Libertarians and Consent

[Suddenly]

In the shipwreck thread, I made a statement that any distribution of property and power that is consented to would not violate libertarian principles. This was ratified by shanek and reformulated by Tormac.

This got me thinking, and the smoke from that process has cleared enough for me to see the screen, so....

If consent satifies the core (?) principle of libertarianism, does that make every country that allows it's residents to freely leave pretty much libertarian as the people by not leaving have "consented" to live with that distribution and system?

Or does libertarianism require a certain form of socio-economic system, regardless of their wishes and wants? Wait... that can't be because that would be initiating force.... or maybe not.


Could it be that a country under libertarian rule, where everyone decides they want to abolish ownership of property still be a libertarian country in that it lives up to the central principle of no initiation of force (without consent)?

I guess it boils down to:

Does libertarianism require capitalism, or is it just an assumption (perhaps a well reasoned one?) that any "free" society must be capitalist because people would not consent to abolish property?

 

[shanek]

If consent satifies the core (?) principle of libertarianism, does that make every country that allows it's residents to freely leave pretty much libertarian as the people by not leaving have "consented" to live with that distribution and system?

If you look at it that way, then libertarianism would be a continuum, with the libertarian ideal at one side and your above example on the other.

But the core principle of libertarianism is not consent; it's the non-initiation of force. I could break into your house every night and beat you up, and say, "Hey, if you don't like it, why don't you go somewhere else?"

Or does libertarianism require a certain form of socio-economic system, regardless of their wishes and wants?

Libertarianism does require some kind of system to be put in place to protect against the violation of rights.

Wait... that can't be because that would be initiating force.... or maybe not.

No, it wouldn't. It would only be responding to force, in either a defensive or a retributive fashion.

Does libertarianism require capitalism,

I wouldn't say it requires capitalism, but OTOH I don't see how you could have a libertarian system without capitalism occuring naturally.

Without property, why would people work? Why would they make things? How could they create wealth and improve their lives?

 

[Jude]

Either way, I don't see how living here qualifies as consent. Nobody asked me to pay Social Security in exchange to live here, and I surely didn't sign any contracts that obligated me to.

 

[Cain]

I've made this point in the past. Libertarians are failing to see the free-market of nations.

Either way, I don't see how living here qualifies as consent.

I don't see how being born qualifies as consent. You don't get to choose where you live, of course -- your parents do. And I believe most Libertarians still find justice in that form of paternalism. You may disagree, I suppose. Perhaps playing in traffic is something a small child should do without intervention from some parental authority.

Nobody asked me to pay Social Security in exchange to live here, and I surely didn't sign any contracts that obligated me to.

Initially the government provides you with schooling and limited health-care (without any type of personal expsense). And you're always, always free to leave. (just as I'm free to change masters in the free-market on my own free will).

Here's what will happen -- err, what should happen. All the rugged individuals will not tolerate living under statist control. Some state will identitify and cater to this demographic, reaping huge benefits from such wildly productive persons. If the government gets greedy and creeps toward statism, then another govt. will emerge and offer inducements. It's a self-regulating free-market.

 

[RPG Advocate]

If consent satifies the core (?) principle of libertarianism, does that make every country that allows it's residents to freely leave pretty much libertarian as the people by not leaving have "consented" to live with that distribution and system?

I would say this is true only for immigrants. For people born into the society, the "love it or leave it" deal is an initiation of force in itself, since being born into a society isn't voluntary.

Or does libertarianism require a certain form of socio-economic system, regardless of their wishes and wants? Wait... that can't be because that would be initiating force.... or maybe not.

I think the idea is that the ideal socioeconomic system from a Libretarian perspective is the one that arises naturally out of its own citizens' actions, free of government interference. If that system happened to be socialist, then more power to them. I don't think it would last too long, though (see below).

Could it be that a country under libertarian rule, where everyone decides they want to abolish ownership of property still be a libertarian country in that it lives up to the central principle of no initiation of force (without consent)?

I think they could, but suppose that actually happened. The tragedy of the commons is a huge problem in socialist societies. When those people noticed that their community property was being overused, what do you think they would do?

Does libertarianism require capitalism, or is it just an assumption (perhaps a well reasoned one?) that any "free" society must be capitalist because people would not consent to abolish property?

