Libertarianism, In Theory and Practice

Lockstep

I entered into a contract and didn't uphold my side of the bargain and now MEN WITH GUNS are coming! Contracts=violence.

I heard a better quote (paraphrasing it here)
Conservatives want the state to be their daddy; protecting them from danger and smacking them if they do bad. Leftists want the state to be their mammy; making sure they're warm and well fed.
Libertarians want to get rid of mammy and daddy altogether so they can stay up all night eating ice cream and jumping on the couch.

simplistic

kickoutthejams wrote: »

I entered into a contract and didn't uphold my side of the bargain and now MEN WITH GUNS are coming! Contracts=violence.

Haha, i fell down the stairs , falling = violence
I heard a better quote (paraphrasing it here)
Conservatives want the state to be their daddy; protecting them from danger and smacking them if they do bad. Leftists want the state to be their mammy; making sure they're warm and well fed.
Libertarians want to get rid of mammy and daddy altogether so they can stay up all night eating ice cream and jumping on the couch.[/QUOTE]

lol

Lockstep

simplistic wrote: »

Haha, i fell down the stairs , falling = violence

I know, which is why a system based on falling will always fail:P

simplistic

kickoutthejams wrote: »

I know, which is why a system based on falling will always fail:P

Exactly so lets get off our fu*king knees and have the dignity and the pride to stand on our own two feet and stop running to mammy and daddy demanding that they use violence to fix our problems like fu*king cowards.

Lockstep

simplistic wrote: »

Exactly so lets get off our fu*king knees and have the dignity and the pride to stand on our own two feet and stop running to mammy and daddy demanding that they use violence to fix our problems like fu*king cowards.

If you entered into a contract and the other party reneged on their side, what would your reaction be?

Soldie

kickoutthejams wrote: »

If you entered into a contract and the other party reneged on their side, what would your reaction be?

There is a difference between voluntarily entering a contract and being coerced into paying taxes, though. We pay taxes or we go to jail, and we don't have any choice in the matter.

Lockstep

Personally, I'm a firm believer in the social contract theory (one which involves us agreeing to some limitations on our freedom in return for protection and services)

Our parents entered us into that contract when they chose the country we were born in, and once we are old enough, we are always free to end this contract by leaving the current state we are in. I chose to move to Belgium and am therefore choosing to pay their taxes and abide by their laws,
Obviously this doesn't exist in countries like Cuba where people are prevented from leaving.

Soldie

A social contract is not a voluntary contract, though. Being born in a country is often considered to be implicit consent, but that is a somewhat tenuous claim. A real contract requires explicit consent. The consitution is supposedly a social contract yet it was signed by a very small number of people.

It's also worth noting that Locke claimed that a social contract is null and void once breached by a government. Governments have a long history of failure when it comes to protecting people and providing services.

Lockstep

Soldie wrote: »

A social contract is not a voluntary contract, though. Being born in a country is often considered to be implicit consent, but that is a somewhat tenuous claim. A real contract requires explicit consent. The consitution is supposedly a social contract yet it was signed by a very small number of people.

But you're free to repeal the contract at any time by leaving the country.
By choosing to stay in the country after you have reached maturity, you are implying consent. You are free to attempt to modify the contract; forming a new political party, lobbying, canvassing etc. Or to terminate the contract by leaving the country.

Soldie wrote: »

It's also worth noting that Locke claimed that a social contract is null and void once breached by a government. Governments have a long history of failure when it comes to protecting people and providing services.

Indeed but where the contract is breached is a very subjective claim.

Soldie

kickoutthejams wrote: »

By choosing to stay in the country after you have reached maturity, you are implying consent.

But tacit content is not the same thing as explicit consent, and social contract theory is entirely dependent on the idea of tacit content. Just because I live in Ireland does not mean I give explicit consent to be governed.

Indeed but where the contract is breached is a very subjective claim.

I disagree. Consider Hurricane Katrina, where the government failed to both protect and provide services for the people.

