesses.
I notice that he wasn't opposed to personally making assloads of money based on the size of his palace. I guess he's just opposed to heads of corporations doing so.
what's worse...he made his money on now-proven faulty premises...he put doctors/hospitals in bad positions where their public opinion would plummet if they fought the vaunted john edwards...they would also spend a ton of money with experts and other associated court costs to defend themselves in frivolous lawsuits...do you think tort reform will EVER happen with edwards in the box? NO! do you think healthcare will ever reform with him in the box? NO! he's a player in making insurance what it is today...driven by the rising cost of healthcare...because of the high price of doing business as a doctor/hospital/clinic/etc. that guy is an idiot.
sad thing...edwards can't win...if obama or clinton are elected the bigot throwbacks won't elect either of them...4 more years to a republican...thank you very much rednecks and idiots...
Comments
a-ah...I see your point and I agree..
I know I'm a few days behind in this discussion, but I've read up to this point and this statement got me thinking. Do you assume that there would not be any 'coercion and force' within a libertarian society by libertarians? So, we return to a completely free market society.......................folks involved in a free market must then accept the rules of its operation, correct? By 'rules' I mean the rules that forbid infringements on others, like using another's property without their consent, trespass, and fraud, etc. This means that the free market has to include mechanisms for deterring crimes, and mechanisms for compensation and punishment should such crimes be committed, no? In other words, policing, arbitration and legislating mechanisms are required to ensure its operation. Sounds suspiciously like a social institution to me.
It seems to me that Libertarians legitimize coercion in certain circumstances, ie when it comes to individual rights. The amount of coercion required to enforce these rights would depend on folks willingness to respect them, no? So a free market society would not be free from coercion unless everyone voluntarily respects these rights and abides by the law.
So couldn't your statement 'when all you really desire is to apply that same coersion and force on your own chosen targets, is to be contradictory and, in my opinion, no better than those you call your enemy' be used against you as well?
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
I do not assume that.
No society is "free from coersion". I don't expect such a society. What I do hope for is a society where coersion is not treated as virtuous.
If that were true, I would have picked up a gun a long time ago, or at least would be advocating for their use, as do many Libertarians and anarchists.
I'm glad you recognize this
By your admission above, the fact that a libertarian society would have to use coercion as well, you show how hypocritical and silly your statement was.
Most Libertarians are unanimous in viewing coercion as a violation of liberty, so, for example, if you are 'forced' to give money to the government to provide welfare, then you are being coerced and your liberties violated. According to you, then, the only legitimate use of coercion is in enforcing people's rights. So you legitimize coercion in these circumstances. Do you deem this type of coercion 'virtuous'?
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Hehe...I'm glad you give me so much credit.
I never said that a Libertarian society would have to invoke sanctioned coercion. It wouldn't. However, certainly individuals within that society would likely still be coercive. There would be murders. There would be theft. There would be violence. However, there would not be those things on the state level.
Absolutely correct.
One does not "enforce" a right. One protects rights.
Coercion cannot be virtuous. That's a contradiction.
A truly free society operates on the basis of consent. Free societies protect people from violating each others rights by enforcing contracts between its members. There is no coercion in enforcing a contract, as long as the actions taken against violators are explicitly defined in a contract they consent to.
So there would be no means in a free market society or libertarian society to enforce life,liberty, and property rights? Would there be no mechanisms for deterring crimes no penalties, no punishments? How do you plan to enforce them? The amount of coercion required to enforce these rights depends on how willing people are to respect them. Hence, it cannot be the case that a libertarian society is free from coercion, unless everyone voluntarily respects these rights and abides by the law. And from what you stated above, you do not think everybody will just automatically respect these rights.
How does one 'protect' these rights without 'rules' or 'laws'?
Like a social contract?
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Deterring crime is not the business of the state. Mediating disputes defined as crimes that have happened is the business of the state. And crimes themselves as the antithesis to rights, are defined in contracts.
I don't plan to enforce anything. I wish to give people the rights to define their rights and to enter into contracts defining those rights and the punishments for violating those rights.
Hehe...absolutely correct. You should try thinking more about this statement.
I don't expect everyone to do this, no.
By entering into contracts that describe the costs for violating those rights.
Very much like it yes. The only difference would be that it would actually be a contract.
Baraka, you're not really thinking about the meaning of the term coercion. If, for example, I willingly submit myself to a contract stating that a theif goes to prison and I then steal, am I being coerced when I am taken to jail?