They might want to abolish property, but may not fully understand the consequences of doing so. Property rights create a "sphere of influence", where acting in one's own self-interest is permissible. When each person uses his proerty to create individual wealth, the wealth of society as a whole grows. With no property rights, creating wealth becomes a hassle, as any action taken on community proprety has to be justified to the community. This stifles wealth creation because there are a lot of items created in our economy that are certainly sources of wealth, but are for a niche market and would most likely be rejected by a community.

 

[Suddenly]

Re: Re: Libertarians and Consent

If you look at it that way, then libertarianism would be a continuum, with the libertarian ideal at one side and your above example on the other.

But the core principle of libertarianism is not consent; it's the non-initiation of force. I could break into your house every night and beat you up, and say, "Hey, if you don't like it, why don't you go somewhere else?"

If I consent to something, it is not an initaition of force.

Your example is flawed because in the group I consent to live in (state of West Vriginia in the U.S.A.) that conduct (break in beat up) is specifically prohibited. There is no consent. If I lived in a group that I knew tolerated that behaviour (break in beat up) and could freely leave and disassociate from the group, my continued presence is consent is it not?

Libertarianism does require some kind of system to be put in place to protect against the violation of rights.

Does that system allow people to consent to give up rights, or does the system force them to keep those rights even if they rationally chose that such rights should be restricted or even waived for the common good?

No, it wouldn't. It would only be responding to force, in either a defensive or a retributive fashion.

The theory of libertarianism requiring a system be put in place is "responding to force"?

I wouldn't say it requires capitalism, but OTOH I don't see how you could have a libertarian system without capitalism occuring naturally.

Without property, why would people work? Why would they make things? How could they create wealth and improve their lives?

I mean, no offense, but your lack of imagination or vision in this regard hardly serves as proof.

I'm guessing you are accepting as true the second clause of my sentence you for some reason snipped, that it is assumed capitalism will follow from libertarian principles. The possible reason for the assumption seems to stem from pragmatism.

Fair enough. That's reasonable.

That does answer the question of whether libertarianism requries capitalism per se.

It doesn't discount or disprove the possibility of other arrangements though, except that such an arrangement is possibly practically impossible. Such a statement would be impossible to prove.

Plus, there are groups of humans that have done just fine without a concept of personal ownership (possession, maybe).

 

[Suddenly]

Either way, I don't see how living here qualifies as consent. Nobody asked me to pay Social Security in exchange to live here, and I surely didn't sign any contracts that obligated me to.

.... and I can't see how, once a person reaches the age of autonomy, and understands the benefits and burdens placed by a particular group, that continued presence within that group and acceptance of the benefits (police protection, lack of british invading, roads, etc.) somehow doesn't signify consent to the rules of that group. Until autonomy is reached, as a practical matter your parent's consent would be operative on you.

 

[Suddenly]

Re: Re: Libertarians and Consent

I would say this is true only for immigrants. For people born into the society, the "love it or leave it" deal is an initiation of force in itself, since being born into a society isn't voluntary.

I think the idea is that the ideal socioeconomic system from a Libretarian perspective is the one that arises naturally out of its own citizens' actions, free of government interference. If that system happened to be socialist, then more power to them. I don't think it would last too long, though (see below).


I think they could, but suppose that actually happened. The tragedy of the commons is a huge problem in socialist societies. When those people noticed that their community property was being overused, what do you think they would do?



They might want to abolish property, but may not fully understand the consequences of doing so. Property rights create a "sphere of influence", where acting in one's own self-interest is permissible. When each person uses his proerty to create individual wealth, the wealth of society as a whole grows. With no property rights, creating wealth becomes a hassle, as any action taken on community proprety has to be justified to the community. This stifles wealth creation because there are a lot of items created in our economy that are certainly sources of wealth, but are for a niche market and would most likely be rejected by a community.

Protecting property rights is without question necessary for rapid economic development. This is why societies that recognozed private property dominated those that didn't. Assuming rapid development is what you want, (and for survival it is) then personal property is important.

My issue is with holding those property rights supreme to other human rights and justifying that on purely theoretical grounds. Protection of property right is can be defended on pragmatic grounds, but so can redistrbutive taxation and other government programs that "take" property. These may slow total growth, but even out the swings that cause the occasional disgusting glitch.

It seems that libertarians have to fall back on pragmatism to justify the high priority given property rights, but then abandon that pragmatism and become idealists when those rights are sought to be compromised for practical purposes. For example, the following that may be a strawman but sure as heck looks like a libertarian to me:

"You must respect private property because that makes us all richer and in the long run promotes the public good"

then later...