Lockstep

Soldie wrote: »

But tacit content is not the same thing as explicit consent, and social contract theory is entirely dependent on the idea of tacit content. Just because I live in Ireland does not mean I give explicit consent to be governed.

Tacit consent is a fairly common part of legal systems; for example, in international law, if a customary law comes about and a state does not make an explicit disagreement, it implicitly consents to be bound by it.
By choosing to remain in Ireland, you would, by my view, be implicitly consenting to be governed. If you don't wish to be governed, then you are free to move to countries without effective government or which are compartively much smaller.

Soldie wrote: »

I disagree. Consider Hurricane Katrina, where the government failed to both protect and provide services for the people.

Indeed, but it does not delegitimise the concept of government.

pagancornflake

cavedave wrote: »

Have you not paid and seen what happens?

No, because then I would be using a state provided infrastructure without paying for it, and would be rightly arrested.

pagancornflake

simplistic wrote: »

Ok Ive stopped paying taxes and Ive also decided that Im not going to court and after that Ive decided I dont want to go to prison. What do you think will happen to me?

The Gardai will arrive at the house with a box of chocolates and voucher for a half an hour massage!

I think that you have decided to follow an inadequately justified entitlement theory.

pagancornflake

Soldie wrote: »

There is a difference between voluntarily entering a contract and being coerced into paying taxes, though.

True. The former provides no incentive basis for fidelity on its own, and the latter provides the structure of legislation and judicial force which allows contractual agreements to be settled. If you would like to give up the latter, then good luck with the former.

Soldie wrote: »

We pay taxes or we go to jail, and we don't have any choice in the matter.

You had no right to your pre-tax income in the first place, since your wealth was not generated in a vacuum or by you on your lonesome, but in a social context in which infrastructure and contractual enforcement are supplied for you (which is not cheap to provide).

marmurr1916

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

How do you know whether or not you've been affected? Many effects of environmental pollution take generations (or at least many years) to become apparent. Trying to establish who caused the pollution which caused you harm (and then trying to allocate the percentage of pollution and subsequent harm from several pollution sources) may be an incredibly complex and long process.

Justice must be timely if it is to be truly just.

What happens if the pollution is such that it causes your premature death?

Would the compensation received by your heirs be enough to compensate for your death? Can any amount of money compensate adequately for the death of a loved one? What about the person who dies? What good is any amount of compensation to them?

The ultimate property right is the right to life. No amount of money can compensate for a trespass on that right.

Libertarianism in theory: threads like this.

Libertarianism in practice: Somalia.

marmurr1916

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

On the grounds that the congregation of drug addicts (bringing nuisance behaviour with them) to buy drugs at a location adjacent to my property is injurious to my right to peaceful enjoyment of my property.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

How? Without coercion, how can anyone be obliged to do anything? Moral persuasion?

cavedave

I just read here that wikipedia was founded out of an argument about libertarianism.

While moderating an online discussion group devoted to the philosophy of Objectivism in the early 1990s, Wales had encountered Larry Sanger, a sceptic of the philosophy.The two had engaged in detailed debate on the subject on Wales' list and then on Sanger's, eventually meeting offline to continue the debate and becoming friends. Deciding to pursue his encyclopedia project years later, Wales invited Sanger...to be its editor-in-chief, and in March 2000, Nupedia ... was launched.

Anyone want to form a start up?

The SGPS

Well, for my first post I decide to weigh in on the intense topic of libertarianism.

My two cents (much of this may have been said already!):

Libertarianism is unworkable with the world in its current form. A crucial point to remember is that, at the moment, private property is an unavoidable fact. Whether it's a good thing or a bad thing is open for debate. But as long as necessary resources remain scarce, private property will remain a fact. Libertarianism can only be viable when base resources become free and freely available.

