Libertarianism

[ClearWest]

I agree, August. This idea seems as naive as Communism, where everybody works hard out of the goodness of their heart and shares equally in the bounty society gives them.

No, no, no. That's just the thing. In Libertarianism no one has to contribute anything! There is no force. No government directing people's every action. However, capitalism (and, yes, Libertarianism) implies that people will work to serve themselves, first--and at the same time they serve others.

When a baker gets up at 5:30 to bake his bread it's not because he's forced to in order to feed the public. He doesn't even necessarily do it out of the goodness of his heart. But he does it because of the incentive for profit, and in serving himself, he also serves the public because they benefit from his works by purchasing the bread.

Take the consumers--they do not buy the baker's bread because they are forced to (as in communism), they buy it because they think it's a better deal than the other guy who sells bread down the street. Take the labourer--he doesn't work because he is forced to, but because he likes the benefit that he gets from payment--yet at the same time he is benefitting others by doing the work that is necessary to be done!

The point is that communism is force--Libertarianism is freedom.

Human nature shows that people are a mix of bad and good attributes.

I agree. Some may not care that their road is deteriorating. Some will, and will want to do something about it. The power of the individual is great.

"Worked well" is a subjective statement. It's a system that's designed to be imperfect because that's the cheapest and most practical way to administer it. You look at a system that admittedly has flaws and declare that it needs to be completely destroyed.

Cheapest and most practical? Socialism? I would dispute that as well.

In fact, the amount of time and money people would have to spend on managing these things would probably be more than we pay in taxes now, even with the waste in the system. Would you expect volunteers to manage and direct everything that government does now ?

When governments put services in place, they take money from the taxpayer to administer the service. They run on stolen funds, to them it is nearly unlimited. They have no incentive to run things efficiently. They aren't wasting their own money, they are wasting other people's money.

A private business is run on voluntary funds, usually from investors initially, but ultimately from customers. They can't waste money, because they won't get any further investment.

This is why governments constantly run deficits, and businesses constantly run surpluses. That's why we see that it costs less money per classroom in a private school than it does in a public school--And private schools are usually higher standards of education! What's up with that? Government waste, beurocratic stangleholds on the system.

I'm not implying that volunteers run everything. I mean things will be done voluntary, as in not regulated or enforced. Voluntary could mean out of the goodness of your own heart, or out of personal interests--rather than out of force and regulation and fearmongering.

What about corporations ? They exist in a very unnatural way - unattached to any individual, limited in their responsibility. Doesn't that special status give them an advantage over normal citizens ?

It does, thanks to government regulation saying that corporations are people under the law. It is governments that gave corporations human status. My personal philosophy is one of individual responsibility--not corporate responsibility. A corporation, like a government, is an entity or group, not an individual. And so they should not have responsibilities. To quote Milton Friedman concerning the corporation: "Can a building have morals?" Can a building have responsibilities? No. But the people within the building ARE responsible for their actions. It should be the same with corporations and governments. That way, instead of a 'corporation' just being fined for damages done, whatever individual commited the crime will be responsible. And if there is a chain of command system, then whoever commanded the person to commit the crime will be responsible.

[ClearWest]

Marriage, longterm employment contracts, parenthood come quickly to mind.

None of these appear to me as needing forced direction from government. People can marry whom they want, they can make employment deals, and parent and raise children without interference or direction.

The judicial system including property and contract law is also one that requires forced (obligatory) membership.

The only thing that is a necessary rule, within Libertarianism, is that people respect each other's lives, liberties, and properties. Sometimes a mediator is necessary to work out disputes, (as in the judicial system) but ONLY with the approval of both parties beforehand! So it still isn't force.

Many insurance schemes including health, welfare, pension and even auto work probably better with forced membership.

We could argue the merits of voluntary or involuntary relations in the cases above. At heart, the discussion would concern why someone would freely commit themselves now to an involuntary relationship in the future. (A question Paul McCartney is no doubt asking himself at this very moment.)

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. How can you 'freely' commit yourself to an 'involuntary' relationship. It sounds like an oxymoron.

I watched part of the flash presentation linked above and I found it to be too self-engaged. Like religious fanatics, it pretends to have an answer for everything. I think it is better to be pragmatic when discussing social organization.