"You can't take my property to feed the hungry!!! That is mine!! What gives you the right to do that ...."

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Libertarians and Consent

Does that system allow people to consent to give up rights,

Yes, rights can be waived, but they may be reclaimed again at any time (albeit not without consequences). If I sign a contract saying I will work for you for three years, and I leave after two, your only recourse is to sue me for breach of contract, in which case I would be liable for paying you the amount damaged by my breach of contract. But you could not force me to continue working for you.

The theory of libertarianism requiring a system be put in place is "responding to force"?

What's confusing about it? People are going to initiate force, so there needs to be some system in place to protect and defend them from it!

I mean, no offense, but your lack of imagination or vision in this regard hardly serves as proof.

I'm asking questions. Don't take it out on me if you can't answer them.

I'm guessing you are accepting as true the second clause of my sentence you for some reason snipped, that it is assumed capitalism will follow from libertarian principles.

I responded to that.

It doesn't discount or disprove the possibility of other arrangements though,

Whoever said it did? Any arrangement that does not involve an initiation of force or fraud is permissible under Libertarian principles.

 

[shanek]

.... and I can't see how, once a person reaches the age of autonomy, and understands the benefits and burdens placed by a particular group, that continued presence within that group and acceptance of the benefits (police protection, lack of british invading, roads, etc.) somehow doesn't signify consent to the rules of that group.

And just where do you propose that person goes? Where does someone who believes in the principles of liberty and freedom above all else go when America no longer stands for this?

This is the place we're supposed to go to be free. Our ancestors did exactly what you suggested: They came to this place and forged a new nation conceived in liberty. This is the place you're supposed to go if you want to excape government tyranny, socialism, or other forms of interference in your life.

You want socialized medicine? Move to Canada. You want a socialist welfare state? Interventionist foreign policies? State religions? There are any number of places you can go in the world to have those things provided by the government.

THIS is supposed to be the land of the free. So if YOU don't like it, why don't YOU move???

(Sorry, but this whole "if you don't like it why don't you leave" crap just sets me off...)

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Libertarians and Consent

My issue is with holding those property rights supreme to other human rights

Who's doing that?

 

[Suddenly]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Libertarians and Consent

Yes, rights can be waived, but they may be reclaimed again at any time (albeit not without consequences). If I sign a contract saying I will work for you for three years, and I leave after two, your only recourse is to sue me for breach of contract, in which case I would be liable for paying you the amount damaged by my breach of contract. But you could not force me to continue working for you.

As a legal matter, you have the power to break a contract, but not the "legal" right. Our legal system doesn't force performance of a "personal service" contract at first because judging non-consensual good faith is more trouble than it is worth, and later because of general slavery (13th amendment) concerns. This doesn't mean you have the "right" not to work as it does that the system has refused to enforce any "right" I have to make you work. In my eyes this fact is more an indictment of libertarianism than support for it.

What's confusing about it? People are going to initiate force, so there needs to be some system in place to protect and defend them from it!

Sounds like a pre-emptive attack. This concept of "non initation" of force you speak of is getting more and more flexable all the time...

I'm asking questions. Don't take it out on me if you can't answer them.

[/B] It wasn't an insult, just a statement of fact. That you can't imagine or comprehend something doesn't make it so. Calm down.

I responded to that.



Whoever said it did? Any arrangement that does not involve an initiation of force or fraud is permissible under Libertarian principles.

I was just curious if capitalism was a necessary aspect of libertarianism, or just a likely result. I'm actually curious about your opinion. That's all. Calm down.

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Libertarians and Consent

This doesn't mean you have the "right" not to work as it does that the system has refused to enforce any "right" I have to make you work.

No, it just means I have to compensate you for my refusal to work. You still can't hold me to service.

In my eyes this fact is more an indictment of libertarianism than support for it.

Why?

Sounds like a pre-emptive attack.

Who is being attacked? If I carry a gun for defense, that's not an attack. It's not actually used as a tool of force until someone initiates force on me.

It wasn't an insult, just a statement of fact. That you can't imagine or comprehend something doesn't make it so.

And the fact that you can't answer my questions doesn't make it not so.

Why don't you just answer the questions?

I was just curious if capitalism was a necessary aspect of libertarianism, or just a likely result.