First of all, free energy. How will this be achieved? Synthetic fossil fuels, fusion power...this remains to be seen. However, it will almost certainly be achieved at some stage whether it is in ten, 100 or 1,000 years time. Energy, energy control and energy production are undoubtedly the most potent form of capital. It's like Dune; he who controls the spice controls the universe. Except for spice read oil.

Second of all, free access to information. No hidden information. No governmental, industrial secrets. Information should be free and freely accessible to all. We are approaching this right now via the Internet; indeed, should we WANT and should governments/corporations feel the need to this could be achieved tomorrow. Whether we would all have an understanding of it...that's irrelevant. No one is a master of all trades.

Finally, unlimited access to food. This is preconditioned on the success of free energy; first free energy, then free food.

In other words, the aim is to REMOVE any need for private ownership. Many of us laud private ownership but why? It is a necessity perhaps now but it is not a beneficial necessity. Better, if possible, to abolish private ownership. It's something we value in the context of this society but, overall, it is not a necessity and not even a precondition for 'happiness' or contentment.

Once the NEED for private ownership is removed it will almost certainly cease to exist. The next challenge is law, order and maintenance of society...in other words, the really complicated part of libertarian theory. But it is achievable.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that we can debate libertarianism 'til the cows come home but it is not a viable system with the current spread of resources. Should it be implemented tomorrow...well, none of the permutations are particularly delightful.

Anyway, they're my opinions on libertarianism. Many will probably disagree and you're free to do so!

silverharp

The SGPS wrote: »

Libertarianism can only be viable when base resources become free and freely available.

thats a bit of a contradiction. Libertarianism is about living in a world of scarce resources. if we can have our Star Trek technology then the market is not required. Only the personal liberty issues would remain.

Soldie

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Tacit consent is a fairly common part of legal systems; for example, in international law, if a customary law comes about and a state does not make an explicit disagreement, it implicitly consents to be bound by it.
By choosing to remain in Ireland, you would, by my view, be implicitly consenting to be governed. If you don't wish to be governed, then you are free to move to countries without effective government or which are compartively much smaller.

You're conflating implicit consent with explicit consent. Unless I explicitly consent to a contract then it is incorrect to assume that I consent to it. What you're claiming is akin to saying that I like Ireland by virtue of the fact that I live here, and arguing that I could move elsewhere if I did not like it -- as such, that because I live here it follows that I must like it. It is not a logical conclusion to draw.

Indeed, but it does not delegitimise the concept of government.

It delegitimises the concept of social contract, which is what we're talking about, right?

pagancornflake wrote: »

True. The former provides no incentive basis for fidelity on its own

Do you care to substantiate this claim?

You had no right to your pre-tax income in the first place, since your wealth was not generated in a vacuum or by you on your lonesome, but in a social context in which infrastructure and contractual enforcement are supplied for you (which is not cheap to provide).

Oh? So who is the rightful owner of the fruits of my labour? Would you consider a 100% income tax to be fair? What you're essentially saying is that I am not entitled to the fruits of my labour due to the fact I may have used, say, a government road (let's ignore the fact that I would have been taxed to build it). How is that logical?

marmurr1916 wrote: »

Libertarianism in theory: threads like this.

Libertarianism in practice: Somalia.

Given the fact that libertarians believe in a minimal government that enforces private property rights, I'm sure you'll have no problem explaining how Somalia is "libertarianism in practice".

The SGPS

silverharp wrote: »

thats a bit of a contradiction. Libertarianism is about living in a world of scarce resources. if we can have our Star Trek technology then the market is not required. Only the personal liberty issues would remain.

It's not really about living in a world of scarce resources, that's a concept that has been tacked on over time. It's about maximising individual liberty. Libertarianism is essentially unworkable in a world of scarce resources; it will almost certainly become a viable (perhaps inevitable) system at some time in the distant future but for now...it's just not feasible.

In fact, libertarianism in its classic sense was never about private property. That was an American addition to the theory; it was, for the first half of the 20th century, concerned with communal ownership of the means of production. Which I'm sure has been covered here.

pagancornflake

Soldie wrote: »

Do you care to substantiate this claim?