It's based on simple principles which allow and include any other principles which someone wishes to live by. (Except those that involve force or fraud). It's the most moral and fair way for a society to function. You can ask anyone what their standards/lifestyle entails, and it will have a place in Libertarianism--unlike in today's socialist and often fascist 'democracy', where there are thousands and thousands of rules and regulation which limit potential, suffocate innovation, and oppress the free. Libertarianism would end this.

[ClearWest]

Democracy is the root of all social decision making in this country and that will/should never change. If the 'masses' want their socialist values reflected in the gov't then there is nothing your or I could do about it.

Because Majority shouldn't rule! In a democracy there is always a minority who is opposed to what the majority wants. Do they not matter? 51% of people could vote that the other 49% be shot. Is that fair to you? I guess as long as you're in the majority it would be just fine and dandy. But if you're in a minority on a particular issue, then you're basically oppressed by the majority's will.

That's why I stand by the principles reflected in the Libertarianism Animation that you all watched--it is a way for society to function without a minority being forced by a majority (democracy) or a majority being forced by a minority (aristocracy, beurocracy). So, really, democracy is just a mirror image of tyranny. There's just a larger group in power. And, quite often, the larger group usually gives its 'power' to a smaller group anyways! Thus we have the beurocracy that exists in the senate and the house of commons.

Democracy--it's not much different from the other tyrannies that existed throughout history. The only difference is--we get to choose our tyrants.

[August1991]

Marriage, longterm employment contracts, parenthood come quickly to mind.

None of these appear to me as needing forced direction from government. People can marry whom they want, they can make employment deals, and parent and raise children without interference or direction.

I'll stop you there ClearWest because while I admire your curiousity for this topic, you would be wise to think a little more about what is involved in human relations.

Marriage, longterm employment contracts, parenthood do not require government but they do amount to voluntary acceptance of future coercion (what you refer to as an oxymoron). IOW, they require commitment.

When two people marry, or someone has a child, it is impossible to know all the events that can happen in the future. The only way two people would accept to enter into such a "voluntary" contract (such as marriage) is if they make a commitment to be coerced in the future, in ways that are unknowable now.

Government is a similar institution for forming relationships between people. It is not as good as voluntary market relations but when those fail, government is better than no relationship at all.

The only thing that is a necessary rule, within Libertarianism, is that people respect each other's lives, liberties, and properties.

Until they divorce...

That's just the thing. In Libertarianism no one has to contribute anything! There is no force. No government directing people's every action.

Why do I suspect streetlights wouldn't get installed unless someone is forced to do it?

[Riverwind]

Democracy--it's not much different from the other tyrannies that existed throughout history. The only difference is--we get to choose our tyrants.

So how exactly you you plan to replace the 'tyranny of democracy' with your 'tyranny of the individual'? Organize a military coup?

[ClearWest]

Riverwind,

So how exactly you you plan to replace the 'tyranny of democracy' with your 'tyranny of the individual'? Organize a military coup?

Tyranny is absolute power over other people. Individuals in Libertarianism do not have power over others, so it is in no way tyranny. But in reference to a change being made from democractic socialism to libertarianism--I don't anticipate a revolution. I believe it can be done peacefully. Through talking and sharing ideas, as we are doing here on the Message Board. To do it forcefully would be compromising the fundamental libertarian principles.

August,

I'll stop you there ClearWest because while I admire your curiousity for this topic, you would be wise to think a little more about what is involved in human relations.

Marriage, longterm employment contracts, parenthood do not require government but they do amount to voluntary acceptance of future coercion (what you refer to as an oxymoron). IOW, they require commitment.

I agree. But that commitment is between the individuals being married, not between the individuals and the government.

When two people marry, or someone has a child, it is impossible to know all the events that can happen in the future. The only way two people would accept to enter into such a "voluntary" contract (such as marriage) is if they make a commitment to be coerced in the future, in ways that are unknowable now.

I'm assuming you're referring to the property division between a divorced couple? I think that this can in most cases be worked out between the two people. If, for whatever reason (usually emotional stress) that they cannot negotiate such terms on their own, they can hire representatives (lawyers) to make the negotiations for them. Or they can both agree on a trusted mediator to settle the case for them. There is no need for government force to step in.