But is has to be the business of someone, does it not? Who enforces the laws or 'rules' then? Individuals? And if all the individuals fail to agree what thoae 'rules' or laws should be? And what is this contract to which you refer? A social contract? And if not a social contract, what about those who refuse to sign such a contract, to those that refuse to respect personal property rights, or feel stealing is OK, etc? Are they exempt from abiding by such 'rules' or laws? Or would coercion be OK here?
And if everyone has a different definition of what those 'rights' should be?
Oh, but I have. Let me restate it: The amount of coercion required to enforce these rights depends on how willing people are to respect them. Hence, it cannot be the case that a libertarian society is free from coercion, unless everyone voluntarily respects these rights and abides by the law.
Perhaps you can point out what I am missing.
And if I refuse to sign? Am I free to violate those rights?
How so?
Are you arguing that you are being coerced if you are taken to jail in our current society for murder, but if you sign a contract agreeing to the punishment, then you are NOT being coerced? Are you not being coerced into a contract? Again, if you refuse to sign contract are you exempt from penalty?
You see, I do not regard the operation of free market as being 'natural', like you and other libertarians do. Indeed it requires some sort of social rules to be respected. Therefore, I believe the free market is just as much a construction of human society as the state is.
I also would argue that libertarianism itself is an order imposed on a society. It has rules which if broken will lead to punishment of offenders. Therefore, the criticism of other beliefs on this basis is a red herring.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
It is the business of everyone.
Individuals or their chosen agents.
Then they likely choose to belong to different societies.
No, a real contract. You know, a piece of paper outlining concepts and expectations and obligations. A paper you sign or choose not to sign.
What about them? They certainly have a right to hold those opinions and live by them (and of course be subject to them), if they choose.
Of course. Or benefitting from them.
Coercion is never OK.
They likely will. And they'll have to hammer out compromises and make difficult choices regarding their associations.
Correct.
Absolutely! What does it say about your society?
What you're missing is that what I'm proposing allows people to operate on their own terms, without having to coerce them into operating on my terms or your terms or John Edwards' terms. You can certainly criticize a free society on the grounds that coercion will still exist. However, it sounds pretty funny while defending a system defined by coercion.
Absolutely. And you also won't receive them.
It won't be assumed upon you. Hence, it will actually be a contract.
Correct.
Depends on if you agreed to the contract or not.
You're exempt from the terms of the contract, yes.
A market is definitely a construction. No human construction is "unnatural", including the state.
Libertarianism is not an order imposed on society as long as you are free to refuse its precepts. In my opinion, you may refuse everyone of them if you wish.
Chosen agents? Like the State or a government? A police force? You are not giving me a lot to go on. Individuals? How do they enforce it? Wild west-style? I'm not following you. Again, a system of rules would be needed in your society. Those rules would need to be enforced. It is their observance and enforcement that make them effective. A society which does not wish to observe or enforce some law may as well not have any.
Different societies? Different societies within this country? or another country? Is this the love it or leave it argument of which you are so fond? You are going to have to describe what your vision is for me, because I am not following you.
Just for the record (and we have debated this before) a social contract is a real contract and it is a fairly common form. Many other contracts have this form, for example, some leases, most utility services, etc.
And yours, as I pointed out in several posts above. This is what I argued (and I quote myself
Your argument is it would not be coercion because contracts would be signed by all and it would simply be an enforcement of the contract. And regards to those who refuse to accept and sign the contract, well, they would not be granted rights and likewise would not be held accountable for anything they do against of others. Am I understanding you correctly?
But it doesn't really. It is your opinion that libertarianism can provide a framework in which people can create their own private utopias organized along their own principles, and that it does not force beliefs on others (a common criticism of non-libertarians, made by libertarians is that they would enforce some sort of order onto everyone whether they held the
beliefs of that order or not). But this is not entirely true. For example, if in your society, I had beliefs requiring the sacrifice of unwilling non-believing people to my God, you would outlaw such murderous acts. So, I stand by my point that that libertarianism itself is an order imposed on a society.
Great! Since I don't recognize your private property laws, I plan on taking your property from you with my gang of marauders and make it public land
Sure I will, due to my gang of marauders and my large bank account.
See above for my thoughts on the social contract
See my above response
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
No. A service provider. States are not "chosen agents". States are assumed agents.
Try using your imagination a bit, Tracy. How does you family get along wihout being part of everyone's family? How do you and your friends get along without being friends with everyone?