The centralized state and its subsisting legislative and judicial bodies, which are funded by the taxes that are stolen from you, is a requisite for the enforcement of contractual obligations. Voluntarily entering into a contract is pointless without observing the tacit social contract which creates the conditions necessary to enforce them.

pagancornflake

Soldie wrote: »

Oh? So who is the rightful owner of the fruits of my labour? Would you consider a 100% income tax to be fair? What you're essentially saying is that I am not entitled to the fruits of my labour due to the fact I may have used, say, a government road (let's ignore the fact that I would have been taxed to build it). How is that logical?

Soldie wrote: »

Oh? So who is the rightful owner of the fruits of my labour?

You are. What exactly the fruits of your labour are is what is in question here. (see below)

pagancornflake wrote: »

You had no right to your pre-tax income in the first place....

I said pre-tax, not that you were not entitled to your wage at all. Read more carefully in future.

Soldie wrote: »

Would you consider a 100% income tax to be fair?

No.

Soldie wrote: »

What you're essentially saying is that I am not entitled to the fruits of my labour due to the fact I may have used, say, a government road (let's ignore the fact that I would have been taxed to build it).

No.

Please post a new response because every sentence in this one is asinine.

Soldie

pagancornflake wrote: »

The centralized state and its subsisting legislative and judicial bodies, which are funded by the taxes that are stolen from you, is a requisite for the enforcement of contractual obligations. Voluntarily entering into a contract is pointless without observing the tacit social contract which creates the conditions necessary to enforce them.

When I said that "there is a difference between voluntarily entering a contract and being coerced into paying taxes" you replied by stating that "the former provides no incentive basis for fidelity on its own". The implication you're making is that a contract is unenforceable without an arbitrary centralised central state and, as such, is redundant. There is abundant reading material available on polycentric law which proves that this is not the case.

Soldie

pagancornflake wrote: »

You are. What exactly the fruits of your labour are is what is in question here. (see below)

I said pre-tax, not that you were not entitled to your wage at all. Read more carefully in future.

You claimed that that "[my] wealth was generated [...] in a social context in which infrastructure and contractual enforcement was supplied for [me]" and that, as such, " had no right to [my] pre-tax income". As such, you're saying that it's okay to tax me a certain amount because I must attribute the fruits of my labour to the benevolence of the state, who developed the framework in which I can accue said fruits of labour. How is that amount calculated and how can anyone be certain just how much I relied on state infrastructure to accrue it? If my interpretation of what you said is incorrect then feel free to rephrase what you said.

To go back to my initial question: why is it assumed that I consent to something that I never explicitly consented to?

pagancornflake

Soldie wrote: »

As such, you're saying that it's okay to tax me a certain amount because I must attribute the fruits of my labour to the benevolence of the state, who developed (and maintain) the framework in which I can accrue said fruits of labour.

What I am saying is that tax is not an imposition on some prior economic system, it is a fundamental part of the system. A sales tax is part of the price of what you buy just like income tax is just a factor that determines your earnings.

Soldie wrote: »

How is that amount calculated

That depends, but usually involves the cost of the enforcement of law and public order, protection of property, economic infrastructure, public works, social engineering, and the operation of government itself etc.

Soldie wrote: »

how can anyone be certain just how much I relied on state infrastructure to accrue it?

This is a trivial detail which is of concern to the more intricate workings of taxation and the externalities involved, not the question of whether or not taxation itself is just.

pagancornflake

Soldie wrote: »

When I said that "there is a difference between voluntarily entering a contract and being coerced into paying taxes" you replied by stating that "the former provides no incentive basis for fidelity on its own". The implication you're making is that a contract is unenforceable without an arbitrary centralised central state and, as such, is redundant. There is abundant reading material available on polycentric law which proves that this is not the case.

pagancornflake wrote: »

True. The former provides no incentive basis for fidelity on its own, and the latter provides the structure of legislation and judicial force which allows contractual agreements to be settled. If you would like to give up the latter, then good luck with the former.