Government is a similar institution for forming relationships between people. It is not as good as voluntary market relations but when those fail, government is better than no relationship at all.

Maybe I misunderstand your point, but I really don't think it's necessary for government to conduct people's personal relationships. Is that what you're implying? Because I'm sure I can get a date without the government-- Please clarify if that's not what you meant.

Why do I suspect streetlights wouldn't get installed unless someone is forced to do it?

Private roads will, of course, do their best to look after their customers--drivers in this case. So they would no doubt put up streetlights without force.

But that doesn't mean we have to make roads a consumer industry, complete with tollbooths and etc. A neighbourhood can collectively (and voluntarily) work together to pay for and organize the streetlight installation.

[Riverwind]

I believe it can be done peacefully. Through talking and sharing ideas, as we are doing here on the Message Board. To do it forcefully would be compromising the fundamental libertarian principles.

But talk means nothing if it does not eventually result in changes to the legal and constitutional structure of the country. The only way that can be done is by using the 'tyranny of the majority' to force Libertarianism on people who don't want it and then preventing the opponents from using the same democratic mechanisms to change the institutions back to something that they are happy with. It is quite a contradiction to are advocating.

In other words, coersion is an inescapable part of human society and the best we can hope for is a system that properly balances individual freedoms and the needs of society.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear ClearWest,

I urge your to read through the 'Tyrrany[sic] vs democracy" thread.

However, just imagine life becoming a big game of monopoly. (It is now, but pure capitalism is fettered by monopoly laws...you aren't allowed to win)

Now imagine Adolf Hitler becoming the world's richest man.

Or, imagine I do. I buy the Coquihalla Highway in BC, and Roger's pass. In fact, all of the mountain passes. And a huge spread of land, say the Okanagan valley, and I want no trespassers. It would be my right to do so, and if I had enough money, it wouldn't matter who got screwed. (And to think that BHS proposed that 'charity' was irrational in a market system...he ain't got nothing on Howard Hughes!)How many others of the (30+million) 'nations of one' would stand for it before they banded together and forced their way through?

Libertarians claim 'every individual has the right to forcefully defend their property'. So, too, did individuals have the 'right' to defend themselves against the Mongol Hordes. Yet individuals don't fare well against hordes.

The animated intro claims that Libertarians are free to choose a leader, yet what about when they don't agree 100% with that leader in the future? Then they must be free to withdraw, and any notion of 'leadership' will be forever impotent.

Libertarianism breeds chaos and anarchy. Not because of it's own theory, but because that is the way people are.

While we're at it, ClearWest, what is a 'right'? How do 'rights' come into existence? I'll tell you. They are given to the individual by those with enough force to make it otherwise.

[ClearWest]

But talk means nothing if it does not eventually result in changes to the legal and constitutional structure of the country. The only way that can be done is by using the 'tyranny of the majority' to force Libertarianism on people who don't want it and then preventing the opponents from using the same democratic mechanisms to change the institutions back to something that they are happy with. It is quite a contradiction to are advocating.

In other words, coersion is an inescapable part of human society and the best we can hope for is a system that properly balances individual freedoms and the needs of society.

I disagree. Unlike the populists, I don't believe in forcing my will or philosophies on others. I just examin the world as I see it, and share my observations with others. If they see what I see, then hopefully we'll eventually be able to make some changes.

But I see what you're saying--If we're using democracy to change our nations policies, we are still using force--whether it leads to Libertarianism or not. Still, I think the action is justified because we are still using their system, and we're a working to change it to a non-force system so that eventually we will not have to use their system. It's the only peaceful way I can think of to do it--unless I refuse to pay taxes and boycott all government services. Which might work for awhile, but the government would eventually lock me up--thus destroying my life. Then again--Give me liberty, or give me death, right? I'm not sure. But for now, I think working within the system to change the system is the best way.

However, just imagine life becoming a big game of monopoly. (It is now, but pure capitalism is fettered by monopoly laws...you aren't allowed to win)

Now imagine Adolf Hitler becoming the world's richest man.