Leases and utility services are not assumed upon you.
Yes.
Ok, except your example is false. I wouldn't "outlaw such murderous acts". I'd simply expect you to live by them.
Hehe...I know you are. The funny part is that you and your marauders are going to then complain when someone stronger does it to you.
I'll just say I disagree with ffg in several fundamental ways and leave it at that. We've been over it before.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Even if they are made up of ELECTED officials?
Well, here's the deal, I'm not very imaginative, quite dense actually, so you are going to have to explain your model of society to me. Try to convince me with a coherent and reasonable argument.
Again, it is observance and enforcement of laws that make them effective. A society which does not wish to observe or enforce some law may as well not have any.
Also, For you to claim that a libertarian society is totally free from coercion, and justify it by saying that you expect everyone to respect property rights, etc, is on a par with a socialist claiming that a socialist society is free from coercion, because they expect everyone to be willing to accept the socialist's laws.
Oh, that won't happen. You see, in your model of society, guaranteed freedom is determined by the amount of property you have. In other words a distribution of property is a distribution of freedom and I own the whole damn town.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Elected by whom, Tracy? If a lynch mob shows up at your door, would you ask whether or not their leader was elected?
I'm just curious if, at your last family reunion, you consulted with every other family in the country regarding what to serve for dinner?
My point is that multiple societies can exist and operate near each other. This happens everyday in many contexts.
You are quite imaginative and not dense at all. You're just not thinking about what I'm saying, which is why you keep asking me these prescriptive questions about things I'm telling you I have no interest in prescribing.
Very true.
I don't expect everyone to respect those rights. I've said this numerous times. I simply expect the person who does not believe in property rights not to demand property.
Hehe...it happens everyday Tracy. Just go through all the threads here and listen to people's complaints about this being "hijacked" or that being "stolen", and then look at the solutions proposed.
Who are electing your state officials? What does a lynch mob have to do with state officials elected by the people?
I'm asking you to make your case and describe how your model of society would work, all these societies, each with their own contract. As you know, libertarians have a wide spectrum of beliefs. Your 'multiple societies with individual contracts' model is one I have not read about, so I ask you to explain and make a case for it. You haven't given me a whole lot to 'think about.' Perhaps a link might be easier?
Why would you expect that? I stand by my statement (I will just reword it for what you just said here): For you to claim that a libertarian society is totally free from coercion, and justify it by saying that you expect 'the person who does not believe in property rights not to demand property' is silly. What I have been telling you is your society is not coercion-free. If you somehow punish me and my gang of marauders (prevent me from demanding property) you are limiting my freedom (and rightly so!) In order to do this, there has to be a mechanism in place to enforce such rules or laws. Without this you have anarchy.
'Stolen'? You mean theft? Yeah, you are right. I've heard some pretty crazy arguments. Like dissolving public services and abolishing all taxes.
Here's the thing, everyone's life is not (even with the presence of negative rights) free from the interference of others. The very presence of others imposes duties on each of us & it limits everyone's freedom. In fact, these restrictions are frequently extensive. Take my gang of marauders example. I could take what I wanted, when I wanted. To say that such actions are morally or legally impermissible significantly limits my freedom, and my 'happiness,' without my consent. Is this a good thing..............I think so. So, in my opinion, you fail to show or prove that a libertarian society would insure that individual freedoms would not be limited without consent anymore than it is in an non-libertarian society. Your own moral constraints limit each person's freedom without consent.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
20% of my neighbors.
A lynch mob is a collection of individuals seeking to achieve their given ends through force. State officials are are collection of individuals acting as agents for a larger collection of individuals seeking to achieve their given ends through means of force.
I'm curious what you're having difficulty understanding. You have numerous family groups in your town, yes? Numerous business operating across a diverse set of markets? Numerous churches and civic organizations? All with intersecting members? All also with ideological and operational walls that separate them?
Individuals who have a given set of beliefs about human rights, human obligations, property, commerce and the general basic functions of society would come together to form, if they choose, social structures that define their similarities and demarcate and accomodate for their differences as well as prescribing, for them, how they deal with other similar groups.
Because contradictions cannot stand.
It's not silly at all. If, for example, a person damns property while demanding it, they will get exactly what their contradiction requires: the ownership of nothing.
I believe I stated from the beginning that my society would not be coercion free. What it will not do is claim coercion as a virtue, nor would it monopolize or centralize coercion at a state level while imposing it upon everyone. Why do you keep throwing this claim at me?