As I've already said, it's the latter.

 

[RPG Advocate]

Re: Re: Re: Libertarians and Consent

My issue is with holding those property rights supreme to other human rights and justifying that on purely theoretical grounds. Protection of property right is can be defended on pragmatic grounds, but so can redistrbutive taxation and other government programs that "take" property. These may slow total growth, but even out the swings that cause the occasional disgusting glitch.

It seems that libertarians have to fall back on pragmatism to justify the high priority given property rights, but then abandon that pragmatism and become idealists when those rights are sought to be compromised for practical purposes. For example, the following that may be a strawman but sure as heck looks like a libertarian to me:

"You must respect private property because that makes us all richer and in the long run promotes the public good"

then later...

"You can't take my property to feed the hungry!!! That is mine!! What gives you the right to do that ...."

Thanks. Now I've got a better idea of where you're coming from.

I think the Libretarian position on this point is that individuals and other private sector entities will fill the role that TANF and similar programs do now. The benefit of this type of system would be that individuals could direct their money to whatever causes they see fit, rather than having some (most?) of their tax dollars go to pork like subsidizing some farmer in Podunk Town USA.

Of course, like you, I'm not 100% sure this kind of system would hold up in the real world. I recently started volunteering my time to teach reading. The literacy council says they've been short of volunteers for years. If the poor or otherwise disadvantaged had to rely solely on the goodwill of the private sector, who is to say these shortages wouldn't be universal?

Personally, I think the answer is to drastically shrink the government (but not quite as much as Libretarians want to) and provide government assistance only for items that preserve basic rights, such as the right to life, reasonable health, basic shelter, etc. Such assistance should be rendered directly in the form of goods and services rather than money, so that those who don't need them will be less likely to abuse them. Government handouts to corporations should end. Outrageous foreign aid and war spending needs to stop. If the cuts were done right, I bet we could make it so that only 5% of my income is taken in taxes instead of 30%. I can dream, can't I?

EDIT: I want to ask shanek about this directly. What happens when the private sector fails to direct enough resources toward the poor to sustain the rights Suddenly mentions? What if market conditions dictate that it wouldn't be profitable to provde those resources? In this case, is there a moral duty that trumps economic duties, such as a fiduciary duty to stockholders?

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Libertarians and Consent

If the poor or otherwise disadvantaged had to rely solely on the goodwill of the private sector, who is to say these shortages wouldn't be universal?

You're failing to consider the fact that the government takes about half of the National Income in taxes. This robs people of many of the resources they would have to put toward charitable work.

What happens when the private sector fails to direct enough resources toward the poor to sustain the rights Suddenly mentions? What if market conditions dictate that it wouldn't be profitable to provde those resources?

It isn't about being profitable. Charity doesn't work by being profitable. Charity doesn't exist for profit. Profit doesn't enter into it. Once you stop pretending that people in the private sector are motivated solely by profit, then a lot of Libertarianism starts to make more sense.

In this case, is there a moral duty that trumps economic duties, such as a fiduciary duty to stockholders?

WHOSE moral duty? Do you have a moral duty to hold someone up at gunpoint and take their money if you see someone starving in the streets? Does the fact that the money went to help someone make up for the fact that you stole it?

 

[Suddenly]

I just returned from a wedding, an ethinic wedding to be exact and I'm a bit ... well ... I'm f*ck*ng hammered. If history holds, my reasoning will not suffer much, but the "filtering system" has gone bye bye. Plus, my spelling has possibly gotten worse, as at this point screw dictionary.com. (Did I mention I'm dyslexic? No? Think nothing of it....) Think of it as my "Pillory period." I need a drink .... mmmm .... Makers Mark....

And just where do you propose that person goes? Where does someone who believes in the principles of liberty and freedom above all else go when America no longer stands for this?

America doesn't stand for freedom? Well, I'm turning you in to John Ashcroft. Have fun in Cuba sucker.... (Is there a connection between alcohol and elipses... calling DeBunk...?

This is the place we're supposed to go to be free. Our ancestors did exactly what you suggested: They came to this place and forged a new nation conceived in liberty. This is the place you're supposed to go if you want to excape government tyranny, socialism, or other forms of interference in your life.