He still wouldn't be allowed to take the lives, liberty, and property of others, as he did when he was in government. Who will enforce this? Miniarchist Libertarians would say our military--I would say individuals. The massive numbers of Jews wouldn't have been killed if they hadn't been rounded up in the first place (an act of force by government), and they wouldn't have been able to be rounded up if the government hadn't forbidden Jews from keeping firearms. They would have been able to defend themselves and resist the SS before they got so powerful.

Or, imagine I do. I buy the Coquihalla Highway in BC, and Roger's pass. In fact, all of the mountain passes. And a huge spread of land, say the Okanagan valley, and I want no trespassers. It would be my right to do so, and if I had enough money, it wouldn't matter who got screwed. (And to think that BHS proposed that 'charity' was irrational in a market system...he ain't got nothing on Howard Hughes!)How many others of the (30+million) 'nations of one' would stand for it before they banded together and forced their way through?

Anyone making that big of an investment wouldn't want to let it go to waste. They would want to make at least some of their money back--thus they would likely open it up for the public in some way.

Libertarians claim 'every individual has the right to forcefully defend their property'. So, too, did individuals have the 'right' to defend themselves against the Mongol Hordes. Yet individuals don't fare well against hordes.

This is a good point. If I felt that my rights were under threat from a horde, I would call the people I trust to come help me out--organize a local militia. We would do our best. This might be another case and point for a national military, but still I would hope that would be a rare occurance.

The animated intro claims that Libertarians are free to choose a leader, yet what about when they don't agree 100% with that leader in the future? Then they must be free to withdraw, and any notion of 'leadership' will be forever impotent.

This would probably encourage the leader to serve his followers well--he would be less likely to abuse his power over them.

Libertarianism breeds chaos and anarchy. Not because of it's own theory, but because that is the way people are.

Wow, deep statement. Is there a problem with the way people are? The way we think, act, behave. In my deeper moments I've wondered whether or not people were ready for Libertarianism. Could they handle making choices for themselves after being enslaved by an all-powerful government for centuries? Can they really survive on their own, or do they need a nanny state to look after them? Are people smart enough to look after themselves? At first my answer was no--but then I realized that I had come to the same conclusion that the biggest tyrants in history have come to. Isn't that where it all starts? Thinking that people can't look after themselves, thinking that your ways are better. That they can benefit from your influence.

My final conclusion is this; people may not always make the right choices--but the important thing is that they have the freedom to choose. Because governments don't always make the right choices either, and they affect many more people with their choices than an individual does with his or her personal choices.

While we're at it, ClearWest, what is a 'right'? How do 'rights' come into existence? I'll tell you. They are given to the individual by those with enough force to make it otherwise.

I must say, I love how deep these discussions get sometimes. My philosophy is different from yours, however. I don't think rights are given to us at all--I think that we are born with them--they exist naturally, but they are sometimes taken away by others. We can only maintain our own rights when we are allowed to defend them ourselves.

Politicians argue over which rights people should and shouldn't have. The rights to healthcare, the rights to water, etc. They only result in more regulation and the taking of someone's rights to give to another (due to these things being paid for through taxation). I think that the only rights that a person can have without interfering with another person's rights are the rights to Life, Liberty, and Property. You can live and let live. You can be free and let others be free. And you can own stuff and let others own stuff. (Property is a right that is obviously debated among philosophers. One of my favourite anarchist philosophers--Proudhon--once stated that 'Property is theft'. But I would argue that property is the product of your life and liberty. And if your right to property does not exist, then your rights to life and liberty soon become less meaningful, and less worth seeking--because you will never see the results of your rights, or the fruits of your labour.)

I don't think Libertarianism was inspired by God or anything--but I think that it was formulated by people who have observed history and various philosophies and morals and economic logics. And they have concluded that this is the fairest way to do it. It is a philosophy which includes everyone. A group of socialists who wish to live collectively may do so. A group of conservatives who wish to practice their traditional values may do so. Just don't force these things on others and it can all work.

[Riverwind]

Still, I think the action is justified because we are still using their system, and we're a working to change it to a non-force system so that eventually we will not have to use their system.