Central or localized, the point being made is that you must refer to a judicial and executive system which is provided by the government in order for contractual agreements and their enforcement to take place, and they will need funding to do so. The only difference is the scale of the government, and I don't see the point in localizing the government's power in terms of law.

Also, this is an argument, not a reading list. If there is reading to be done on poly centric law, then it must be done by you and paraphrased here if you are going to suggest it as a better alternative.

pagancornflake

Soldie wrote: »

To go back to my initial question: why is it assumed that I consent to something that I never explicitly consented to?

It is assumed because you do not have the right to live and accrue property in a region which is kept in order and governed by a body, as agreed by the inhabitants who constitute and elect this body. These rights are not pre-political, they are conditional. These rights are bestowed upon you and protected by this body and by deciding to stay and accrue wealth by using the land and resources of this place which is kept in order by the government, you contribute to its upkeep. You choose to stay and earn here. If you would like to go somewhere where you do not need to pay taxes, then go somewhere where there is no government infrastructure or state imposed law and set up a business/farm/whatever.

I think you will find that ownership is not a natural relation between you and the parts of the world around you that you choose to annex, but a social relation/agreement between you and your fellow citizens to refrain from interfering with the socially-recognized holdings of each other. This agreement is social contract and you agree to it tacitly when you use the system designed (among other things) to protect and honor this agreement.

pagancornflake

Soldie wrote: »

It delegitimises the concept of social contract, which is what we're talking about, right?

I wouldn't go that far Soldie:rolleyes: Whether or not the contract has been breached is a subjective claim (in this instance) on the basis that judgments relating to the speed and efficiency of emergency services are not taking place in a bipolarity (i.e. either they were fast and efficient, or they weren't), rather it is a scale across which peoples opinions will differ-hence the subjectivity.
I would say that hurricane Katrina demonstrates that the government in the US did not live up to its side of the agreement, as it has not in many instances, and that the citizens are in dire need of a system which is better than the bipartisan travesty that they have at the moment.

Joycey

pagancornflake wrote:

You had no right to your pre-tax income in the first place, since your wealth was not generated in a vacuum or by you on your lonesome, but in a social context in which infrastructure and contractual enforcement are supplied for you (which is not cheap to provide).

soldie wrote:

Oh? So who is the rightful owner of the fruits of my labour? Would you consider a 100% income tax to be fair? What you're essentially saying is that I am not entitled to the fruits of my labour due to the fact I may have used, say, a government road (let's ignore the fact that I would have been taxed to build it). How is that logical?

At the risk of distracting you from responding to pcf's other points...

I have some sympathy with the whole "fruits of my labour" thing. I recognise that when somebody labours on something they put a part of themselves into it and that to deprive them of this is a violation of their humanity and as such should be considered unjust.

However what I really dont understand is how we can get from this shared foundation to libertarian's attempting to justify economic conditions whereby someone working, say, in a sweatshop in Taiwan, is creating precisely the same amount "fruit" from their labour as did the founding member of the multinational corporation who now owns the factory (as if there was really such social mobility at any time in human history).

It seems absolutely absurd to me that you can maintain that the wealthy factory owner, who employs a CEO and doesnt actually do any "labouring" which might bear any fruit at all is entitled to reap the "fruits" of the Tawanese worker who is employed at a rate of pay which means that it is economically impossible to obtain enough calories from any given food source on the market to prevent malnutrition, despite working 12 hours a day 7 days a week.

I understand it all goes from "sound" foundational principles of contracts and so on, and this logical coherence from first principles is all very admirable and everything, but do you not sense a slight contradiction between your supposed valuing of the "fruits of labour" and at the same time your preferencing of the context in which the labour was enacted over the act of labour itself, which is supposedly that most holy of moments when I "mix" myself with the natural world and gives my claim of ownership the god-given status it seems to hold in your view?