Shanek believes advertising. What a rube... ha ha ha. O.K. Seriously though. If you define socialism as "something to come to America to escape" you really can't be considered exactly a stable source on whether socialism has social utility. Could you be any more brainlessly jingoistic? What if I said people come to America to escape the tyranny of the concentration of wealth through political sysytems that too heavily defended property rights and wound up in functional feudalism.

You want socialized medicine? Move to Canada. You want a socialist welfare state? Interventionist foreign policies? State religions? There are any number of places you can go in the world to have those things provided by the government.

Yeah!!! You want a libertarian system? Move to ...... hmmmm... Funny. No one does this? Well. Hmmm. Does this mean that this is a stupid unworkable system that leads to uglyness, or is there some kind of worldwide conspiracy? Isn't there some kind of razor to deal with this sort of thing??

THIS is supposed to be the land of the free. So if YOU don't like it, why don't YOU move???

I like it here. I think most of what goes on is rational. There are some people with a strange idea of what "free" means, but that is their perrogitive. (whoops. That is spelled wrong. Call Bobby Brown.)

(Sorry, but this whole "if you don't like it why don't you leave" crap just sets me off...)

I like to think of it as advising people to utilize the "free market of nations,"

 

[Suddenly]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Libertarians and Consent

Who's doing that?

Saying property rights are supeme to the rights of others to the assets they need to survive. I'm going to say you or otherwise the answer to that first shipwreck hypo may have been different (you wouldnt have had to swim). Unless that is a right you would hold superior to property rights, in that case.

You commie you!!!

 

[Suddenly]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Libertarians and Consent

No, it just means I have to compensate you for my refusal to work. You still can't hold me to service.

Like I said, this is true, but you are misusing terms. If a contract is for a sale of real property, and you breach, I am enititled to "specific performance" and you have to convey the property. Period. If the contract is for personal property, you can be made to deliver title in certain circumstances, such as if the property is unique. In these cases you have no "right" to breach, as you will be forced to perform. This is first year law school stuff. Contracts for personal services are not specifically enforced due mostly to practical considerations. Thus, economic damages are awarded. Performance is not forced not because you can withdraw consent to the contract, but because 1) forcing performance of performance is impractical and 2) 13th amendment considerations in that it makes the government nervous to force anyone to do anything.

This does not mean that the contact holder does not have a right to force you to perform, rather that the state will not enforce that right as a matter of policy.

Why?

Why is this an idictment of libertarianism? Because the government is abrogating a consensual relationship and the rights exchanged thereof for reasons that relate to the general welfare. It is more socialist than libertarian. It admits that people should be let out of their agreements for reasons of the common good.

I was just curious if capitalism was a necessary aspect of libertarianism, or just a likely result.

As I've already said, it's the latter.

Yes. I was recognizing the answer. Thanks for the response.

 

[shanek]

(Did I mention I'm dyslexic? No? Think nothing of it....)

Dyslexics of the world, UNTIE!!!!

America doesn't stand for freedom?

At various points in its history, America has stood for: slavery, the Native American holocaust, Prohibition, the internment of Japanese Americans, McCarthyism, and now the War on Drugs, the Patriot Act, and various forms of jingoism. All of these ideas are completely antithetical to the idea of a free nation.

Could you be any more brainlessly jingoistic?

Maybe this is the booze talking...How can anything I've said possibly be considered to be in any way jingoistic?

Read the freakin' Constitution, man! This country was founded to be a place where you can go to be free and prosper. That's why the people of France (not the government of France, despite what you may have been taught in the government schools) voluntarily raised the money to build the Statue of Liberty and ship it to the US as a gift. It's not the Statue of Anti-Concentration of Wealth; it's not the Statue of the Welfare State; it's not the Statue of the Interventionist Police State; it's not the Statue of Redistributive Taxation, or any of those other things...It's the Statue of Liberty. That's why America became admired the world over. And it's why our slow movement away from liberty has caused us to not be quite so well admired anymore.

Yeah!!! You want a libertarian system? Move to ...... hmmmm... Funny. No one does this?

America is supposed to be doing this.

Does this mean that this is a stupid unworkable system that leads to uglyness,

No, it means that government is going to try and take power whenever it can. Once the door got opened to the government being able to do certain things against the Constitution, it expanded from there. It was inevitable.

That's why, whatever its flaws may be, the first step should be getting the government shackled by the chains of the Constitution again.

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Libertarians and Consent

Saying property rights are supeme to the rights of others to the assets they need to survive.

When did I say that?