The problem is you will never be able to get rid of the 'system' without using coercion. Too many people believe in the principal of democracy to simply give it up. Libertarians would likely spark a civil war if they used the powers granted to them by democracy to take away democratic rights from the minority. Especially since many people see the Libertarianism as nothing more than glorified feudalism where the minority of rich land owners set the rules that everyone else must follow (i.e. taking away democratic rights would make it extremely easy to paint Libertarians as an 'evil' that must be fought).

Democracy is not perfect but it the best system we have and it is the best way to ensure peaceful co-existance with a minimum of coercion.

[Pliny]

Dear Pliny,

The fact is that anything the government does can be better done by the private sector.

Not all, I'm afraid. At the administration level, I'll agree. As to the passing of laws and allocation of individual rights, it should never be in the hands of someone with more self-interest than interest in the group.

Many Canadians don't see Canada as being socialistic.

Not sure about whom you are talking, for everyone I know harbours no such illusions.

I agree that the making of laws and the allocation of individual rights should never be in the hands of someone with more self-interest than interest in the group.

There are several levels of government. A federal government in my view has no business engineering society. It can't know what every group or individual wants and it can't deliver what every group or individual wants, except in a very broad sense as may regard the nation as a whole, and once it starts granting favour to one over another it can no longer deliver justice. Once it cannot deliver justice it has no right to make laws or form government. We, in western society, passed that point a long time ago.

As I said before I am not an anarchist although I feel it a better utopian ideal to strive for than the socialistic ideal of state totalitarianism - where, incidentally, one or maybe even a few, reach the anarchistic Utopian ideal.

"Everyone you know harbours no such illusions." Well, as long as they don't support the current level of socialism you are in good company, I guess. Most people I talk to do support it but don't think we are a particularly socialist country.

[Pliny]

The fact is that anything the government does can be better done by the private sector. And no, volunteers would not do what government does now.

Right, I forgot the successful past of private police? Private military? Private national/provincial parks? Private fire departments?

Let's be realistic, the government has a place.

Private police - Pinkertons was quite successful until policing was taken over by the state.

Private military - Mercenaries were used to fight a lot of wars.

Private national/provincial parks is an oxymoron. If they were national or provincial that would imply they were public. Disneyland and Disneyworld are successful and popular private parks.

Private fire departments - most were volunteer fire departments. I suppose if there were enough fires the community would hire someone to be on alert all the time.

There is a place for government, in my view, but not running my life with laws it doesn't understand and can't explain to me and are basically unjust. Do I not deserve the same treatment under the law as any other law-abiding citizen in Canada? If you agree then tell me why the percentage is different on my income tax than someone elses? I'm sorry but our current tax laws are about favour and privilege of some over others, not fairness or justness. Social "compassion" is the job of the society, not government.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Pliny,

Social "compassion" is the job of the society, not government

I would agree on the point with regard to income tax, but the trade off would be exchanging gov't power back to 'private organizations' like the Church.

Well, as long as they don't support the current level of socialism you are in good company, I guess. Most people I talk to do support it but don't think we are a particularly socialist country.

Socialism is basically 'taxation from everyone for the benefit of everyone', though some disagree with the allocation of benefits. Really, it is any system that has between 1-99% taxation. "You are are allowed to keep some of the fruits of your labour, but not all". Or, "You can ride in the 'vehicle of society', but, as the old bumper sticker says, "Gas, grass or ass...nobody rides for free".

A couple of points...

Private military - Mercenaries were used to fight a lot of wars.

Mercs have no need of laws, nor restraint, and their loyalty lasts as long as their paycheque, sometimes less.

Private police - Pinkertons was quite successful until policing was taken over by the state.

Private police will only uphold the laws, and therefore the individual rights, as decided by someone else. The Nazi SS and SA were a 'private police force'.

[ClearWest]

Riverwind,

The problem is you will never be able to get rid of the 'system' without using coercion. Too many people believe in the principal of democracy to simply give it up. Libertarians would likely spark a civil war if they used the powers granted to them by democracy to take away democratic rights from the minority.

Especially since many people see the Libertarianism as nothing more than glorified feudalism where the minority of rich land owners set the rules that everyone else must follow (i.e. taking away democratic rights would make it extremely easy to paint Libertarians as an 'evil' that must be fought).