I'm not going to "punish" you and your gang of marauders. I'm going to give you precisely what you're requesting: a fight for resources instead of a compromise for resources.
The presence of others imposes no duty on me, nor does it limit my freedom any more than the does presence of a tree.
To say that your actions are morally or legally impermissible does not limit your freedom at all, but I'm not even saying your actions are impermissible. Your actions are completely permissible! If you wish to rape and pillage, knock yourself out. But do not expect any better than you wish to give, because you will likely not get it.
What "moral constraints"? Please name me a single moral constraint that I'm putting on anyone.
So the question of whether an individual is free in a libertarian society (more so than a non-libertarian society) has to be considered. You view coercion as a violation of liberty. You believe if you are forced to give money to the government to provide welfare, then you are being coerced and your liberty violated. But you then legitimize coercion when it comes to enforcing people's rights. You legitimize coercion in these circumstances (whether you want to admit it or tip-toe around it), and the amount of coercion required to enforce these rights depends on how willing people are to respect them. So it can't be the case that a free market is free from coercion, unless everyone voluntarily respects these rights and abides by the law.
As far as the moral constraints, to introduce right and wrong of any sort is to put moral limitations on individual freedom. To that extent, everyone's freedom is restricted. To introduce negative rights and duties, as you and libertarians do, is to admit that there are non-consensual limitations on freedom. And these limits can be significant and far-reaching. They arise without consent. Each person has them simply because he is a person. Now if one's freedom can be limited without consent by negative rights, then it is unreasonable to hold that these are the only limitations on freedom which can legitimately arise without consent.
So, this whole debate between you and I was sparked by this comment you made to another poster:
"But to pretend that you dislike the current brand of capitalism in this country, being so marked by coersion and force, when all your really dislike is the position you hold within it and when all you really desire is to apply that same coersion and force on your own chosen targets, is to be contradictory and, in my opinion, no better than those you call your enemy."
I suggest that you, as well, would 'apply coercion and force on your own targets.'
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Not necessarily, Tracy. I'm telling you right now that I have no interest in codifying with you the rules you keep telling me I have an interest in codifying with you.
Well, it would be in your best interest and the best interest of your philosophy to address such rules. The people involved in a free market must accept the rules of its operation in order for a free market to 'work'. Your society is based on a free market, no? That means the free market has to include the mechanisms for deterring crimes. And this is where your coercion-free argument falls apart. There is no way around this. The libertarian argument is flawed in this regard.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Hehe...it would be in my best interest and the best interest of my philosophy to address such issues, Tracy. It is not in anyone's best interest to have rules they do not agree to imposed upon them from an authority they do not respect.
My society, meaning myself and anyone who wishes to belong to the same group, would certainly be based on a free market. Your society, meaning yourself and anyone who wishes to belong to the same group, however, is none of my business.
The free market has to include the mechanisms for dealing with crimes amongst its members. I have no interest in "deterring" crimes, nor do I have any interest in the formal application of free market rules on people who are not participants in that market.
The libertarian argument is not flawed, so long as it adheres to consent, Tracy. Coercion does not exist where true consent exists. Certainly a Libertarian society that attempts to impose Libertarian ideals upon people that do not hold those ideals is no more coercion-free than what came before it. Yet who here is proposing such an imposition? Who is telling you that you cannot control your markets? Who is telling you that you cannot submit yourself to "the common good"? Who is telling you that you must adhere to freedom as a principle or markets as a mean or individualism as the foundation of rights? Who is telling you to respect property? Who it telling you to respect life? You may ignore each and every one of those principles, if you wish. I will not attempt to stop you, nor will I even be concerned with your existence until you attempt to impose your particular principles onto me.
what's worse...he made his money on now-proven faulty premises...he put doctors/hospitals in bad positions where their public opinion would plummet if they fought the vaunted john edwards...they would also spend a ton of money with experts and other associated court costs to defend themselves in frivolous lawsuits...do you think tort reform will EVER happen with edwards in the box? NO! do you think healthcare will ever reform with him in the box? NO! he's a player in making insurance what it is today...driven by the rising cost of healthcare...because of the high price of doing business as a doctor/hospital/clinic/etc. that guy is an idiot.
sad thing...edwards can't win...if obama or clinton are elected the bigot throwbacks won't elect either of them...4 more years to a republican...thank you very much rednecks and idiots...
from my window to yours