If that's what people think then I guess people aren't ready for this philosophy--but they can be ready with more education, and further discussion of the ideas. I think one day enough people will be for it and not against it. Until then I will not force it on them.

I think the Libertarian party would get into parliament only one or two seats at a time--so they wouldn't have extraordinary power. They would only be able to be voices for liberty, speaking up about non-force non-regulation non-government solutions. This will eventually spark change, and hopefully people will beging thinking differently and demanding LESS government.

[August1991]

I'll stop you there ClearWest because while I admire your curiousity for this topic, you would be wise to think a little more about what is involved in human relations.

Marriage, longterm employment contracts, parenthood do not require government but they do amount to voluntary acceptance of future coercion (what you refer to as an oxymoron). IOW, they require commitment.

I agree. But that commitment is between the individuals being married, not between the individuals and the government.

The commitment two people make when they marry is similar to the kind of commitment citizens make between each other through government.

In theory, you could try to imitate marriage by a series of entirely voluntary, contingency contracts but you would quickly find yourself in negotiations for the rest of eternity. There are too many imponderables. So, you sign a marriage contract that merely says you will commit, and you put yourself on the line.

Why do people getting married do this? Because the alternative is far worse.

One could ask a similar question about why people voluntarily accept to commit to a government.

When two people marry, or someone has a child, it is impossible to know all the events that can happen in the future. The only way two people would accept to enter into such a "voluntary" contract (such as marriage) is if they make a commitment to be coerced in the future, in ways that are unknowable now.

I'm assuming you're referring to the property division between a divorced couple? I think that this can in most cases be worked out between the two people. If, for whatever reason (usually emotional stress) that they cannot negotiate such terms on their own, they can hire representatives (lawyers) to make the negotiations for them. Or they can both agree on a trusted mediator to settle the case for them. There is no need for government force to step in.

Government mediation has nothing to do with this. I am saying that the relationship bewteen two people through the institution of marriage is similar to the relationship bewteen many citizens through the institution of government. The comparison is apt: alimony is very much like a tax.

Government is a similar institution for forming relationships between people. It is not as good as voluntary market relations but when those fail, government is better than no relationship at all.

Maybe I misunderstand your point, but I really don't think it's necessary for government to conduct people's personal relationships. Is that what you're implying? Because I'm sure I can get a date without the government-- Please clarify if that's not what you meant.

ClearWest, that comment made me laugh! Governments are intrinsically involved in our relationships with others. Indeed, that is the point of the whole thread. (Human relationships are not limited to finding a suitable partner to go to the movies on Saturday night.)

A neighbourhood can collectively (and voluntarily) work together to pay for and organize the streetlight installation.

Colectively and voluntarily? Really? What's your scheme. I'm all ears.

[August1991]

Democracy is not perfect but it the best system we have and it is the best way to ensure peaceful co-existance with a minimum of coercion.

I'll disagree. Representative democracy is an arbitrary way to appoint a temporary tyranny.

Voluntary market relations achieve the best possible outcome for the individual living in society (and this conclusion leads to the basic argument in favour of Libertarianism). Unfortunately, such market relations are often not possible. Then, we turn to other institutions such as marriage, government or corporations to deal with others.

Government is a draconian institution and we have learned over time to circumscribe it. One way is to change government every so often. We call this democracy. But even democratic governments are far from the better solution of voluntary market relations.

[Riverwind]

Voluntary market relations achieve the best possible outcome for the individual living in society (and this conclusion leads to the basic argument in favour of Libertarianism). Unfortunately, such market relations are often not possible.

That is the entire point: voluntary market relations are nothing more than a theory that is useful to explain how things work but absolutely useless if you want to create a real society. When physics is taught in school students are often told to ignore friction and air resistance when solving the problems. This means the answers the students are calculating are wrong and but they gain a better understanding of physics by solving these problems and producing 'wrong' answers.

Trying to create a real society based on voluntary market relations is like designing an airplane based on the physics taught in high school. Both projects are doomed to failure because they ignore the messy details introduced by reality.

But even democratic governments are far from the better solution of voluntary market relations.

Hydrogen power may be a better way to power vehicles but the practical realities make gas (oil or vegetable based) or electricity the only options in the real world.

[ClearWest]

August,

The commitment two people make when they marry is similar to the kind of commitment citizens make between each other through government.

Two people can make an agreement without involving the government. My stance is that government shouldn't be involved in marriage, and they shouldn't be involved in many other things.

In theory, you could try to imitate marriage by a series of entirely voluntary, contingency contracts but you would quickly find yourself in negotiations for the rest of eternity. There are too many imponderables. So, you sign a marriage contract that merely says you will commit, and you put yourself on the line.

Why do people getting married do this? Because the alternative is far worse.

Prenuptial Agreements. That's all you gotta do. It says not only that you will commit, but it often outlines arrangements for property division in case of divorce. Thus, there is no need for alimony.

One could ask a similar question about why people voluntarily accept to commit to a government.

Government mediation has nothing to do with this. I am saying that the relationship bewteen two people through the institution of marriage is similar to the relationship bewteen many citizens through the institution of government. The comparison is apt: alimony is very much like a tax.

The difference is that people choose whom they marry. They don't choose their government. Democracy or not, I didn't ask Stephen Harper and his cabinet to take my money and use it the way they're using it. So I don't have a choice.

Government is a similar institution for forming relationships between people. It is not as good as voluntary market relations but when those fail, government is better than no relationship at all.

Maybe I misunderstand your point, but I really don't think it's necessary for government to conduct people's personal relationships. Is that what you're implying? Because I'm sure I can get a date without the government-- Please clarify if that's not what you meant.

ClearWest, that comment made me laugh! Governments are intrinsically involved in our relationships with others. Indeed, that is the point of the whole thread. (Human relationships are not limited to finding a suitable partner to go to the movies on Saturday night.)

My point is that you don't need a government to organize human relationships. What sort of human relationships are you referring to that need government dictation?

A neighbourhood can collectively (and voluntarily) work together to pay for and organize the streetlight installation.

Colectively and voluntarily? Really? What's your scheme. I'm all ears.

Someone notices that the streetlight needs replacing (or that a streetlight is needed), they raise awareness in the community, they raise money to pay for the streetlight. They pay to have it installed by a private company. Again, no government (force) required. Everyone who uses the road agrees to obey the traffic rules involving the streetlight. If there is a problem with people breaking these rules, a private security guard can be hired to maintain order on the road.

[August1991]

The commitment two people make when they marry is similar to the kind of commitment citizens make between each other through government.

Two people can make an agreement without involving the government. My stance is that government shouldn't be involved in marriage, and they shouldn't be involved in many other things.

I don't mean that government should be involved in marriage. I'm saying that marriage is an involuntary relationship (and the frequent bitterness of divorce is the best proof of my point).

In theory, you could try to imitate marriage by a series of entirely voluntary, contingency contracts but you would quickly find yourself in negotiations for the rest of eternity. There are too many imponderables. So, you sign a marriage contract that merely says you will commit, and you put yourself on the line.

Why do people getting married do this? Because the alternative is far worse.

Prenuptial Agreements. That's all you gotta do. It says not only that you will commit, but it often outlines arrangements for property division in case of divorce. Thus, there is no need for alimony.

A prenuptial agreement is an example of a (contingency) contract. It only partly solves the problem - as Katie Holmes and Tom Cruise will no doubt soon discover (those celebrity marriages never last... ) It is impossible to foresee every contingency.

ClearWest, if we could conduct all our affairs with others through voluntary, contingency contracts, then Libertarianism would be great. Unfortunately, our entire lives would be spent reviewing and signing the equivalent of lengthy prenuptial agreements - and even then, I'm not sure it would work.

[August1991]

I am saying that the relationship bewteen two people through the institution of marriage is similar to the relationship bewteen many citizens through the institution of government. The comparison is apt: alimony is very much like a tax.

The difference is that people choose whom they marry. They don't choose their government. Democracy or not, I didn't ask Stephen Harper and his cabinet to take my money and use it the way they're using it. So I don't have a choice.

If you don't like Canada, you are free to leave. You are certainly free to leave Alberta or Calgary. Your situation is not unlike the parents you received, or many people after several years of marriage.

My point is that you don't need a government to organize human relationships. What sort of human relationships are you referring to that need government dictation?

Uh, the relationships between neighbours to install a streetlight?

Someone notices that the streetlight needs replacing (or that a streetlight is needed), they raise awareness in the community, they raise money to pay for the streetlight. They pay to have it installed by a private company. Again, no government (force) required. Everyone who uses the road agrees to obey the traffic rules involving the streetlight. If there is a problem with people breaking these rules, a private security guard can be hired to maintain order on the road.

You're kidding, right?

Have you ever tried to obtain voluntary contributions? Should everyone pay the same amount? What happens if one of the neighbours says he doesn't need a street light because, as he claims, he's blind.

ClearWest, if everyone in the world were completely honest and co-operative at all times, then we wouldn't need Libertarianism because we could go straight to Communism.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

The commitment two people make when they marry is similar to the kind of commitment citizens make between each other through government.

In theory, you could try to imitate marriage by a series of entirely voluntary, contingency contracts but you would quickly find yourself in negotiations for the rest of eternity. There are too many imponderables. So, you sign a marriage contract that merely says you will commit, and you put yourself on the line.

I don't like your 'marriage' analogy. It is somewhat true, but it is more like a 'shotgun wedding' or an arranged marriage. You don't really have a choice to remain single, as would be the wont of a Libertarian.

ClearWest, if everyone in the world were completely honest and co-operative at all times, then we wouldn't need Libertarianism because we could go straight to Communism.

Indeed, I am in complete agreement here. The 'Communist Utopia' and ClearWest's vision of a Libertarian society are quite similar in that both would require a similar thought: the individual will benefit from voluntary involvement in community projects. That is like saying "Given absolute freedom, people would turn into 'communists-by-choice".

Both 'voluntary communism' and Libertarianism are likely only workable by a very miniscule minority.

[Renegade]

What happens if one of the neighbours says he doesn't need a street light because, as he claims, he's blind.

Should the blind have to pay for street lights they neither use nor want?

[Riverwind]

What happens if one of the neighbours says he doesn't need a street light because, as he claims, he's blind.

Should the blind have to pay for street lights they neither use nor want?

Bad example. Many blind people benefit from the activities of charities like the CNIB (which gets 30% of its funding from the gov't). Most blind people are not wealthy enough to pay for these services themselves and therefore depend on the charity of others. In such circumstances, a blind person should feel obligated to contribute to common infrastructure like everyone else.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Renegade,

Should the blind have to pay for street lights they neither use nor want?

It could be argued that they do 'use' it, for it enables drivers to see them better. They get enhanced 'safety measures', because they cannot see a car coming (though they might hear it better than the sighted), but the drivers can better see them.

[Renegade]

What happens if one of the neighbours says he doesn't need a street light because, as he claims, he's blind.

Should the blind have to pay for street lights they neither use nor want?

Bad example. Many blind people benefit from the activities of charities like the CNIB (which gets 30% of its funding from the gov't). Most blind people are not wealthy enough to pay for these services themselves and therefore depend on the charity of others. In such circumstances, a blind person should feel obligated to contribute to common infrastructure like everyone else.

Riverwind I would agree that it is a bad example. You justification that a blind person is obligated to pay for common infrastructure is based upon a premise that they are receiving other (charitable) benefits from society. This may or may not be true. The blind person may be independantly wealthy or earning enough income despite their disiability. In any case I will rephrase my question without the context of this particular example

Dear Renegade,

Should the blind have to pay for street lights they neither use nor want?

It could be argued that they do 'use' it, for it enables drivers to see them better. They get enhanced 'safety measures', because they cannot see a car coming (though they might hear it better than the sighted), but the drivers can better see them.

theloniusfleabag, in my view the benefits you describe for that the blind person would get are dubious at best. Is it not completely the driver's responsibilty to avoid hitting pedestrians? How can you claim that this is a benefit that pedestrian should pay for? By your analogy, if a company pollutes the air, I should be obligated to pay for it because the beneift I get is clean air.

I will rephrase my question to be more general. Should we expect members of society to pay for infrastructure or programs when they neither beneift from that infrastructure nor want the benefit?